Has preservation become an echo chamber?

The District of Columbia is not the only jurisdiction in the region that is having an ongoing debate about historic preservation. While nowhere near as high-profile as the debate over the Third Church, preservation groups are working to landmark the Perpetual Bank Building at 8700 Georgia Avenue in Silver Spring.

The Montgomery County Planning Board recommended against designating the building, and then the Montgomery County Council elected not to hold a hearing. The Council has a right to not hold a hearing if it does not expect to overturn the Planning Board’s decision, but Montgomery Preservation Inc. and the Silver Spring Historical Society filed suit, asking the courts to force the County Council to hold a hearing.

Is this the best use of the historical preservation movement’s time and resources? Fighting tooth and nail to preserve a boring modernist office building? I’ve walked past the Perpetual Banking Building and would have never known that it was built in 1958 and is now eligible for landmark designation. The goal of preservation is to enrich the community by preventing the demolition of buildings that create a unique sense of place or are exceptional examples of architecture for their day. The Perpetual Banking Building is neither.

The historic preservation community seems to be living in its own echo chamber. To the rest of us, it looks like preservationists want to preserve for preservation’s sake, rather than for any particular larger community good. I understand the initial reasons for preservation: many exceptional buildings that helped create a sense of place in their community were demolished in the name of “progress” and “urban renewal.” The present movement, by contrast, seems to just want to designate as much as possible, regardless of context.