I just finished teaching my heritage conservation class. Students in this class start by learning how the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and state and local historic preservation regulations can be used to promote the preservation of historic properties. After getting an introduction to historic preservation law, the class works through some of the complications caused by historic preservation like gentrification, placemaking, and economic reinvestment. The goal is to give student enough background to be engaged in preservation choices throughout their lives.
This course centers a semester-long group project that simulates writing a grant for a heritage conservation project. To make the group effort easier, I suggest a small number of hypothetical historic preservation projects to make sure students begin on the same page. Normally, I place students in group but this year I let students choose from the topics themselves.
Here were the subjects they could choose from in 2023:
- Repatriation of Native American artifacts excavated from California shellmounds under NAGPRA;
- Create a multiple site nomination form for a Chinese American shrimp camp in the San Francisco Bay area;
- Conduct a review of locations associated with the Black Panther Party for Self Defense’s free breakfast program in Oakland;
- Analyze the impacts of a self-driving car network that uses the historical alignment of defunct streetcar networks in San Francisco;
- Create a heritage tour of sites in San Francisco associated with the recreational use of psychedelics during the Summer of Love, and;
- Create a community-informed walking heritage tour associated with People’s Park in Berkeley.
During the first week I walked around the classroom and made a list of which groups the students had joined. They introduced themselves and started collecting data that will later be used to guide the group’s hypothetical grant proposal. After collecting names, I was creating modules on the university’s online coursebuilder so they could have a central hub for communication and information sharing. I took the names of everyone in the class, segmenting them into the groups they’d chosen when I realized I didn’t have any students in one group.
There was one topic the students simply weren’t interested in researching…
A Brief Introduction to the Politically Volatile Heritage Conservation of People’s Park
Many elders in the Bay Area consider People’s Park in Berkeley as one of the most important sites in the history of the American counterculture. As with everything associated with Boomers, the site has layer upon layer of nuanced interpretation, understanding, and value. I’m not from Berkeley and I’m not a Boomer so I mostly value the park as a historic property. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in May of 2021, being recommended eligible under Criterion A for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history.
The park is associated with some pretty important events. The space that would become People’s Park was part of a residential neighborhood initially started in the late 1800s that rapidly expanded after the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. In the early 1900s, these blocks were filled with dethatched, single-family dwellings but multi-dwelling apartment buildings were built here in the mid-1900s. By the 1960s when the University started acquiring properties, this block had a mix of single and multi-family dwellings.
The block was acquired parcel by parcel over several years. Property owners sold to the university with the understanding that it would become housing. A few owners relocated their houses to parcels elsewhere in Berkeley. Most of the buildings were condemned soon after they were purchased by the University and demolished. By the time the whole block had been acquired, money to build the housing remained forthcoming. So, in 1969 there was this unpaved, vacant lot located two blocks from the main campus. Initially, students used the space for cheap parking. Then a group of youth came upon a different idea.
In the Spring of 1969, a group of UC Berkeley students decided there wasn’t enough open space available for the recreational use of nearby residents. They noticed there wasn’t a public park for blocks around the vacant lot and decided they would appropriate the park for public use. The students started laying sod in the park and using it as a meeting space for protests. This wasn’t what the UC administrators had in mind for this space, and it definitely was not what then California Governor Ronald Reagan thought should happen. The State of California pressured UC administrators to do something about it but, when they didn’t act forcefully enough, City and State law enforcement stepped in.
On Thursday, May 15, 1969, California State law enforcement members descended upon the park. They quickly erected a fence around the space and formed a line to prevent student advocates from entering. Student activists started to gather and protest. Law enforcement used force to push them back. Over the next few days, violence ensued with law enforcement and protesters fighting each other. A student, James Reckner, was tragically killed by law enforcement at a location outside the boundaries of the park. Reckner was not a university student but was part of the much larger movement that coalesced around the campus. He was a bystander and the only fatality of the protests. The Battle for People’s Park continued for days but eventually flowed into a series of peaceful protests that were violently suppressed by law enforcement. A curfew was enacted for the City of Berkeley and thousands of people were arrested. The park remained unoccupied for months.
Here are some scenes from the battle for People’s Park in 1968:
People’s Park: Creation and Defense from vid1 on Vimeo.
Clearly seeing that the housing plan was unlikely, the University changed their plans and proposed to turn the space into a soccer field in 1969 but that wasn’t what protestors wanted. While the protestors’ plans for the park were never clear, what was clear is they didn’t want the University involved in the development of this space. They were taking this place for themselves. The park remained fenced while protesters maintained their opposition. Protests flared up periodically into the 1970s until protestors eventually tore down the chain link fence in 1972. This time the University acquiesced. They allowed activists to build the park and it’s been a public open space ever since.
From Public Park to Public Nuisance?
After the literal battles between students and law enforcement, the park became a symbol of the successes of the 1960s counterculture. The activists established a grassy area and several gardens in the 1970s. They built a concert stage and tried to make the space work. But, the ad hoc group of activists administering the park were very reticent of any University involvement. Protests continually erupted whenever the University tried to build volleyball courts or other recreational infrastructure in the park. As a result, there were few amenities for local people to enjoy. Since open drug use was also a feature of the counterculture’s activities in the park, it quickly became known as a space where folks sold drugs and where crimes occurred. Newspaper reports discuss drug use and crimes in the park throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The University has never given up on its plan to build on the park. Since the 1970s, the University periodically proposes another student housing scheme or tries to add amenities to the park but protestors always descend and stymie those plans. This sequence has continued into the 2020s.
The park remained administered by ad hoc volunteer organizations even though it was owned by the University of California system. All efforts to improve, develop, or change the park into an amenity benefitting the larger community have been stopped through rapid protests. Without a larger governing body and without sustained funding for improvements, the park is now synonymous with crime and houselessness. By the 2020s, housing prices have increased to unsustainable levels in the San Francisco Bay Area leaving an ever-increasing number of people without shelter including UC Berkeley students. Simultaneously, the region has been gripped with a drug epidemic which has contributed to property crime and theft. The number of houseless individuals living in the park has increased since the late 2010s.
When I arrived in Berkeley in 2017 most of the people I met told me to watch out whenever passing near People’s Park. They told me to avoid the area if possible and especially not to park my car nearby as break-ins and robberies are commonplace. This advice came from students, faculty, staff, and long-time Berkeley residents. A careful narrative has been constructed that centers the Park’s role in the counterculture and as a site of resistance but most people who work and live in this part of the Bay are very careful whenever they’re around People’s Park. UC Berkeley and Berkeley Police Department records show there have been thousands of crimes committed in the park since 2010. Violent crimes like muggings and assaults are regular occurrences in the vicinity of the park. Broken window glass from car break-ins litters the gutters nearby. As a rule, most people who work or live nearby avoid the park. I have met very few students or co-workers who purposefully visit the park. Most of the people I’ve ever met who regularly visit the park are volunteers providing services to the unhoused living in the park.
In August of 2022, the University tried to follow through on a multi-million-dollar housing project that would have provided lodging for students and dozens of unhoused individuals. The University spent weeks rehousing all the folks living in the park in hotels in Berkeley. They proposed to allow those folks temporary lodging until the construction was finished. As had happened many times in the past 50 years, activists and protesters descended on the construction site. The proposed project would have provided housing for hundreds of UC Berkeley students and several unhoused individuals. Nevertheless, this was unsuitable to those who want the park to remain how it is.
In the summer of 2022, protesters attacked the construction crews who were working behind a chain link fence. Construction workers vacated the site leaving some of their vehicles behind, which were summarily vandalized by the protestors. Law enforcement deployed at the park stood by and let the whole thing unfold to avoid violence. Unhoused people living in the park dismantled the chain link fence and erected fortresses in the middle of the open space. The water to the Park’s only bathroom was shut off in anticipation of the construction and to pressure the people living in the park to leave the space. It hasn’t worked. The number of unhoused residing in the park increased to its pre-August 2022 levels. Crime continues to happen. In November 2022, a former UC Davis PhD student was found dead in the park. Assaults and robberies continue to happen there. The ad hoc group of volunteer activists may have stopped the bulldozers but they have not been able to stop People’s Park from remaining a violent place avoided by most of the people who know of it.
In February 2022, a state appeals court in San Francisco decided that UC Berkeley violated the California State Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it didn’t account for the impact loud parties would have on the surrounding neighborhood. The State’s governor vows to make changes to CEQA to keep small groups of NIMBY advocates from stalling student housing projects (https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/02/25/appeals-court-decision-halts-peoples-park-construction-indefinitely). The ruling basically treats people (e.g. student housing residents) like a form of pollution. The Battle for People’s Park continues.
There’s no archaeology project worth dying for
Once I got hired at UC Berkeley, I immediately recognized the archaeological potential of this site because I’d just finished my PhD on another urban block that used to be a neighborhood but had been turned into open space/ a park (http://www.riverstreethistory.com). The River Street Public Archaeology Project was conducted in another neighborhood that was considered “blighted.” Historically, the River Street Neighborhood was occupied by immigrants, people of color, and poor whites. It was designated for “renewal” in the 1960s but a group of activists and neighborhood residents rallied to save their neighborhood. Here’s where the story differs from People’s Park
The movement to save the River Street Neighborhood came from people who formally lived in neighborhood in the 1970s (e.g. they were renting or owned things an architect would call a building). River Street had property owners. There were also people still living in River Street throughout all these redevelopment plans. Moreover, the people living there joined together to make improvements to their properties. They secured Community Block Grants that were given to low-income property owners so they could make improvements on their homes. The residents also cleaned up garbage from the nearby Boise River, improving its aesthetic appeal to city residents and making it a place where folks could enjoy an enhanced outdoor experience. These early activities in the 1970s laid the pathway for the famous Boise River Greenbelt—a 26-mile system of parks and trails that traverses the City of Boise. Today, the Greenbelt is deeply loved by Boise residents and is one of the most attractive amenities in the city. And, it was low income African American and poor white residents who started the Greenbelt.
These developments did not save the River Street Neighborhood indefinitely. Property values increased because of the Neighborhood’s proximity to downtown Boise and the Greenbelt. It became a particularly attractive place to build. Redevelopment in this district has been ongoing for over 50 years given the fact that most residents have been willing to sell their properties and the city still incentivizes higher density construction in the neighborhood. Over the past 50 years, most detached single-family dwellings in River Street have been demolished to make way for condominiums, apartments, and townhouses.
The archeology project I did as my dissertation project in 2015 was part of a long-term historic preservation effort spearheaded by neighborhood descendants and preservationist who knew one of the oldest parts of town was endangered. Dozens of people volunteered at the site. It was the focus of several news articles and stories. Public sentiment was positive towards the preservation of the Erma Hayman House, which has since become one of two African American historic properties in the City of Boise. It remains a monument to the African American, poor white, and immigrant people who were once forced to live here because of segregation. Unfortunately, potentially historical buildings continue to be demolished in the neighborhood. The Hayman House was saved but others fall to the bulldozer each year. There is little potential for a historic district composed of buildings and structures there; although, the archaeology project demonstrated there is still great potential for an archaeological sensitivity district. That will have to be created based in accordance with the wishes of the residents of Boise, Idaho.
I wanted to do something like that for People’s Park but was dismayed by how rough the place is. There was no way the University could guarantee safety for my colleagues, students, or myself if we decided to do an archaeological survey in the park. You can see the outlines of the early 20th century building foundations and their yards in satellite photos of the Park on Google Earth. In my experience, this suggests intact features and undisturbed sediments are likely which means there might still be archaeological resources in the park. But, there’s no way to evaluate them safely.
In the case of People’s Park, the majority of people I’ve ever talked to recognize the historical value of the park. They want to commemorate it in some way. I feel like the National Register nomination was justified and I endorse remembering this place. The only problem is the National Register does not guarantee preservation. Something more is required—specifically the property’s owner needs to take action.
I also strongly believe that, when it comes to historic preservation, a small but committed group of activists who love a property is more than enough to save the places that count. We don’t need complete group consensus on which sites get added to the National Register. If the site meets the criteria and someone is willing to push it through the bureaucracy, it should most definitely get recognized.
None of this means property owners cannot destroy a historic property listed in the National Register. The NHPA and CEQA do not prohibit any government agency or property owner from destroying a historic property as long as they’re willing to pay the price. In 2022, the California State Legislature granted the University of California system the ability to make housing construction projects exempt from CEQA, so UC Berkeley doesn’t even have to seriously consider its adverse effects on historic properties that are undoubtedly present in People’s Park. It has already demolished a historical gas station that was on the state register of historical resources and another potentially historical 100+ year old tenement building that was inhabited by people on rent vouchers. These buildings were removed so apartments could be constructed in hopes that some students who go to UC Berkeley can afford to live there. UC Berkeley isn’t really looking for historical resources under CEQA and it seems okay with violating the NHPA so what can advocates do? Historicity isn’t going to be enough to save the park.
Neither is amenity. As I wrote before, historic preservation centers on the argument that older, historical sites, districts, structures, objects, and landscapes enhance the amenity of a given area. It’s not just about remembering the past. It’s about how remembering the past makes us feel in the future and how it will make future generations feel.
People’s Park is a historic property but it remains a violent place. Throughout the semester I taught this heritage conservation class there was more than one violent assault in the vicinity of the park every week. On March 1, 2023, a fire was started in the park’s bathroom that required a university-wide notification telling us to stay away. Then again, UC Berkeley’s campus is a violent space too. On Sproul Plaza, the heart of the UC Berkeley campus, a man also set themselves on fire on March 1 a few hours after the notification about the fire at People’s Park. Students and other observers tried to put the man’s clothes out as they watched them melt away from his body. It took several firefighters to put out the blazing human being. I get several notifications and warnings of assaults, burglaries, and other episodes every month. We can blame the violence on People’s Park, but this is also the result of exorbitant housing costs, a drug epidemic, and completely failing mental health system in the Bay Area. People’s Park is just one dark spot in a pockmarked landscape.
You can’t make people care about historic properties.
My students had several answers when I asked them why they didn’t want to do a hypothetical project that centered on People’s Park. Several students had already spent significant time thinking about the park in other classes. Evidentially, I wasn’t the only person using the park as a case study for teaching. Other students remarked that they thought the other topics were more interesting. However, I really got the sense that they didn’t care about the park.
Perhaps thinking about this place had already taxed them enough. This is wholly understandable given what we’ve all been through over the past three years. Students also know fully well for whom that housing is being built—upper middle class and wealthy students who can afford the inflated rents those new apartments will command. Most student cannot afford the “market-rate” housing the University continues to push down their throats. My students come from a range of backgrounds but few of them live within 20 miles of campus. Even fewer can afford the $3,300–$4,000/month rent for a 1br apartment across the street from campus. It’s easy to see the intended residents of the luxury student housing they’re building in Berkeley (https://www.sterlinghousing.com/berkeley-ca). A student rent voucher scheme like they have in the Netherlands and other European countries would be more amenable to most students. But, the University still insists on student housing plans they first devised 70 years ago.
Perhaps the students wish this whole problem would just go away. The crime, the houselessness, the protests, the persistence of the University to build there despite the fact that 50 years of Berkeleyites have given the clear message that they don’t want student housing on the site. All of this weighs on the students and University employees’ minds and hearts. None of us wants People’s Park to be the way it is but none of us can make positive change when every suggestion is crushed by protestors. They don’t want the park to change, and nobody wants it the way it is right now. We are at an impasse.
What I learned in my class is you can’t force people to care about a historic property they view negatively. People’s Park is an interesting case of preservation that does not increase amenity. It’s a significant site that, without significant changes, maintains cruel poverty, violence, and blight a few blocks away from one of the most celebrated public universities in the world.
Having trouble finding work in cultural resource management archaeology? Still blindly mailing out resumes and waiting for a response? Has your archaeology career plateaued and you don’t know what to do about it? Download a copy of the new book “Becoming an Archaeologist: Crafting a Career in Cultural Resource Management” Click here to learn more.
Check out Succinct Research’s contribution to Blogging Archaeology. Full of amazing information about how blogging is revolutionizing archaeology publishing. For a limited time you can GRAB A COPY FOR FREE!!!! Click Here
“Resume-Writing for Archaeologists” is now available on Amazon.com. Click Here and get detailed instructions on how you can land a job in CRM archaeology today!
Small Archaeology Project Management is now on the Kindle Store. Over 300 copies were sold in the first month! Click Here and see what the buzz is all about.
Join the Succinct Research email list and receive additional information on the CRM and heritage conservation field.
Get killer information about the CRM archaeology industry and historic preservation.