The preservation program in Madison, Wisconsin, began in 1971 after a failed grassroots effort to save an 1853 mansion on the west side of the city. The galvanized new Landmarks Commission set out designating the most iconic architecture and began an effort to survey the city for properties that were architecturally, historically, and culturally significant. The city and the Landmarks Commission expanded its historic preservation program and areas of research over time, but it wasn’t until recently that we created a citywide preservation plan.

Underrepresented Histories

What truly set this planning process apart is the Underrepresented Communities Historic Resource Survey Planning staff approached the survey as a starting point and decided to begin with documenting the histories of 6 underserved communities: African Americans, Hmong, First Nations, Latinos/as, LGBTQ, and Women. Much like other municipalities completing these surveys, the project team found these communities were also underrepresented in the archival record, so collaborating with stakeholder groups and conducting interviews with leaders of these communities was critical. We were also fortunate that the Wisconsin Historical Society Press had recently published some statewide and some local histories about these communities. One of the more creative collaborations resulted in the Madison Public Library creating the Madison Living History Project to document our diverse stories as an oral history collection.

The resulting survey identified 117 resources of historical interest, with 98 currently eligible as Madison Landmarks, 9 individually eligible to the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The survey found that there were 39 landmarks with significant histories related to these underrepresented communities, which were not documented in the landmark designations. We have added these additional stories to the preservation files for these properties, but need to take action to amend the existing landmark nominations to include these histories so that they are officially a part of the recorded significance of these places.

For example, Holy Redeemer Catholic Church was originally designated as a landmark for both its Romanesque Revival architecture using Madison sandstone, but also for its association with the early German immigrant population in the city. The survey included additional context on the more recent significance of this property for the Latino/a community. Starting in the 1980s, this church became the primary Catholic church in the city to have services in Spanish and a key location for social services related to our Spanish-speaking community. This additional layer is important for understanding the evolving significance of this property.

Lessons Learned

Our goal in creating the preservation plan was to create a guide for how preservation will be practiced in Madison, Wisconsin. The feedback we received from our local communities might differ from feedback received in other places. The lessons we learned:

Make it accessible. The community response to both the process and the resulting survey report has been enthusiastic and encouraging, but not everyone is enthusiastic about preserving heritage, especially when their culture is not currently represented. It was important to engage the general public and stakeholder groups with the initial research and vetting the final document. For example, in addition to in-person meetings, we provided our meeting notices and agendas in Spanish and Hmong, we had interpreters at each public meeting. Recognizing that our meetings weren’t necessarily convenient for all members of the public to attend, we made our materials for each step of the process available on our project website. We also made the final drafts of both the preservation plan and survey publicly available on the city’s website.

Listen to stakeholders. One of the surprising results was the name we used for the Latino/a community. We were going to utilize “Latinx.” In sending the survey and plan out for comment, we heard back that the term was popular with outside or Anglo communities, but was not a term they would necessarily apply to themselves because it did not fit within a Spanish language framework. After conferring with our Office of Civil Rights, they confirmed that while there was not a consensus for what people wanted to be called, Latinx was not well received. While there were a variety of other options, we settled on the recommendation to utilize the “Latino/a” form to encompass multiple genders. Given the colonialist legacy of a dominant structure imposing an outsider name to an underrepresented community, it was important to listen to that feedback.

Keep it grassroots and diverse. A shift from focusing on high-styled architecture to a more story-based preservation approach made some of our longtime partners uncomfortable. One comment was that our process was “too grassroots” and we should stick with best practices from recent preservation plans from elsewhere in the country. While preservation practice is always changing, it is currently undergoing some significant and needed transformation. We understood that change is hard and can be scary. City staff was inspired by the 2017 Forum blog post entitled “When Does It Become Social Justice? Thoughts on Intersectional Preservation Practice.” We took those insights to heart and it was imperative that our preservation program represented all Madisonians and the uniqueness of our city.

Call to action. We continually heard from our community partners that they were grateful to be included and to have their stories told, but that they hoped this resulted in action on the part of the City. It matters for local preservation programs to tell the full story of their community. People need to know that their story matters (because it does!). But this cannot be a token or one-time effort. We have our preservation plan in place with a host of action items. With COVID-19, there are a number of new hurdles for implementing those recommendations, but we remain committed to taking action.