Saving South Beach, M. Barron Stofik, is part of a series documenting Florida history. The intention of this volume is to describe the evolution of South Beach. Although this volume could have been condensed and better organized, it’s strength lies in it’s illustration of the historic preservation process.
Through Stofik’s story of how South Beach came to be what it is today, the reader can trace the work involved in the preservation process; the wins and losses and the everyday people that were involved. Saving South Beach also draws attention of how to manipulate the preservation process in order to achieve a particular outcome. Due to South Beach’s high-profile beginnings in the early twentieth-century, some felt it was possible to protect South Beach from “doom” (18) and used historic preservation as the tool. Donovan Rypkema is quoted, “I have never visited a downtown with a successful record of economic revitalization where historic preservation wasn’t a key element of the strategy.” (135) Rypkema’s point identifies the efforts of Barbara and John Capitman and Leonard Horowitz, however, is the South Beach that emerged, the South Beach they envisioned? There is no question that the area was in need of revitalization, but it came at what cost to the residents? This is where I feel that the author does a good job at presenting how politics and corporations capitalized on the historic image that was created and twisted it into something not entirely accurate.
And does it need to be accurate? I feel that the Stofik is arguing for accuracy as she quotes the president of the National Trust, Richard Moe. His definition of a preservationist is “someone who is concerned about the rootlessness and erosion of community that threatens the very foundations of our society, someone who wants to maintain a connection with the past, who feels the need for a tangible link with something real, something solid and meaningful.” (248) Stofik portrays those involved in the early stages of revitalizing South Beach as wanting to preserve the sense of community as well as the Art Deco architecture. However, she also captures the essence of what resulted in Nancy Liebman’s definition of preservation being more about “saving an environment and an atmosphere.” (221)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your point on the preservationists’ vision for South Beach and how what it has become is not what they envisioned. The Caribbean paint colors made me wonder about that as well as the Hollywood portrayal of the area. Except for the “shtetl” South Beach has not really had a uniformed sense of community, which made me wonder why the preservationists would focus so much on the Art Deco architecture as it was never totally accurate in its upkeep. Nancy Liebman’s quote is also interesting as the residents who lived there before the preservationist movement began were displaced. I wonder how one saves an atmosphere when the people who made it are expelled.
ReplyDeleteI liked the change in the area as well, through the preservation process. As an outcome of "saving" the area, it was revitalized, but it was not the same neighborhood. Those who had originally moved in decades before were still going to be forced out, because it wasn't returned to the status quo. Either the property values fell and the place was bulldozer, or it was revitalized and values rose, creating a new kind of neighbor. Didn't South Beach change fundamentally either way?
ReplyDelete