This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Register of Historic Places article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
National Register of Historic Places has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is the subject of a request emailed to the
Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Issues identified are: Confirming that the text of nomination forms is copyrighted. |
Recent past was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 February 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into National Register of Historic Places. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
To-do list for National Register of Historic Places:
|
The article states "The shortcomings of the NHPA are obvious when historic properties are destroyed....". I don't think that a demolition or two proves any such thing. The NRHP program does not absolutely protect properties, it just provides a framework for Federal tax incentives, for Federal and other monitoring and scrutiny, and for local and state zoning and other regulation. As I added to the article, Colorado is a state which explicitly does not protect NRHPs and emphasizes owners can demolish them. In the case of the example given, the Jobbers Canyon Historic District in downtown Omaha, Nebraska that was demolished in 1987, there is evidence to me that the program was working, in fact. As noted, the NRHP designation caused there to be a big to-do when the corporation announced its plans, so the NRHP program served its purpose by making it a public issue. There were big dollars and big public issues at stake that were debated, and an outcome happened that didn't please everyone. Outcomes where demolitions are prevented also hurt some property owners and other parties, too. At least this case was debated, and local governments had an opportunity to come up with funding or creative ideas to save the district, perhaps unlike if the area was not listed as an NRHP.
It could be that those buildings were indeed ugly and crummy and ought to have been demolished to let something else happen there. No one could seriously advocate that there never-ever should be a demolition of an NRHP. A more heavy-handed regulation program would have serious drawbacks. Most likely, a program with stricter protections would never be allowed to attain the broad reach that NRHP has. A Canadian program described in national landmark article, for example, never really got off the ground, perhaps due to the extent of protection proposed for one of the first sites it included.
The other stated criticisms given are from old articles, and it seems unfair to state them here. It does seem likely that early NRHP and NHL designations were more political and less balanced. But the NRHP program has run broad theme studies and multiple property submission studies since the 1980s, expressly to provide balance, and the old articles don't address that. The quote restated in a side-box is especially critical and seems to me unjustified. Also, where is the National Park Service or other response to the criticism? This just seems like a one-sided, unfair criticism.
I'd prefer to see the entire Criticism section dropped, unless it can be radically rewritten with new sources and some "fair and balanced" perspective. Right now it is not encyclopedic in tone. doncram ( talk) 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of NIMBY in the see also section as not relevant. MB 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)