Preserving Clevelandâ•Žs African American Heritage

Cleveland State University Cleveland State University

EngagedScholarship@CSU EngagedScholarship@CSU

Urban Publications School of Urban Affairs

2017

Beyond Rust and Rockefeller: Preserving Cleveland’s African Beyond Rust and Rockefeller: Preserving Cleveland’s African

American Heritage American Heritage

Stephanie Ryberg Webster Cleveland State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/urban_facpub

Part of the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know! How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!

Repository Citation Repository Citation Ryberg Webster, Stephanie, "Beyond Rust and Rockefeller: Preserving Cleveland’s African American Heritage" (2017). Urban Publications. 0 1 2 3 1510. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/urban_facpub/1510

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Urban Affairs at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Publications by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/urban_facpub

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/urban

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/urban_facpub?utm_source=engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Furban_facpub%2F1510&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/436?utm_source=engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Furban_facpub%2F1510&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://library.csuohio.edu/engaged/

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/urban_facpub/1510?utm_source=engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Furban_facpub%2F1510&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

PER is published annually as a single volume. Copyright © 2017 Preservation Education & Research. All rights reserved. Articles, essays, reports and reviews appearing in this journal may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, except for classroom and noncommercial use, including illustrations, in any form (beyond copying permitted by sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law), without written permission.

ISSN 1946-5904

Cover photograph credit: Amalia Leifeste

&Preservation Education & Research

Volume 9 | 2017

PRESERVATION EDUCATION & RESEARCH

VOLUME 9 EDITORS

Gregory Donofrio, University of Minnesota ([email protected])

Chad Randl, Cornell University ([email protected])

ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD

Steven Hoffman, Southeast Missouri State University

Carter L. Hudgins, Clemson University/College of Charleston

Paul Hardin Kapp, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Ted J. Ligibel, Eastern Michigan University

Vincent L. Michael, San Antonio Conservation Society

Andréa Livi Smith, University of Mary Washington

Michael A. Tomlan, Cornell University

Robert Young, University of Utah

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR PRESERVATION EDUCATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Paul Hardin Kapp, Chair, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Amalia Leifeste, Vice Chair and Memberships, Clemson University

Andréa Livi Smith, Vice Chair and Web Site Editor, University of Mary Washington

Steven Hoffman, Secretary, Southeast Missouri State University

Douglas Appler, Treasurer, University of Kentucky

Cari Goetcheus, Internships, University of Georgia

Michael Tomlan, Special Projects, Cornell University

Lauren Weiss Bricker, Chair Emerita, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Robert Young, Chair Emeritus, University of Utah

Preservation Education & Research (PER) disseminates international peer-reviewed scholarship relevant to historic environment education from fields such as historic preservation, heritage conservation, heritage studies, building and landscape conservation, urban conservation, and cultural patrimony. The National Council for Preservation Education (NCPE) launched PER in 2007 as part of its mission to exchange and disseminate information and ideas concerning historic environment education, current developments and innovations in conservation, and the improvement of historic environment education programs and endeavors in the United States and abroad.

Editorial correspondence, including manuscripts for submission, should be emailed to Gregory Donofrio [email protected] and Chad Randl at [email protected]. Electronic submissions are encouraged, but physical materials can be mailed to Gregory Donofrio, School of Architecture, University of Minnesota, 145 Rapson Hall, 89 Church Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Articles should be in the range of 4,500 to 6,000 words and not be under consideration for publication or previously published elsewhere. Refer to the back of this volume for manuscript guidelines.

Books for review, and book reviews, should be sent to Gregory Donofrio, School of Architecture, University of Minnesota, 145 Rapson Hall, 89 Church Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. E-mail [email protected].

Subscriptions are US$60.00 per year. Payments can be made online at the NCPE Store (http://www.ncpe.us/storemembership) or send a check with name and mailing address to PER, c/o NCPE, Box 291, Ithaca, NY 14851, USA.

V o l u m e 9 | 2 0 1 7 • P r e s e r v a t i o n E d u c a t i o n & R e s e a r c h 7

ABSTRACT — The preservation of African American heritage sites holds a tenuous place in the historic preservation

field. On one hand, preservationists recognize that under-designation is rampant and work to engage communities of

color. On the other hand, the field has high standards of architectural merit and integrity for local or national desig-

nation, which disadvantages many African American sites that suffer from years of deterioration and neglect—par-

ticularly in urban areas. This research uses a qualitative case study the Cleveland Restoration Society’s Landmarks

of Cleveland’s African American Experience project to question how contemporary preservationists address African

American heritage and the tensions and opportunities in preserving African American communities. Additionally, the

article draws conclusions for future preservation efforts in African American (or other underrepresented) communi-

ties. The article adds to a growing body of scholarship about preservation in minority neighborhoods and finds a press-

ing need to question the applicability and usefulness of long-standing preservation tools when working in communi-

ties that lack high architectural value and material integrity but have a rich cultural heritage and historic significance.

Beyond Rust and Rockefeller: Preserving Cleveland’s African American HeritageSTEPHANIE RYBERG-WEBSTER

Preserving African American and other underrep-resented groups’ heritages is a central focus for contemporary preservationists (Dubrow 1998;

Hodder 1999; Dwyer 2000; Foley and Lauria 2000; Lee 2003; Harris 2004; Kaufman 2004; Nieves and Alexander 2008; Kaufman 2009; Lee 2012; Leggs, Rubman, and Wood 2012). The National Park Service (NPS), National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), and others have identified, documented, and designated places associated

INTRODUCTION

with African American heritage, while seeking ways to engage communities of color. Scholars have noted that only a small fraction of all properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places are affiliated with African American communities and that there is sig-nificant work needed to make the profession diverse and inclusive (Lee 2003; Kaufman 2004; Kaufman 2009; Lee 2012). Among the barriers to engaging African American communities are perceptions that the practice is costly

P e e r - r e v i e w e d A r t i c l e s

8 P r e s e r va t i o n E d u c a t i o n & R e s e a r c h • Vo l u m e 9 | 2 0 1 7

and elitist, that high-style architecture is valued more than everyday landscapes, and that material integrity trumps social or cultural significance.

Historic preservation in urban, African American communities is particularly tenuous due to the complex urban history in these neighborhoods. Although African American history is still an emerging field (Kusmer 1995; Lewis 1995; Troltter 1995; Goings and Mohl 1996; Nieves 2008; Kusmer and Trotter 2009), scholars have documented the early twentieth-century migration of African Americans to northern industrial cities and subsequent housing, economic, and social conditions for African Americans, including intense discrimina-tion, segregation, and the formation of contemporary ghettos (Hirsch 1983; Sugrue 1996; Hillier 2003; Boger 2009). In the post-WWII era, urban renewal and highway building devastated African American neighborhoods, resulting in the indiscriminate demolition of large swaths of African American communities, the social upheaval of forced displacement, and grassroots protest (Thomas and Ritzdorf 1997; Thomas 2004; Teaford 2000; Fullilove 2001; Bradley 2008; Avila and Rose 2009; Spiers 2009; Hanlon 2011; Michney 2011). In the 1960s, the struggle for civil rights brought popular attention to the conditions of African American communities, while protests and civil unrest in cities across the nation, including Cleveland (in 1966 and 1968), further exacerbated property destruc-tion, vacancy, and urban abandonment (Adams 1972; Upton 1985; Michney 2006; Collins and Smith 2007).

By the turn of the twenty-first century, many cities had a landscape rich in African American heritage but facing extreme poverty, vacancy, abandonment, and physical deterioration (Katz 2012). For preservationists, this presents a tenuous situation. On one hand, the field recognizes that under-designation in African American communities is rampant and it is working to recognize these historic resources and engaging communities of color. On the other hand, preservationists hold high standards of architectural merit and material integrity for local or national designation, which disadvantages many African American sites that have suffered from years of deterioration and neglect.

This research adds to the growing body of scholarship about preserving African American communities. Using a qualitative case study of a project in Cleveland, Ohio, the article questions how contemporary preservationists address African American heritage and the tensions in and opportunities for preserving African American com-munities. The article adds complexity to the dominant

heritage discourses in former industrial cities, such as Cleveland, where nostalgia for the wealth of the industrial era (i.e., the age of Rockefeller in Cleveland), narratives of immigrant success, and fascination with the rusted ruins of industry overshadow the complex history of marginalized groups including African Americans. Additionally, the article draws conclusions for future preservation efforts in African American (or other underrepresented) communities. Beginning in 2012, the Cleveland Restoration Society (CRS)—a nationally recognized nonprofit preservation organization—spear-headed the Landmarks of Cleveland’s African American Experience project. Analyzing this ongoing effort via participant observation, key participant interviews, and document analysis reveals that, while preservationists have made great strides towards inclusiveness, preserva-tion tools and techniques lack applicability and usefulness for communities without high architectural value and material integrity but with rich cultural heritage and historic significance. The research is especially timely as cities strategize about the future of African American neighborhoods plagued by high levels of vacancy and abandonment resulting from years of disinvestment and escalated by the recent foreclosure crisis. With demoli-tion as a leading strategy, the threat of losing significant historic resources is imminent and the physical heritage of entire urban communities hangs in the balance.

The article first reviews scholarly and professional lit-erature addressing the intersection of race and historic preservation. After reviewing the research approach, data sources, and past efforts to preserve Cleveland’s African American heritage, the article provides an in-depth description and analysis of CRS’s African American heritage project. Finally, the article summa-rizes lessons learned from the CRS project, including the need to remove architectural bias, reduce structural barriers, value quality over quantity, meaningfully engage communities, and balance revitalization and preservation goals.

PRESERVING AFRICAN AMERICAN HERITAGE

Preservation scholars and practitioners have paid par-ticular interest to African American heritage, especially over the past two decades (Dwyer 2000; Kaufman 2004; Nieves and Alexander 2008; Kaufman 2009; Lee 2012; Leggs, Rubman, and Wood 2012). The field recognizes that African American heritage sites are profoundly underrepresented. As Kaufman (2004, 1) notes, “out of




over 76,000 properties currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a computer search turns up approximately 823 associated with African American heritage . . .”—this translates into just about 1 percent of all National Register listings. By the early 1990s, Lee (2012, 33) and others noted that preservationists were building partnerships with ethnographers, planners, and others to reach out to ethnic communities, “to discern how historic preservation tools can work for” them, and to update preservation practices when needed. Despite this positive portrayal of the profession’s movement towards inclusion, preservationists continue to struggle to recognize minority heritage sites and engage commu-nities of color.

Existing research on preserving African American heritage focuses on high-profile events or sites such as the civil rights movement (Dwyer 2000; Dwyer 2008; Dwyer and Alderman 2008), the Underground Railroad (Wellman 2002), Rosenwald Schools (Hoffschwelle 2003; Hoffschwelle 2008), and New York City’s African Burial Ground (LaRoche and Blakey 1997; Blakey 1998; Frohne 2008), to name a few. Other studies focus on market-ing African American heritage for tourism purposes (Greenbaum 1990; Hoffman 2003). While these studies add valuable narratives and a deeper understanding of African American historic places, they do not address typical African American neighborhoods, or what Upton (1986) refers to as experiential landscapes. A few studies and reports do venture into this territory, highlighting past efforts to preserve urban African American commu-nities, including Brooklyn’s Weeksville Society (Lee 2003; Kaufman 2004), Pittsburgh’s Manchester neighborhood (Ryberg 2011), Cincinnati’s Mt. Auburn community (Ryberg 2011), Atlanta’s Auburn Avenue (Newman 2001), and Richmond’s Jackson Ward (Harris 2004). These nar-ratives tell of a preservation history in these communities that began in the late 1960s or early 1970s, often led by African Americans and tied to the era’s growing com-munity development movement. As Kaufman (2004, 9) states, “preserving Pittsburgh’s African American heri-tage was inseparable from the efforts of the city’s African Americans to secure decent homes and neighborhoods.”

In the 1990s and 2000s, preservation continued to become a more inclusive profession and build stronger ties to residents, neighborhood groups, and community development efforts (Hayden 1995). At the state and local level, nonprofit organizations launched efforts to document and preserve African American communities. For instance, the Preservation Resource Center of New

Orleans launched their Ethnic Heritage Preservation initiative in 1997 with the goal of preserving the city’s African American heritage “through education, com-munity awareness and advocacy” (PRC 2015, n.p.). More recently, Preservation Durham (North Carolina) com-pleted the Durham Documentation of African American Historic Sites project, identifying approximately sixty sites grouped into one of four tiers: high-priority, medium-priority, low-priority, and potentially significant in the future (Johnson 2009). Additionally, local preser-vation initiatives began to incorporate African American heritage into broader efforts. Los Angeles’ SurveyLA proj-ect, which exemplifies this approach, outlined a number of themes including “Civil Unrest, 1939–1965” (SurveyLA 2013, 17) and “African-American Civil Rights Movement, 1955–1968” (SurveyLA 2013, 18), among others. State historic preservation offices also launched programs focused on African American heritage, including the Maryland Historical Trust’s African American Heritage Preservation program, which offers grants (MHT 2015), and Indiana Landmarks’ African American Landmarks Committee, which provides survey, technical assistance, outreach, and grants for African American heritage sites (Indiana Landmarks 2015). Preservation Virginia, a statewide nonprofit organization, has partnered on a number of projects with the goal of “honoring and protecting African American heritage” (Preservation Virginia 2015). Additionally, a few African American–specific preservation organizations formed, including the Florida African American Heritage Preservation Network and the Rhode Island Black Heritage Society (FAAHPN 2016; RIBHS 2015).

While these state, local, and nonprofit initiatives are an important step forward, preservationists recognize that minority participation in preservation still needs to be improved through connections with residents, community developers, and other neighborhood activ-ists. One of the key challenges of inclusivity, at times, is that cultural groups vary in how they define heritage and in their prioritization of such pillars of preservation as material integrity and architectural merit (Hayden 1995; Green 1998; Mason 2003; Mason 2006; Lee 2012). Federal policy and National Register criteria create a very top-down, expert-oriented profession wherein making decisions based on multiple voices requires significant structural change to the profession (Mason 2003). There is an inherent assertion of power in preservation deci-sion-making (Reichl 1997; Schneider 2001; Hoelscher and Alderman 2004; Jenks 2008; Zhang 2011), wherein


“individuals and groups recall the past not for its own sake, but as a tool to bolster different aims and agendas” (Hoelscher and Alderman 2004, 349). In other words, preservation outcomes depend on who gets to determine what is significant and how to preserve tangible elements of the past. Additionally, perceptions about elitism and gentrification are a barrier to preservation in African American communities (Listokin et al. 1998; Smith 1998; Foley and Lauria 2000; Bures 2001; Boyd 2005), as pres-ervation is often “portrayed as causing expulsion of poor and minority people” (Foley and Lauria 2000, 3). The per-ceived causal relationship with gentrification creates an uphill battle for preservationists who may have the best of intentions but insufficient tools to address the needs of minority communities.

The NPS and NTHP have both recognized a need to better address African American historic sites (Harris 2004; Kaufman 2004; Leggs, Rubman, and Wood 2012). The NTHP called for a “concerted effort to go out into the field to identify African American historic sites and determine their significance” (Harris 2004, 8). In a simple yet profound conclusion, the NPS found that much progress in the area of African American historic preservation has been made, but even more work remains (Kaufman 2004). The authors of a more recent NTHP publication concluded that “the preservation of African American sites often happens on an informal basis” (Leggs, Rubman, and Wood 2012, 1) and called for more structured and broad initiatives. The NTHP also argues that the work of preserving African American heritage is imperative as it “empowers black youth” and conveys sto-ries that “might otherwise be lost because urban renewal and the out-migration of blacks destroyed or led to the abandonment of many African American communities” (Leggs, Rubman, and Wood 2012, 2).

Existing studies find that preservation processes and tools are insufficient when focusing on African American heritage sites (Van West 1998; Harris 2004; Lee 2012). For instance, Lee (2012, 28) argues that “‘cultural layering,’ which results when cultural diversity and demographic mobility are combined, presents particular dilemmas in interpretation and rehabilitation.” In other words, many urban African American neighborhoods were not built by African Americans and thus have complex and lay-ered histories. The NTHP found that “some of the current standards that are required for designation do not allow a sufficient number of African American historic sites to receive designation” (Harris 2004, 8), recognizing that many African American neighborhoods have suffered

decades of decline, neglect, and disinvestment resulting in material changes to the historic fabric. Even a simple process such as the windshield survey, a common first step for preservationists (Lee 2012), is problematic as it relies on expert eyes, with little to no community input.

In summary, the preservation profession recognizes a need to better address African American (and other minority) heritage sites and include community members and others in preservation decision making. Professional and scholarly writing acknowledges that standard pres-ervation tools inadequately respond to the history and contemporary challenges of many African American neighborhoods, yet new tools are not widely developed or implemented. Local, state, and federal organizations continue to experiment with historic preservation strat-egies in African American communities. Often guided by the best of intentions, these efforts have mixed results and merit continued analysis by preservation scholars and reflexive practitioners.

METHODOLOGY

This research is a qualitative case study of the CRS’s Landmarks of Cleveland’s African American Experience project, which began in the fall of 2012. CRS estab-lished a goal to “identify historic resources associated with [African American] history for listing in the Ohio Historic Inventory” (Crowther 2013, 2). The case provides a contemporary example of preservationists’ efforts to address African American heritage, building knowledge about how preservationists are doing so, related tensions and opportunities, and lessons for future efforts.

The qualitative case study relied on participant obser-vation over the course of nearly two years (from fall 2012 through the time of this writing), document analy-sis, and informal interviews with key participants. The majority of the paper focuses on the project’s first year (from fall 2012 to summer 2013) and the completion of a survey report and a series of Ohio Historic Inventory (OHI) forms.

At the start of the project, CRS convened a task force comprised of local historians, interested preservation-ists, and African American community leaders. CRS staff leading the project also presented information at various stages to the community and at organizational meetings. On average, there was a meeting every other month throughout the project, and in total, the research involved observing seven meetings. Key documents also provided insight into the African American Experience



project, including the 2012–2013 survey report that CRS prepared for the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (the State Historic Preservation Office, or SHPO); 150 corre-sponding OHI forms; articles published in CRS’s member newsletter, Façade; six online articles in CRS’s Know our Heritage series; and various meeting minutes, handouts, and project summaries.

PAST EFFORTS TO PRESERVE CLEVELAND’S AFRICAN AMERICAN HERITAGE

Cleveland is the epitome of a shrinking, postindus-trial city, with an urban landscape reflecting entrenched economic and physical decline, racially segregated neigh-borhoods, poverty, and urban redevelopment. The city has suffered from decades of population decline, decen-tralization, manufacturing losses, and overall economic distress. More recently, the city and region were hit by the foreclosure crisis, resulting in heightened pressure for widespread demolition. Today, the city includes a resurging downtown and revitalized neighborhoods, as well as communities in severe distress where vacancy and abandonment run rampant. The city’s African American heritage is not well documented, while heritage associated with industrialization, epitomized by grand mansions and downtown commercial buildings that boomed during the era of Rockefeller, oil production, and eventually the steel and auto industries, is prioritized. The current, often decaying state of the city’s industrial fabric has garnered popular attention, although the heritage of job loss, economic decline, and painful contraction are not often highlighted in the “rust” aesthetic.

The history of African Americans in Cleveland follows a common pattern in northern and midwestern cities. In the nineteenth century, there were small numbers of African American residents. This population surged in the early twentieth century as southern blacks migrated

north during the Great Migration. In 1900, the city had 5,988 African American residents—1.6 percent of the total population. By 1920, this number had grown to 34,451 (4.3 percent), and over the next three decades, the African American population grew by more than four times, totaling 147,847 in 1950 (16.2 percent) (Gibson and Jung 2005). According to the 2010 US Census, 53.3 per-cent of the city’s residents are African American.

Newly arriving African Americans in Cleveland settled in the Central neighborhood, just southeast of downtown. Throughout the twentieth century, many of the city’s east-side neighborhoods became strong majority African American communities, including Central, Fairfax, Hough, and Glenville (Table 1). These communities have a rich historical legacy, but have suffered from popula-tion decline, destructive urban renewal practices, massive disinvestment in the built environment, and increasing vacancies and abandonment. For instance, from the 1930s through the 1960s, the Central neighborhood was the locus of intense urban renewal activity, resulting in an almost entire erasure of the city’s oldest African American neighborhood. Furthermore, the recent foreclosure crisis has hit the city’s traditionally African American neigh-borhoods particularly hard, making the issues of vacancy, abandonment, and demolition particularly pressing in many of these already-distressed communities.

The City of Cleveland established its Landmarks Commission in 1971, and the nonprofit CRS has worked on behalf of preservation interests since 1972, but there has been relatively little recognition of the city’s signifi-cant African American heritage.1 One exception is the “Black History Thematic Resource,” listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1982 (Johannesen 1981).2 The designation included eight properties (two are now demolished), with six in the Central neighborhood.3 While certainly not comprehensive, the 1982 nomina-tion illustrated the varied nature of Cleveland’s African


Table 1. Race and Poverty in Select Neighborhoods

Neighborhood African American population (%) Poverty rate (%)Central 94 70Fairfax 95 38Hough 96 40Glenville 97 35City of Cleveland 53 31

Source: City of Cleveland Planning Commission


American historic sites by recognizing black churches, business enterprises and businessmen, and social and cultural institutions.

THE “LANDMARKS OF CLEVELAND’S AFRICAN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE”

To honor its fortieth anniversary in 2012, the CRS initi-ated a “legacy project” entitled Landmarks of Cleveland’s African American Experience.4 The main purpose was “to identify, record and recommend for landmark des-ignation historic buildings and sites associated with Cleveland’s African American community” (CRS 2012, n.p.). To oversee the project CRS convened a task force, which set four project goals:5

1. Identify properties and sites significant to the city’s African American heritage that did not already have historic designation;

2. Promote National Register and/or local designation;

3. Communicate findings as a way to stabilize neighborhoods and attract residents; and

4. Commemorate history with plaques or markers. (CRS 2013, n.p.)

Originally, CRS sought to survey fifty sites (CRS 2012), but the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, which provided funding and an AmeriCorps staff person, required the com-pletion of 150 OHI forms during the first year of the project (fall 2012–summer 2013).6 Subsequently, CRS has continued the project through a public education series and by explor-ing the purchase and installation of Ohio Historical Markers at key sites (CRS staff, pers. comm.).

CRS first generated a list of potential African American historic sites using three methods. First, they identified famous African American Clevelanders and associated buildings. Second, they reviewed four secondary sources and archival resources for references to potentially sig-nificant sites.7 Finally, the AmeriCorps staff person conducted a windshield survey of the city’s African American neighborhoods to locate sites identified via the prior two methods and to note architecturally interesting properties (McDonough n.d.). The primary target neigh-borhoods for the windshield survey included Hough, Glenville, Central, Fairfax, Mt. Pleasant, Kinsman, University Circle, Buckeye, a cluster of southeast neigh-borhoods (Lee-Miles, Miles-Seville, Union-Miles, Park/Corlett, Lee-Harvard), and the Ludlow neighborhood in Shaker Heights (Figure 1) (Crowther 2013; McDonough 2013d; McDonough n.d.).8 The team established five


Fig. 1. Distribution of legacy project survey sites within Cleve-land, Ohio. (Author, 2013.)



organizing themes: arts and culture, government and community, business and industry, civil rights, and the church (McDonough 2013a).

The result was the identification of 150 historic sites affiliated with Cleveland’s African American community, although two sites were removed from the final report “due to a lack of architectural integrity or historical significance” (McDonough 2013d, 23). The sites are concentrated in four key neighborhoods: Central, Fairfax, Hough, and Glenville (Figure 1). The majority of the properties are houses, fol-lowed by religious institutions, with the team identifying a few businesses, schools, and other community institu-tions (Table 2). Despite the explicit goal of identifying properties without preexisting designation (McDonough n.d.), 59 of the 148 OHI forms (about 40 percent) are for homes in the Ludlow neighborhood, a part of the Shaker Village National Register historic district. The justification for their inclusion was that the preexisting designation did not focus on the neighborhood’s association with integra-tion and the civil rights movement (McDonough 2013d).9 After reviewing the 148 OHI forms, CRS staff and task force members recommended that seventy-eight sites (just over 50 percent) be considered for future National Register nominations. Discounting the fifty-nine Ludlow proper-ties, the result was nineteen sites with National Register potential (Table 3).

The first year of the Landmarks of Cleveland’s African American Experience project demonstrated many of the complexities involved with identifying, documenting, and preserving African American historic sites. This anal-ysis found that there were clear success stories, in which the team found properties with strong ties to Cleveland’s African American heritage and recommended those sites for future research and possible designation. There were also properties with questionable connections, which the team recommended for National Register designation, but these connections to Cleveland’s African American heritage were secondary at best. Finally, there were a large number of properties that, despite interesting con-nections to Cleveland’s African American community, lacked integrity and provenance and were not given con-sideration for future designation.

SUCCESS STORIES

Of the nineteen non-Ludlow properties recommended for National Register designation, twelve have strong con-nections to Cleveland’s African American heritage. These success stories demonstrate that there are significant,

Table 2. African American Heritage Sites by Type

Property / building use Number included in survey

Houses 73

Religious institutions 46

Businesses 12

Apartment buildings 7

Community buildings 6

Schools 3

Cemeteries 1

Parks 1

Source: Author, 2013, based on data in McDonough (2013)

undesignated African American historic resources and that existing preservation strategies, namely survey work, can generate knowledge and awareness of important African American sites. For example, the team identified and recommended for future designation two historically significant churches in the Central neighborhood: Lane Metropolitan CME (c. 1901, originally the First Church of Christ Scientist) (Figure 2) and St. Andrews Episcopal Church (c. 1916). They determined that both buildings retained architectural integrity, despite widespread demolition in the surrounding community (McDonough 2012l; McDonough 2013b). The support for the designa-tion of these buildings centers on common preservation arguments—they are among the oldest African American congregations in Cleveland and they have strong ties to important national history, namely the civil rights move-ment (McDonough 2013d). Also located in Central is the Jean Murell-Capers House (c. 1914) (Figure 3). Here, the team recognized strong ties to African American busi-ness and political history. In 1949, Jean Murell-Capers was Cleveland’s first African American councilwoman, and her father, Edward Murell, who originally purchased the house, was the original owner of the Call and Post, Cleveland’s only African American–owned newspaper (McDonough 2012f; McDonough 2013d).

In other neighborhoods, CRS identified the Boddie Recording Studio (c. 1920) and the Madison and Madison Professional Building (c. 1962) (Figure 4). The former is a house in the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood where Thomas Boddie established “Cleveland’s version of Motown, with



Fig. 2. Lane Metropolitan CME, 2131 E. 46th Street, Cleveland, Ohio (ca. 1901). (Author, 2013.)

Fig. 3. Judge Jean Murell-Capers House, 2380 E. 40th Street, Cleveland, Ohio (ca. 1914). (Author, 2013.)

Fig. 4. Madison and Madison Professional Building, 1464 E. 105th Street, Cleveland, Ohio (ca. 1962). (Author, 2013.)


the first Motown recordings coming out of the studio in 1959” (McDonough 2013d, 35; also see McDonough 2012a).10 The Madison and Madison building, located in University Circle alongside the city’s prominent arts, cul-tural, educational, and medical institutions, was African American architect Robert P. Madison’s Cleveland office. Madison opened his firm in 1954 and moved into this building upon its completion in 1962 (McDonough 2013c). According to the survey report, the building is significant because Madison’s “firm was the first to be established by an African American in Ohio and the tenth firm to be opened in the United States,” and it “has a connection to the civil rights movement because it was constructed to house African American profession-als who were prevented from having offices elsewhere” (McDonough 2013d, 37).

QUESTIONABLE CONNECTIONS

Despite the explicit focus on African American his-toric resources, the team recommended seven properties for possible National Register designation for which the

connection to Cleveland’s African American heritage is peripheral at best. These properties illustrate difficulties in African American preservation efforts, including the layering of heritage in dynamic urban neighborhoods and the profession’s continued prioritization of architectural merit. For instance, the recommendations included the Outhwaite Homes Estates and Lakeview Terrace public housing complexes, constructed in 1937 (McDonough 2012g; McDonough 2012j).11 Outhwaite Homes, in the historically African American Central neighborhood, was originally open to African Americans, but Lakeview Terrace, in the Ohio City neighborhood, was originally for white residents. Conspicuously absent from the survey report or OHI form for Lakeview Terrace is any mention of its original segregation, the process of integrating it, or any direct connection to African American heritage (McDonough 2012g). In fact, there is little justification for its inclusion in the survey at all, aside from the fact that today most of its residents are African American.

The Rainey Institute (c. 1904) and the Morison Avenue Missionary Baptist Church (c. 1925) are properties

Table 3. Summary of OHI Forms and National Register Recommendations, by Neighborhood

Neighborhood # of OHI forms # Recommended for the National Register

Fairfax 23 3

Central 14 5

Glenville 12 3

Hough 11 2

Southeastern neighborhoods 9 1

Mt. Pleasant 8 1

University Circle / Little Italy 4 2

Cleveland Heights / Shaker Heights 3 1

Kinsman 2 0

Downtown 1 0

Ohio City 1 1

Slavic Village 1 1

Ludlow 59 59

Total (excluding Ludlow) 89 19

Total (including Ludlow) 148 78

Source: Author, 2013, based on data in McDonough (2013)



Fig. 6. Morison Avenue Missionary Baptist Church, 1606 Morison Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio (ca. 1925). (Author, 2013.)

Fig. 5. Rainey Institute, 1523 E. 55th Street, Cleveland, Ohio (ca. 1904). (Author, 2013.)

deemed worthy of future designation but whose signifi-cance comes from affiliations that predate the transition of their respective neighborhoods (Hough and Glenville) to African American communities. The Rainey Institute was built as a social service organization serving the Hungarian and Slovenian community and the recom-mendation for designation was based on its “importance to the early Hough community” and a pressing threat of demolition (McDonough 2013d, 24; also see McDonough 2012b) (Figure 5).12 The project team emphasized the Morison Avenue Missionary Baptist Church’s connection to the city’s Jewish heritage, as “it originally housed the Jewish Association Bath House of Glenville and served as a Jewish Mickveh” (McDonough 2013d, 26; also see McDonough 2012i), and the property’s material integ-rity amid a severely deteriorated neighborhood (Figure 6). The report recognizes that the property “symbolizes the transition of Cleveland’s African American neighbor-hoods from Jewish enclaves” (McDonough 2013d, 26) but does not elaborate on this point.

Finally, there were four properties that derive their significance entirely from their architectural merit. These buildings were included in this project on African American heritage simply because they exist in what



are now predominantly African American communi-ties, despite the survey report or OHI forms providing no information on how or why they are important to the city’s African American heritage. For example, the Pentecostal Determine Church of God (c. 1872) (Figure 7) exemplifies this complete disconnect from the goal of identifying African American heritage sites. The build-ing, located in what is now a predominantly African American neighborhood and used by the surrounding community since the late 1970s, was recommended for potential designation because of “its architecture, which consists of a mixture of Gothic Revival and Romanesque elements” (McDonough 2013d, 39; also see McDonough 2012k).13

INTEGRITY AND PROVENANCE

Finally, seventy of the properties included in the proj-ect were not recommended for future investigation or National Register designation.14 While these properties warranted the preparation of an OHI form, the final project report simply states that they lack “integrity or provenance” (McDonough 2013d). These properties often possess interesting ties to African American heritage and provide insight into the ongoing challenges of preserv-ing urban African American heritage. For instance, the Icabod Flewellen Home (c. 1912) has “cultural significance as the original site of the African American Cultural and


Fig. 7. Pentecostal Determine Church of God, 9105 Miles Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio (ca. 1872). (Author, 2013.)

Fig. 8. Icabod Flewellen Home, 8716 Harkness Road, Cleveland, Ohio (ca. 1912). (Author, 2013.)


Historical Society” (McDonough 2013d, 25) (Figure 8).15 The team identified the home as “the oldest African American Historic Museum in the Hough area and in America” (McDonough 2012c, n.p.). While highlighting the current threat of neglect, the team determined that it lacked sufficient material integrity. In other words, the same neglect that threatens the future of the property prevents it from being worthy of National Register listing.

Another case was the Mayor Arthur R. Johnston House, once the home of the first African American mayor in Cuyahoga County and the state of Ohio (Figure 9). Around 1919, Johnston moved to the house, which at the time was located in the village of Miles Heights, one of the few areas where African Americans could own homes in the region. Once elected, Johnston remained mayor of Miles Heights until the City of Cleveland annexed the area (McDonough 2012h). The survey report recog-nizes the property’s significance in African American politics, but simply states that it lacks “integrity or prov-enance” and therefore does not suggest any future action (McDonough 2013d).

Finally, two homes, both built around 1900, illus-trate issues of integrity, provenance, and the politics of preserving African American heritage. Jesse Owens, world-renowned African American track athlete from the early twentieth century, lived in at least two extant homes in Cleveland’s Fairfax neighborhood. Owens lived in one of the houses from 1927 to 1930 (Figure 10) and the other during 1935 (McDonough 2012d;

Fig. 9. Mayor Arthur Johnston House, 4585 E. 147th Street, Cleveland, Ohio. (Author, 2013.)


Fig. 10. Jesse Owens House, 2212 E. 90th Street, Cleveland, Ohio (ca. 1900). (Author, 2013.)


McDonough 2012e). From the outset, the project team identified these as ideal properties for local and/or national designation (CRS staff, pers. comm.). As the project proceeded, though, the potential nomination of these buildings raised community tensions, which ulti-mately resulted in a recommendation for no immediate future action. Both of the homes are in close proximity to the Cleveland Clinic, which has “plans to erect 14 new buildings in the Fairfax area over the next several years” (McDonough 2013d, 15). The local community develop-ers have a delicate relationship with the Cleveland Clinic and have developed neighborhood plans that benefit residents while accommodating projected Clinic expan-sion. When neighborhood leaders realized that CRS was eyeing the properties for potential designation, tensions emerged, with critiques that CRS had not reached out to community members and was disregarding other (non-preservation) concerns in this disinvested neighborhood. Community leaders also raised questions about the homes’ significance, arguing that Owens lived in many houses in Cleveland and they could not all be historic sites (CRS staff, pers. comm.). Embedded within this argument is a core struggle in African American pres-ervation efforts, namely how to handle the high mobility and impermanence of African American residents, busi-ness operations, and other activities. In other words, African Americans living in Cleveland and other cities in the early twentieth century were highly mobile result-ing from restrictions on property ownership and limited financial resources. These two houses, thus, are signifi-cant for their ties to Owens and as a tangible artifact of early twentieth-century African American settlement and mobility patterns. This significance, though, also undermines arguments for historic designation as they are two among many of Owens’s residences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRESERVING AFRICAN AMERICAN HERITAGE

The CRS’s Landmarks of Cleveland’s African American Experience project reveals that, while preservationists have made great strides toward inclu-siveness, long-standing preservation tools and practices can lack applicability and usefulness when working in communities without high architectural styles and material integrity but with a rich cultural heritage and historic significance. If the preservation profession is to truly embrace the nation’s multicultural heritage, it is imperative to have a range of techniques for identifying


significant properties, engaging local communities, and valuing heritage that runs deeper than material fabric. These issues are especially highlighted when working to preserve African American (or other minority) heri-tage in urban, and often disinvested and impoverished, neighborhoods where decades of bricks-and-mortar deterioration have reduced and sometimes eliminated material integrity.

Overall, CRS’s African American heritage project reveals five key lessons for the preservation profession: (1) the field relies excessively on architecture, (2) there are structural barriers to designation, (3) funding is impera-tive, but the strings attached can be counterproductive, (4) meaningful community engagement is difficult, but imperative, and (5) connections to larger goals of urban revitalization must be clear and should not prevent rec-ognition of a complex and tenuous history.

Preservationists must continue to move beyond the field’s architectural bias. CRS over-relied on the wind-shield survey, which emphasized the materiality of buildings. Rather, the identification of African American heritage sites called for more community-based engage-ment and historical research (Thomas 2004). In this context, identifying significant properties by archi-tectural features is severely flawed given the history of African American settlement and migration. The result was a survey with numerous architecturally significant buildings that had only recent or very peripheral connec-tions to the city’s African American community.

Preservation policy and practice are rife with struc-tural barriers that result in bias against urban, African American communities. A lack of “integrity and prove-nance” was CRS’s primary reason for not recommending the majority of identified sites for future action. The pre-condition of high material integrity, given the history of disinvestment and poverty, creates a system in which there is little chance to honor, via National Register or local designation, many urban African American historic sites. The focus on material integrity further entrenches perceptions of preservation as an expensive, elitist practice that is in conflict with the interest of many low-income residents and community advocates. The issue of provenance, cited frequently in the CRS survey report, indicates the team’s difficulty in tracing the his-tory of properties, including their ownership over time. Given the historic barriers to African American prop-erty ownership, it is not surprising that it is difficult to trace where individuals resided over an extended period of time. CRS completed the entire survey and 148 OHI


forms in approximately eight months, and dismissing properties, at this early stage, due to a lack of provenance is extremely premature.

In general, a lack of sufficient funding is a major imped-iment to thoroughly surveying and documenting many historic sites. When grants are available, funding agencies may impose counterproductive constraints. For CRS’s African American heritage project, a state preservation grant provided much-needed funding and reflects the preservation profession’s recognition of the importance of such work. The grant, though, required the comple-tion of 150 OHI forms, causing the team to focus more on meeting that quota than on thoroughly researching and identifying African American heritage sites. The numbers-driven funding resulted in the inclusion of fifty-nine individual OHI forms for the Ludlow neighborhood, which is (a) already included in a National Register historic district and (b) should clearly be one district listing. The grant requirements also indirectly encouraged a focus on landmarks over potential districts, which by virtue of size and complexity can be more cumbersome and time con-suming to research and document. The term “landmark,” also included in the project’s official name (Landmarks of Cleveland’s African American Experience), connotes an elevated status and architectural importance. When preservationists are working in underserved communi-ties it is imperative to carefully select language and tools that facilitate better partnerships. For example, a project focused on recognizing community heritage would have potentially provided a stronger grassroots framework and built initial bridges to overcome critiques that preserva-tion is an elitist concern of outsiders.

Preservationists must become equipped to carry out meaningful community engagement. For CRS, this was a significant missed opportunity to embrace diversity (of both race and class) and to build bridges to communi-ties not historically engaged in preservation. According to the final survey report, public outreach was achieved through the creation of the task force (McDonough 2013d), which was comprised of about a dozen members including a handful of prominent African American leaders. The project included no process for simply talk-ing to community members about the places that have historic meaning within their community, which could have occurred in any number of ways—through surveys, online forums, or community meetings. Oral histories, while time-intensive, would have served as a way to gather information from neighborhood residents who are often disenfranchised in top-down preservation or planning

programs (Thomas 2004). CRS could have better engaged the community by focusing on a smaller geographic area, negotiating more flexibility in project outcomes with the funding agency, or giving up less productive methods such as the windshield survey. Meaningful engagement is not just a nicety, it is imperative to future successes in preserving African American (or other underrepresented groups’) heritage. Not embracing true community par-ticipation will perpetuate perceptions of preservation as an elitist, non-inclusive endeavor and will likely result in backlash from community leaders and residents.

Focusing on a range of heritage sites, including those with negative connotations or associated with diffi-cult moments in the nation’s past, remains an uphill battle. From the outset, CRS envisioned the project as a community development vehicle (CRS 2012), which resulted in a survey that neglects sites of conflict or dis-tress in Cleveland’s African American neighborhoods. Reminding people about the history of segregation, dis-crimination, violence, demolition via urban renewal, and poverty is difficult when an underlying goal is to change perceptions about what it means to live and work in the inner city. For instance, civil rights sites were a prominent theme in CRS’s project, but the heritage of civil unrest—as evident in the landscape of the city’s Hough neighbor-hood, where scars of the 1966 riots remain—was ignored. Furthermore, if a project such as this is to truly help stabi-lize impoverished neighborhoods, preservationists need to be more explicit about community benefits and com-municate those benefits to city and community leaders and the general public. In other words, is there tourism potential? The ability to secure federal and/or state tax credits? Designated loan pools or funding for rehabilita-tion? Preservationists also need to constantly be reflexive practitioners, making a concerted effort to answer these questions themselves on a case-by-case basis. In other words, it is unproductive to make blanket statements that communities will benefit from historic sites without first understanding (ideally from the community’s perspec-tive) what benefits are needed and then determining if and how preservation can contribute.

CONCLUSION

The Cleveland Restoration Society’s Landmarks of Cleveland’s African American Experience project pro-vides an ideal case study of contemporary efforts to identify, survey, and document urban African American heritage sites. The project was an important step in pre-serving the complex heritage of Cleveland’s African




American community. CRS spent the first year of the project convening a task force, establishing project goals, completing 148 Ohio Historic Inventory forms, and writing a summary survey report. After encountering challenges to the initial intent of securing national or local designations, CRS shifted its emphasis to heritage education. The organization is exploring the purchase and installation of Ohio Historical Markers for select sites and launched a public education campaign entitled Know our Heritage. To date, CRS has published six online articles (also disseminated through their mailing list) about the Great Migration, the black church, the Jewish–African American connection, community leaders, arts and culture, and the civil rights movement (CRS 2014).

In Cleveland, as in other cities, the confluence of race, class, poverty, and urban decline makes preserving urban African American heritage a pressing concern. CRS found that redevelopment, neglect, or demolition threatened a majority of surveyed properties. The twenty-first-century foreclosure crisis has exacerbated the legacy of twentieth-century urban decline. Today, widespread demolition is not only probable, it is happening, and the opportunity to preserve the significant, tangible heritage of the city’s African American community may soon be gone. It is thus imperative for preservationists to reflect upon their practices, engage local communities, and make sound arguments for the preservation of these under-recognized and threatened historic resources.

STEPHANIE RYBERG-WEBSTERCleveland State UniversityCleveland, OH (USA)

Stephanie Ryberg-Webster is an assistant professor of urban studies in the Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University. Her research focuses on the intersection of historic pres-ervation and urban development. Her current work addresses the use and effects of federal historic rehabilitation tax credits, the role of preservation in shaping the future of legacy cities, the history of historic preservation, and the integration of preservation in citywide comprehensive planning.

REFERENCESAdams, John S. 1972. “The Geography of Riots and Civil Disorders in the 1960s.” Economic Geography, 48 (1): 24–42.

Avila, Eric, and Mark H. Rose. 2009. “Race, Culture, Politics, and Urban Renewal.” Journal of Urban History, 35 (3): 335–47.

Blakey, Michael L. 1998. “The New York African Burial Ground Project: An Examination of Enslaved Lives, A Construction of Ancestral Ties.” Transforming Anthropology, 7 (1): 53–58.

Boger, Gretchen. 2009. “The Meaning of Neighborhood in the Modern City.” Journal of Urban History, 35 (2): 236–58.

Boyd, Michelle. 2005. “The Downside of Racial Uplift: Meaning of Gentrification in an African American Neighborhood.” City & Society, 17 (2): 265–88.

Bradley, Stefan. 2008. “Gym Crow Must Go: The 1960s Struggle between Columbia University and Its New York City Neighbors.” In “We Shall Independent Be”: African American Place Making and the Struggle to Claim Space in the United States, edited by Angel David Nieves and Leslie M. Alexander, 325–48. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Bures, Regina M. 2001. “Historic Preservation, Gentrification, and Tourism: The Transformation of Charleston, South Carolina.” Research in Urban Sociology, 6: 195–209.

Collins, William J., and Fred H. Smith. 2007. “A Neighborhood-Level View of Riots, Property Values, and Population Loss: Cleveland 1950–1980.” Explorations in Economic History, 44 (3): 365–86.

Crowther, Kathleen H. 2013. “Annual Report.” Façade: A Publication of the Cleveland Restoration Society, no. 91: 1–7.

CRS (Cleveland Restoration Society). 2012. “Cleveland Restoration Society’s African American History Initiative.” Unpublished project summary. Cleveland: Cleveland Restoration Society.

—. 2013. “40th Anniversary Legacy Project: Landmarks of Cleveland’s African American Experience.” Unpublished project summary dated March 19, 2013. Cleveland: Cleveland Restoration Society.

—. 2014. Know Our Heritage. Retrieved July 2, 2014 from http://www.clevelandrestoration.org/preserving_landmarks/advocacy/african_american.php.

Dubrow, Gail Lee. 1998. “Feminist and Multicultural Perspectives on Preservation Planning.” In Making the Invisible Visible: A Multicultural Planning History, edited by Leonie Sandercock, 57–77. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dwyer, Owen J. 2000. “Interpreting the Civil Rights Movement: Place, Memory, and Conflict.” Professional Geographer, 52 (4): 660–71.

—. 2008. “Putting the Movement in Its Place: The Politics of Public Spaces Dedicated to the Civil Rights Movement.” In “We Shall Independent Be”: African American Place Making and the Struggle to Claim Space in the United States, edited by Angel David Nieves and Leslie M. Alexander, 415–38. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Dwyer, Owen J., and Derek H. Alderman. 2008. Civil Rights Memorials and the Geography of Memory. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

FAAHPN (Florida African American Heritage Preservation Network). 2016. Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://faahpn.com/.

Foley, John, and Mickey Lauria. 2000. “Historic Preservation, Urban Revitalization and Value Controversies in New Orleans’ French Quarter.” College of Urban and Public Affairs (CUPA) Working Papers, 1991–2000. Paper 14. Retrieved August 2013 from http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cupa_wp/14.

Frohne, Andrea E. 2008. “Reclaiming Space: The African Burial Ground in New York City.” In “We Shall Independent Be”: African American Place Making and the Struggle to Claim Space in the United States, edited by Angel David Nieves and Leslie M. Alexander, 489–510. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Fullilove, Mindy Thompson. 2001. “Root Shock: The Consequences of African American Dispossession.” Journal of Urban Health, 78 (1): 72–80.

Gibson, Campbell, and Kay Jung. 2005. Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals by Race, 1790 to 1990, and by Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, for Large Cities and Other Urban Places in the United States. Retrieved July 2, 2014 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.html.

Goings, Kenneth. W., and Mohl, Raymond A., eds. 1996. The New African American Urban History. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Green, Howard L. 1998. “The Social Construction of Historical Significance.” In Preservation of What, for Whom? A Critical Look at Historical Significance, edited by Michael A. Tomlan, 85–96. Ithaca, NY: National Council for Preservation Education.

Greenbaum, Susan D. 1990. “Marketing Ybor City: Race, Ethnicity, and Historic Preservation in the Sunbelt.” City & Society, 4 (1): 58–76.

Hanlon, James. 2011. “Unsightly Urban Menaces and the Rescaling of Residential Segregation in the United States.” Journal of Urban History, 37 (5): 732–56.

Harris, Jeffrey A. 2004. “African American Historic Places Initiative.” State of Affairs Paper for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.


Hayden, Dolores. 1995. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hillier, Amy E. 2003. “Who Received Loans? Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Lending and Discrimination in Philadelphia in the 1930s.” Journal of Planning History, 2 (1): 3–24.

Hirsch, Arnold R. 1983. Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940–1960. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, Robert. 1999. “Redefining a Southern City’s Heritage: Historic Preservation Planning, Public Art, and Race in Richmond, Virginia.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 21 (4): 437–53.

Hoelscher, Steven, and Derek H. Alderman. 2004. “Memory and Place: Geographies of a Critical Relationship.” Social & Cultural Geography, 5 (3): 347–55.

Hoffman, Lilly M. 2003. “The Marketing of Diversity in the Inner City: Tourism and Regulation in Harlem.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27 (2): 286–99.

Hoffschwelle, Mary S. 2003. Preserving Rosenwald Schools. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

—. 2008. “Rosenwald Schools in the Southern Landscape.” In “We Shall Independent Be”: African American Place Making and the Struggle to Claim Space in the United States, edited by Angel David Nieves and Leslie M. Alexander, 275–304. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Indiana Landmarks. 2015. “African American Landmarks.” Retrieved April 20, 2015 from: http://www.indianalandmarks.org/AboutUs/Initiatives/Pages/AALC.aspx.

Jenks, Hillary. 2008. “The Politics of Preservation: Power, Memory, and Identity in Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo.” In Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice, edited by Richard Longstreth, 35–54. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Johannesen, Eric. 1981. “Black History Thematic Resource.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service.

Johnson, April M. 2009. Durham Documentation of African American Historic Sites: Inventory and Preservation Plan. Durham, NC: Preservation Durham/National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Katz, Michael B. 2012. Why Don’t American Cities Burn? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kaufman, Ned. 2004. “Draft Cultural Heritage Needs Assessment: Phase I.” Report prepared for the National Park Service. Washington, DC: National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tellingallamericansstories/upload/PhaseIReport.pdf.

—. 2009. Race, Place, and Story: Essays on the Past and Future of Historic Preservation. New York: Routledge.

Kusmer, Kenneth L. 1995. “African Americans in the City Since World War II.” Journal of Urban History, 21 (4): 458–504.

Kusmer, Kenneth L., and Joe W. Trotter, eds. 2009. African American Urban History Since World War II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LaRoche, Cheryl J., and Michael L. Blakey. 1997. “Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground.” Historical Archaeology, 31: 84–106.

Lee, Antoinette J. 2003. “The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Historic Preservation.” In A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Robert E. Stipe, 385–404. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Lee, Toni. 2012. “Cultural Diversity in Historic Preservation: Where We Have Been, Where We Are Going.” Forum Journal, Fall: 20–34.Leggs, Brent, Kerri Rubman, and Byrd Wood. 2012. Preserving African American Historic Places. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Lewis, Earl. 1995. “Connecting Memory, Self, and the Power of Place in African American Urban History.” Journal of Urban History, 21 (3): 347–71.

Listokin, David, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr. 1998. “The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Community Development.” Housing Policy Debate, 9 (3): 431–78.

Mason, Randall. 2003. “Fixing Historic Preservation: A Constructive Critique of ‘Significance.’” Places, 16 (1): 64–71.

—. 2006. “Theoretical and Practical Arguments for Values-Centered Preservation.” CRM, 3 (2): 21.

McDonough, Alexa. 2012a. “Boddie Recording Studio.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0990010. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012b. “Eleanor B. Rainey Memorial Institute.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0988405. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012c. “Icabod Flewellen Home.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0988105. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012d. “Jesse Owens House (2178 E. 100th St.).” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0989706. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012e. “Jesse Owens House (2212 E. 90th St.).” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0989606. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012f. “Judge Capers House.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0989206. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012g. “Lakeview Terrace.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0990503. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012h. “Mayor Arthur R. Johnston House.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0990110. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012i. “Morison Avenue Missionary Baptist Church.” Ohio Historic Inventory # CUY0990311. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012j. “Outhwaite Homes Estates.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0989106. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012k. “Pentecostal Determine Church of God.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0989910. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2012l. “St. Andrews Episcopal Church.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY0989406. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2013a. “African American Task Force Community Survey Project.” Presentation given to Cleveland Restoration Society Board of Trustees meeting, January 24, 2013. Cleveland: Cleveland Restoration Society.

—. 2013b. “Lane Metropolitan CME Church.” Ohio Historic Inventory # CUY0037805. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2013c. “Madison and Madison Professional Building.” Ohio Historic Inventory #CUY1005811. Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. 2013d. “The Architectural Evidence of Cleveland’s African American Experience: 2012–2013 Survey Report.” Columbus, OH: Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

—. n.d. “African American Task Force Historic Building Survey.” Unpublished project summary. Cleveland: Cleveland Restoration Society.

MHT (Maryland Historical Trust). 2015. “African American Heritage Preservation Program Grants for Capital Projects.” Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://mht.maryland.gov/grants_africanamerican.shtml.

Michney, Todd M. 2006. “Race, Violence, and Urban Territoriality: Cleveland’s Little Italy and the 1966 Hough Uprising.” Journal of Urban History, 32 (3): 404–28.

—. 2011. “White Civic Visions versus Black Suburban Aspirations: Cleveland’s Garden Valley Urban Renewal Project.” Journal of Planning History, 10 (4): 282–309.

Newman, Harvey K. 2001. “Historic Preservation and Regime Politics in Atlanta.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 23 (1): 71–86.

Nieves, Angel David. 2008. “Cultural Landscapes of Resistance and Self-Definition for the Race: Interdisciplinary Approaches to a Socio-Spatial Race History.” In “We Shall Independent Be”: African American Place Making and the Struggle to Claim Space in the United States, edited by Angel David Nieves and Leslie M. Alexander, 1–20. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Nieves, Angel David, and Leslie M. Alexander, eds. 2008. “We Shall Independent Be”: African American Place Making and the Struggle to Claim Space in the United States. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

PRC (Preservation Resource Center). 2015. “Ethnic Heritage.” Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://www.prcno.org/programs/ethnicheritage.php.

Preservation Virginia. 2015. “Partners in the Field: Projects/African-American Heritage.” Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://preservationvirginia.org.

Reichl, Alexander J. 1997. “Historic Preservation and Progrowth Politics in U.S. Cities.” Urban Affairs Review, 32 (4): 513–35.

RIBHS (Rhode Island Black Heritage Society). 2015. “Our Mission.” Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://www.ribhs.org/about.



Ryberg, Stephanie. 2011. “Preservation at the Grassroots: Pittsburgh’s Manchester and Cincinnati’s Mt. Auburn Neighborhoods.” Journal of Planning History, 10 (2): 139-163.

Schneider, Todd. 2001. “From Monuments to Urban Renewal: How Different Philosophies of Historic Preservation Impact the Poor.” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 8 (1): 257–81.

Smith, Neil. 1998. “Comment on David Listokin, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr’s ‘The Contribution of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development’: Historic Preservation in a Neoliberal Age.” Housing Policy Debate, 9 (2): 479–85.

Spiers, John H. 2009. “‘Planning with People’: Urban Renewal in Boston’s Washington Park, 1950–1970.” Journal of Planning History, 8 (3): 221–47.

Sugrue, Thomas J. 1996. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

SurveyLA. 2013. SurveyLA Historic Context Statement Outline. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources.

Teaford, Jon C. 2000. “Urban Renewal and Its Aftermath.” Housing Policy Debate, 11 (2): 443–65.

Thomas, June Manning. 2004. “Neighborhood Planning: Uses of Oral History.” Journal of Planning History, 3 (1): 50–70.

Thomas, June Manning, and Marsha Ritzdorf. 1997. Urban Planning and the African-American Community: In the Shadows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Troltter, Joe W. 1995. “African Americans in the City.” Journal of Urban History, 21 (4): 438–57.

Upton, Dell, ed. 1986. America’s Architectural Roots: Ethnic Groups that Built America. Washington, DC: Preservation Press.

Upton, James N. 1985. “The Politics of Urban Violence: Critiques and Proposals.” Journal of Black Studies, 15 (3): 243–58.

Van West, Carroll. 1998. “Assessing Significance and Integrity in the National Register Process: Questions of Race, Class and Gender.” In Preservation of What, for Whom? A Critical Look at Historical Significance, edited by Michael A. Tomlan, 109–16. Ithaca, NY: National Council for Preservation Education.

Wellman, Judith. 2002. “The Underground Railroad and the National Register of Historic Places: Historical Importance vs. Architectural Integrity.” Public Historian, 24 (1): 11–29.

Zhang, Yue. 2011. Boundaries of Power: Politics of Urban Preservation in Two Chicago Neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 47 (4): 511–40.

ENDNOTES1 The City of Cleveland Landmarks Commission oversees local designation and changes to such properties. The Cleveland Restoration Society, the city’s primary nonprofit preservation organization, is a nationally recognized leader in the field. CRS advocates on behalf of preservation interests, offers technical support to owners of historic properties, manages an innovative financing program (Heritage Home), and conducts survey, designation, and other preservation work on a contract basis.

2 Similar to today’s multiple property nominations, the thematic resource designation identified scattered sites affiliated with the city’s African American heritage.

3 Since the 1982 nomination, two of the eight properties have been demolished: the Jacob Goldsmith House and the Garrett Morgan House. The six extant properties included Cleveland Home for Aged Colored People, House of Wills, Karamu House, Shiloh Baptist Church, St. John’s AME Church, and the Phillis Wheatley Association (Johannesen 1981).

4 CRS provided organizational and staff support, while the Ohio Historic Preservation Office provided grant support and an AmeriCorps volunteer, who was primarily tasked with research and documentation of identified sites.

5 The task force included prominent African American leaders in Cleveland, including Councilman Jeffrey Johnson (representing the Glenville neighborhood), Jennifer Coleman (the chairwoman of the City’s Landmarks Commission), Shelley Stokes-Hammond (daughter of former US Congressman Louis Stokes), scholars, community leaders, ministers, and others. The task force was chaired by Bracy Lewis, a long-time leader in Cleveland’s African American community and an Honorary Life Trustee of the Cleveland Restoration Society.

6 OHI forms include basic property information and require at least brief paragraphs describing a property’s architectural features and historic significance. The forms do not constitute official designation at any level, but can serve as the basis for future National Register nominations.

7 The four secondary sources were Cleveland, Ohio by Regennia Williams, A Ghetto Takes Shape: Black Cleveland, 1870–1930 by Kenneth Kusmer, The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of the Great Migration by Isabel Wilkerson, and Recognizing Ludlow—A National Treasure: A Community that Stood Firm for Equality by Shelley Stokes-Hammond.

8 All of the surveyed neighborhoods are within the city of Cleveland, except for Ludlow, which includes areas in both Cleveland and Shaker Heights, an inner-ring suburb. There were three sites identified via historical research that are in neighborhoods that were not surveyed (Slavic Village, Downtown, and Ohio City).

9 In reaction to the increasingly fast-paced racial turnover in Cleveland’s east-side neighborhoods and the start of such transition in adjacent inner-ring suburbs such as Shaker Heights, the Ludlow Community Association (est. 1957) formed to intentionally and peacefully integrate the neighborhood (McDonough, 2013d).

10 Boddie built his own radio and speaker systems, a record pressing plant in an outbuilding behind the house, and a mobile recording studio that was used by Carl Stokes’s successful mayoral campaign in the late 1960s (McDonough, 2012a).

11 The developments were among the first housing complexes completed by the Great Depression–era Public Works Administration, and the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (est. 1933) was the first official public housing authority in the nation (McDonough 2012g; McDonough 2012j).

12 The Rainey Institute eventually served African American residents as the neighborhood experienced racial turnover.

13 Other examples include the Zion Pentecostal Church in the Corlett neighborhood (Gothic Revival), the Second New Hope Baptist Church in Buckeye-Shaker (Beaux Arts), and the Lee Road Baptist Church in Lee-Miles (Modern).

14 The survey report often comments on these properties’ importance to local history and implies that local designation may be possible, but does not offer concrete recommendations as such.

15 When Flewellen was thirteen years old, he began a collection of African American artifacts, including articles, clippings, and other material culture. During his life, he amassed a collection of about 200,000 items and opened the African American Cultural and Historical Society Museum. The museum operated out of his house from 1953 to 1968 (McDonough 2012c, n.p.).


Preserving Clevelandâ•Žs African American Heritage

Documents

Transcript of Preserving Clevelandâ•Žs African American Heritage