Smithfield 1827 from John Greenwoods map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smithfield_1827.

jpeg

Tactile History Surrounds Us, But Do We Sense It?

Jeffrey Hopper

Prospects

As we look at ways to engage the public with history, specifically museums and historical sites, some background information might be helpful. The recession of the early twenty-first century endangered the normal funding process, endowments, donations, and investments; and thus the viability of historic societies and history museums throughout the United States (Andrs Sznt). If finances were the only reason for concern, then there might be some sense in weathering the economic storm, but as Andrs Sznt states in his January 2010 article on museum attendance, The median age of visitors has shot up since 1982, from 36 to 43 yearsa bump that cannot be explained away with aging baby boomers. Especially worrisome is a twelve percent decline in arts attendance among college-educated Americans. The combined loss of endowment and investment income with that of museum attendance by young college-educated visitors creates a far stronger cause for concern. While not the only means of visitation and funding, this group represents the cornerstone of future trustees, overseers, friends, and additionally the group most likely to initiate and sustain museum endowments. How do we engage visitors? is a recurring question for the museum profession. Reach Advisors, an independent museum-consulting group, conducted a survey for a history museum located in the northeastern region of the US that addressed the question of observation versus immersion. Their work began with a childrens visitor survey of history museums during the spring of 2007 and concluded with a targeted members and visitors survey during the winter of 2008 (Reach Advisors Authentic, 25-29). The survey was devoted to determining the target audiences and their interests and requirements. However, for this paper, the most interesting question was what they, the participants in the study, would do, if they could do anything with no restrictions. In response, fifty-three percent of the respondents expressed a desire to live the life, nineteen

percents wanted to extend the experience by spending more time in either the day or the night. Similarly, twenty-nine percent of respondents to the Connecticut Cultural Consumer Survey requested more programs/event/exhibits to better serve them (Reach Advisors, Connecticut 11). Traditionally, museums respond to visitors surveys requesting more interaction with more exhibits. Perhaps the response requires a more expansive reading of exhibit to include the museum and its environment. The movement away from museum attendance and the request for a more immersive experience by those attending museums should be a wake-up call. While museums, and most obviously history museums, are dedicated to the preservation of history whether it is object, art, science or history to name a few, it may be less obvious that as the teaching of history in its largest sense, the remembrance of all that has occurred in the past may be occurring primarily at museums. In which case, the idea of actively engaging solely with a group of educated and amateur historians may be outdated and new approaches may be required to engage a visitor of the present for whom unfortunately history has become a luxury. For the history museum audience, who wants to live it, this speaks to a different level of engagement.

Staying Where We Visit Most historic houses will never be museums. Most museums will never rent their historic houses to the public, at least not for accommodation. Most people will never live in an historic house, aside from a stay in a bed and breakfast or historic inn. With that in mind, is it time for US museums to look at the rental of historic property, as is done in the UK, to help maintain and self fund US museum property? As with all institutions, museums require funding and the normal avenues are endowments, government grants, corporate donations, pledge drives, exhibitions, special events, publications, museum shops, and restaurantsto name a few. These funding

sources have worked in the past, but are there other means of raising revenue and increasing visitor involvement? Beyond the regular forms of funding, other options exist such as the sale of artifacts or buildings to fund the museum (Robin Pogrebin). Less dramatic, but not without repercussion, is the rental of property to outside sources--residential, commercial, profit, and nonprofit or a combination of these groups (Colonial Williamsburg). A third option is the potential rental of properties on a short-term basis for vacation stays, which might help entice a younger audience to return to the fold. For the sake of this paper, the last option assumes that the general audience visited museums during childhood, but continues to visit them sporadically at best. The rental of historic properties by nonprofits has existed in the UK since the 1960s (Landmark Trust). Does Anyone Live in Old Buildings? A quick look at some numbers may help determine what is old and who lives there. Figure 1 displays visually the numbers gathered during the 2000 Census, which determined that only 8.3 percent of the US housing stock was built before 1920 (These Old Houses: 2001 2).
Figure 1: Population and Historic Housing Units
300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 0 Population Pre 1920s housing units

Census 1940 Census 2000

This chart provides a graphic representation of the 1940 and 2000 census numbers for population and historic housing.

As a comparison, the 1940 census reports that the housing stock consisted of 20.6 million housing units built before 1920, but by 2001, the pre-1920 housing stock number was down to 9.8 million (These Old Houses: 2001 17). With the destruction of older housing, it is increasingly difficult to connect with the past in the most fundamental way, literally living in it. According to the US census, the population in 1940 was 132,122,446 and by 2000 it was 281,421,906; thus in 1940, fifteen and six-tenths percent of the population lived in pre-1920s housing stock, while only three and four-tenths percent could claim the same by the year 2000. The breakdown of pre1920s in millions of housing units per region follows: the Northeast 4.3, the Midwest 3.4, the South 1.4, and the West .8. It is worth noting that even though an old house might seem common, it is increasingly a regional phenomenon.

A Theoretical Projection of Institutional Preservation The figures above highlight the ceaseless trend of old housing stock disappearing over time. Historical societies, preservation groups, and history museums preserved or saved a portion of this stock. Another look at numerical data may prove helpful. As of March 2011, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) lists 86,255 places on its website. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) conducted a numerical survey in 2005 and concluded that there were roughly 17,500 museums in the US. The actual total was 18,410 but the IMLS concluded that approximately five percent of the entries were for non-museum organizations (American Association of Museums website). Volume Two of The Official Museum Directory of the American Associations of Museums (AAM) lists over 70 categories of museums with a base of 8,300 entries (AAM website). History museums and historical societies are a segment of the 70 categories noted by the Museum Directory and similarly, they are a segment of the number of

museums that the IMLS lists at 17,500. For the sake of argument, assume all 17,500 museums are history museums owning and preserving historical buildings, and that each of these museums saves 20 buildings, resulting in 350,000 preserved buildings. If the NRHP totals are included, that brings the total to 436,255, and assuming again, for the sake of argument, that these form part of the total 9.2 million pre-1920s housing units from the 2000 Census, then four and seven-tenths percent of the historic housing stock is in some manner preserved. If the calculation drops numbers from NHRP because they represent building stock that can still be sold and therefore vulnerable to non-preservation factors, the total number of buildings theoretically saved from the uncertainties of the real estate market drops to three and eight-tenths percent. Of course, this is assuming that all museums listed are history museums, which they are not, and that all museums listed preserve buildings, which they do not, so the real number of preserved buildings is in question. Regardless, the number of buildings preserved as museum sites represents a small segment of the overall number of older buildings and the calculation highlights that discrepancy. Figure 2 below provides a visual representation of this numerical calculation.
Figure 2: Theoretical Percentage of Housing Units

Theoretical Percentage of Preserved Houses as of 2000 Against Published Numbers

Total Units from 2000 Census IMLS Theoretical Total HRHP Totals Based on the 2000 Census this pie chart presents a graphic view of the theoretical number of historic houses preserved against the general pool of housing units.

Although the calculation of numbers above is theoretical, the outcome of this calculation illustrates numerically why The Landmark Trust in the United Kingdom (UK) began. Although

the raw numbers for the United Kingdom (UK) might be different from the United States (US), the same dilemma presented itself to museums and historic societies in the UKI.e., how to preserve the historic building stock without bankrupting those same institutions. (For the sake of argument, this paper assumes that historic buildings need to be preserved.) As an initial inquiry, this paper loosely examines two institutions: The Landmark Trust, a UK based charity, and English Heritage, a government funded preservation entity. Several factors pushed this choice to the forefront. The Landmark Trust is a charity, allowing greater parity of comparison, to most US museums and historic properties, which tend to be charitable or nonprofit institutions. Like many US charities, the Trust developed from the vision of an individual or small group to a larger scale and professionally run charity. Its successful growth and continuity of purpose provided the model for other museums and historic preservation groups in the UK; it is the gold standard of the holiday rental scheme. English Heritage has only recently developed a rental program and as such it learned from The Landmark Trust and modified its approach to vacation rentals.

Landmark Trust

Sir John Smith (1923-2007) founded he Landmark Trust in the 1960s. Peter H. Pearce, Director of The Landmark Trust, in a symposium held at the Philadelphia Athenum in December 4-5, 1998, spoke to the beginnings of the Trust. Part of Pearces presentation so well encapsulates the original thinking behind the process, that it is worth quoting in full: The National Trust had its hands full and no money to endow these small, economically unsustainable buildings. Private owners lacked the resources and sometimes the will to look after them. Sir John had the idea that by taking these buildings on and converting them to self-catering holiday accommodation, the

problem of endowment could be avoided as the income thus received would pay for their maintenance. Thus the Landmark Trust was born. In the 1960s, the idea of preserving historic buildings by converting them to a new use was quite a new one, and holiday use almost unheard of - the typical holiday cottage was not a distinguished building. Here as in many ways Landmark was to be an innovator, and has now been followed by others. However there was much more to the idea behind the Landmark Trust than simple preservation. Sir John saw that in these post-war decades a whole way of life was being lost, and with it the knowledge of it by following generations. Humble vernacular buildings had lost the agricultural way of life which supported them; industry had moved on from the industrial revolution which gave so many fine buildings; many military buildings had been left high and dry by the reduced or changed needs of the armed forces; the mediaeval half-timbered buildings of Britain were becoming abandoned as too expensive and uncomfortable to live in; banqueting houses, follies and other relics of an aristocratic estate life now vanished were in decay. Sir John saw the opportunity not only to preserve these buildings but to provide a window to the modern generation of adults and children on the way of life which had created them. While people stayed in them, they also provided an income for their upkeep. It is one of the great strengths of the Landmark Trust that now, with 167 buildings, we can say with reasonable safety that expensive though it is to maintain these buildings, this cost is met from holiday lettings and that once restored their future is secure without a supporting endowment.

The Landmark Trust established an alternative to the traditional model of museum and historical preservation, but it did not deviate from the concept that preservation was paramount. Although different from the traditional means of preservation, the Trust sought to augment the field and provide refuge for buildings outside the normal fold of preservation, such as gatehouses, follies, or a farmhouse. Now embraced as part of the culture, during the 1960s some preservationists and museums viewed these vernacular buildings as expendable. It should be remembered that in the 1960s, Victorian era buildings were seen as expendable, unworthy of preservation, much as 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s suburban tract housing is seen in some quarters today. Over the ensuing decades, The Landmark Trust continued to increase its housing portfolio.

Part of the success of The Landmark Trust may be due to brand recognition. All decisions are centralized and come from the main office in Shottesbrooke, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK. The standards and offerings of the Trust are instantly recognizable. The same Furnishings Manager has been in place for thirty years. If any part of the fabric of the buildings needs replacement, similar, if not exact goods, come from the central warehouse. There is no latitude for divergence, which helps to maintain a distinct look within a portfolio of buildings spread throughout England, Wales, France, and Italy; leeway might tarnish the brand. The decisionmaking policy descends through regional managers to 350-plus caretakers and gardeners, and all properties are on a ten-year rolling maintenance plan, centrally directed by a staff of five surveyors (Stanford interview). The Landmark Trust established its own style, which is a carefully constructed product of casual, yet studied English country diffidence. Based on personal observation during a stay at one of the London properties, 43 Cloth Fair, the property is reminiscent of a well-heeled relatives city apartment, nothing ostentatious, but unquestionably a certain type of elegance and expense. As a case in point, all the wallpapers are reprinted William Morris wallpapers, in particular, the living/dining room is a special color reprint to match the last occupants choice of paper, in this case that of Sir John Betjeman, Poet Laureate of England, and a champion of historic preservation. As noted in the handbook provided for the guests as guide to the house and its neighborhood, this paper is a special reprint, as the manufacturer no longer prints the pattern in the color as seen. The hard furnishings are antiques of a better quality and while not period Chippendale tables or chairs, they are better-end nineteenth- and early twentieth-century reproductions. The kitchen is new, up-to-date, and fully stocked with utensils and electrical goods, while the bathroom is reminiscent of any British bathroom of the last fifty years. While

up-to-date in most other aspects, the Trust provides no telephones, radios, or televisions, which helps to distance the visitor from the present, but at the same time engulfs some visitors in a knowable sensory past.

English Heritage English Heritage is a semi-autonomous agency created by the British Government in 1984 as its statutory advisor in matters relating to the historic environment and to encourage people to understand, value, care for and enjoy their historic environment (History of English Heritage, EH website 16). With an emphasis on preservation, presentation and education, there is a marked difference between English Heritage and The Landmark Trust. As such, English Heritage views its vacation rentals differently from that of The Landmark Trust. As a government agency, English Heritage is reliant upon an ever-decreasing funding pool, and the push is on to create new areas of revenue growth, with an emphasis on funding sources that contribute to the overall bottom line. An example of English Heritages approach is Mount Grace Priory in Yorkshire, UK, which makes use of outlying buildings as vacation rentals. The background information about Mount Grace Priory comes from a two-day workshop on Preservation and Presentation presented by English Heritage and Oxford University and held at Oxford University from February 8-9, 2011. The presenters used the priory as a case study for a workshop that the author attended. The property is the only Carthusian charterhouse easily accessible to the public and contains the remnants of the priory. A circa 1650 manor house exists, created from parts of the priory and later altered in the Arts and Crafts manner in the 1890s. Additionally, the site includes the remains of the Victorian landscape/gardens. A run of small dependencies forms a wing to the

10

main house. The manor house remains largely underused with rooms of various historic periods, although currently the emphasis is on restoring key rooms to the Arts and Crafts period. The problem for the site is an embarrassment of riches, a rare priory, a rare Commonwealth Manor House (few manor houses were built between1649-1660), and a large unrestored Victorian garden. However, the scale of the property requires constant preservation on a limited and limiting budget, a common problem with most historic sites. With the manor house under-utilized and under-funded, the run of dependencies lay fallow. English Heritage developed these outbuildings, a string of single story structures attached to, but not accessible from, the main house into one vacation rental cottage. Self-contained, the unit provides income, and allows overnight visitors the added benefit of using the Priory ruins and the adjacent land during offhours, thus giving them a night in the museum. Owing to its location in the North Yorkshire Moors and earlier ecclesiastical history some visitors use this vacation rental as a meditative retreat, reestablishing its earlier use. It exists. Use it. Maintaining properties over a large geographic setting provided further insight into the English Heritage rental model. The mission of English Heritage differs from that of The Landmark Trust, so that the use of rental property is as an added resource, not a central feature. English Heritage sees its approach as subsidiary to its overall preservation and presentation policy, whereas for Landmark Trust the preservation and rental feature is more central. Without stretching too much, this can be seen more as what can we offer (English Heritage) rather than this is what we are going to offer (The Landmark Trust). The Landmark Trusts acceptance and development of its branding requirements reflects the unique nature of its charity work. In

11

order to succeed, the visitor/guest needs to immediately understand and recognize where they are and with whom they are staying. Even though The Landmark Trust is a charity, it is operating within a much wider hospitality network and needs to compete in a similar manner, at least from the standpoint of marketing an image or perception of a stay to a perspective visitor. Once booked and checked-in, the visitor/guests expectations must be fulfilled or the first visit will be the only visit. This expectation of results should not be confused with a rejection of the experience, which is not the same thing as unfulfilled expectations. It is a question of fit of experience, not necessarily a question of quality of experience. English Heritage, with its emphasis on the preservation and presentation of historic sites, acts more as a far flung museum with diverse holdings from Stonehenge in Wiltshire to a Cold War Command Center in Yorkshire, than it does as an accommodation agency. The need to create brand identification for a vacation rental does not rise to the level it must with Landmark Trust. The visitor/guest to English Heritages rental selection is choosing it as an additional feature to an existing perception of the institution. As such, the need to centralize the operation is not as paramount as it is with The Landmark Trust. Control rests with the regional offices and the emphasis is on modern comfort, and the amenities that go with that life (i.e. television and telephone service). With only sixteen properties throughout England (English Heritage website), the non-centralized nature of this undertaking may make sense, but if this section of the offerings grows, then English Heritages approach can develop its own problems, such as replacement of furnishings, a regular maintenance schedule, etc., and a more centralized operation may be needed to control a far-flung property portfolio.

12

By adapting The Landmark Trusts existing model of historic preservation/rental, English Heritage moves the rental away from a free standing building in a picturesque setting to a rental in a historic setting. Although still part of a package, the emphasis shifts from the building as the object of desire to the building forming part of the object of desire, illustrating the differences between the two models in their approach to the scale of involvement: estate versus house. The guest of The Landmark Trust preserve a house through use, while the guest of English Heritage helps to preserve a building within a setting, which may be a building attached to historic gardens, such as the Pool House at Witley Court, Yorkshire or a group of buildings such as Mount Grace Priory. English Heritage focuses on the conversion of existing properties, eliminating the need to tender offers from outside sources and freeing staff time for existing property development. The culling of properties still exists, but English Heritage minimizes the years that The Landmark Trust devotes to vetting new properties by working with what it has rather than what it offers. Certainly, it helps English Heritage that it has a substantial catalog of buildings and estates, but it also needs to maintain these holdings while not in use, Mount Grace Priory is an example of the scope of maintaining an entire estate. This is not the case for Landmark Trust, which only maintains what it rents. The emphasis on conversion of underused properties by English Heritage rather than properties of character by The Landmark Trust helps to diminish the need to brand for English Heritage that otherwise drives The Landmark Trust model of historic vacation rental. The property development of English Heritage forms part of an existing historic package or framework. The object of the rental is to help preserve and use otherwise dormant buildings, but an additional attraction for the guest is the ability to stay in the museum or historic setting afterhours. While this is the primary model for English Heritage, The Landmark Trust uses this

13

model as well with such properties as Hill House in Helensburgh, Scotland, and Fish Court, a former grace and favor apartment, at Hampton Court Palace, England, allowing guests some afterhours site access. The ability to temporarily reside in an historic setting can provide a more relaxed and perhaps fuller appreciation of the surroundings. The visitor may have the leisure to experience more than would occur during a ticket visit. Other Senses An unforeseen aspect of this inquiry into use of space was the way in which the visitor becomes part of the space and how this affects the senses. The use of historic properties for vacation rental was the basis of my masters thesis. My wife and I stayed at two of the The Landmark Trust properties, the first time, 43 Cloth Fair, London, as part of the research into The Landmark Trust and the second time--Cawood Castle, York, England, after graduation and the first non-working vacation in several years.

14

St. Bartholomew the Great, London http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Bartholomew_the_great_churchyard.JPG

The London property mentioned earlier is located in the Smithfield section of the city. It sits across the road from St. Bartholomews Church (12th Century), and an alleyway separates it from its next-door neighbor, a building purported to be a survivor of the fire of 1666. The first floor is commercial and the top two floors are residential. The building is an example of an eighteenth-century, mixed-use, urban building. This area of London, although much altered by the Second World War and the subsequent rebuilding, retains some of the footprint of the old City with a warren of narrow meandering roads. Relatively speaking, this is an old urban area with an established commercial, rather than residential, footprint, congested during the workweek and

15

nearly deserted on the weekend--much like the financial districts of any city. The unforeseen sensory event of this site was the scheduled, but not weekly, ringing of the bells. Although we stayed across the street from one church and passed several every day on our walks, including St. Pauls Cathedral, we never expected what greeted us on Saturday eveninga traveling clarion. We elected to use buses on this particular trip and on Saturday evening, laden with groceries, we disembarked from a bus at the St. Pauls stop. We were immediately struck with sound of the bells from St. Vedast Foster Lane and, as it happened, the bells of St Bartholomew-the-Great. It really was a shock, as the force of the peals bounced from all the hard surfaces of the city--stone, brick, cement, and glass--then into us. Bells had been ringing for centuries in this location and as we walked back to the apartment, the sound modified as one set of bells began to over take the other. As the road meandered, the clarity of the peel determined our proximity to the center of the parish, and the rigidity of the perceived map became fuzzy. When we reached the apartment, I lingered in the alley by the apartment door. St. Barts bell tower was across the street from me, and the reverberation of the great bell went through me in waves. The sound of the bell passed through me as it had through countless inhabitants of this section of London for hundreds of years, and the thought that came to mind as I stood there that Saturday evening was that understanding the continuity of history may hinge on more than words. Cawood Castle is located in Cawood, England about 15 miles south of York. At one time, it was a country residence of the Archbishop of York, but over time, the castle has dwindled to a gatehouse with an attached hall to one side and a substantial eighteenth-century house to the other side. The hall is an empty two-story shell and used for village ftes, while the gatehouse is three stories tall with the two-story living quarters located over the ground level castle entrance.

16

Modern conveniences were sandwiched between the gatehouse and its eighteenth-century neighbor. Access to the second floor and living quarters is via a wide staircase, constructed

The stairwell with a rope banister (authors photo)

to convert the gatehouse into a local court building during the eighteenth-century. Once in the living quarters, accessing the top floor, roof and bathrooms is by way of the medieval circular stone stairs. The diameter of this staircase is approximately 7 feet and with a central spine, creating a very tight and steep set of stairs. Secured at the top of the stairs, a rope banister freely drops to the ground and provides the only means of hand support. The staircase comprises three stories, but electric light only exists between the top two floors. During daylight hours, several glazed wall slits provide more light, allowing use of the entire staircase. We stayed at Cawood

17

A view of a slit window lighting the staircase (authors photo)

during the winter, and at the beginning of the stay this staircase proved daunting, as the treads were narrow, the banister, if used, moved with every step of the climb or descent, and the landings in front of doors seemed more of an after thought than a design component.

18

Two landings on the stairwell (authors photo)

However, by the end of the stay the stairs were not a challenge, as we adapted how we moved from large heated living spaces to a narrow, dark, cold stairway. While not earth shattering, it did provide a glimpse into movement, which became apparent at the end of our trip when we climbed the tower at York Cathedral. The scale was slightly different, but the requirements were the same, as were design elements such as slit windows and modified landings for rest and the passage of faster climbers. The repetitive use of the staircase turned into a lesson on movement and space from an earlier period. Staying in both buildings allowed us to slacken

19

our pace and inhabit the space. At each site, The Landmark Trust provides a small well-stocked library allowing visitors to investigate the history of their buildings and surrounding environment.

Does It Work? From the standpoint of the UK experience, the question as to whether or not the vacation rental scheme works, would seem to be, yes it does. Given the level of government involvement in other aspects of British life, one of the more successful preservation groups, based on its survival and growth over a fifty-year span, is the nonprofit The Landmark Trust. The origins of the Trust began with the preservation of the obscure, the unwanted, the utilitarian, and the oddity. The Landmark Trust provides an example of reacting to a perceived loss of history by moving beyond the confines of conventional thinking. The Landmark Trust began to preserve the odd structures: farmsteads, follies, and small houses seen at the time as unimportant either to the historic record or, aside from living history museums, museums in general. In the past, museums collected the interiors, and even the edifices of the important and the historically well-placed building. The collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston contain important American interiors, while the Victorian and Albert Museum in London displays an important sixteenth century London faade. Historic preservation for art museum depends on scale as much as any other criteria, and not without reason; one building can only hold a building or room of smaller scale than its galleries. The preservation of a historic building presents perpetual challenges to the budget and programs of museums that are almost organic in nature and reminiscent of the upkeep faced by zoos and botanical gardens. Time does not stand still to the onslaught of nature. Most museums have limited budgets that preclude spending money on the upkeep of property of dubious worth and without some

20

meaningful purpose; these superfluous buildings begin the spiral of decay. Daniel Cruickshank, a leading British historian and preservationist, noted in a recent interview, No house, unless it has a sound use, is ever truly safe (Wright 77). It seems odd that given the success rate of historic vacation rentals in the UK, that the same market in the US is almost nonexistent. The Landmark Trust did initiate a program in Vermont in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but that program devolved from them by the early 2000s, and after twenty years developed only four properties in a thirty-mile geographic spread. While a laudable effort, it appears to have a regional outlook, and provides scant influence on the growth of the system in this country. Colonial Williamsburg operates hotels as a means of hosting visitors and even its historic house rentals are extensions of its hotel network, with all the services and the restrictions of a hotel (Williamsburg Accommodation website). It seems that the UK import that succeeded best was the Bed and Breakfast (B&B), an experience that provides the charm of staying in the hosts house with the comforts of limited hotel service. However, from a service standpoint the host is more of an innkeeper than they are a householder renting a bedroom for a night or two. The preparation of a daily breakfast and housekeeping duties is an investment in labor, which may partially explain the growth of private bed and breakfasts in historic areas as opposed to the development of this mode of accommodation by museums. Beyond the scope of this paper, an area for future research may be that of the seasonal lodge system provided by the National Park Service. The examples of The Landmark Trusts slow, but steady growth of historic preservation, renovation, and accommodation provides a working model to other nonprofit organizations. Undeniably, this example began with a consistent and steady cash flow, which most organizations may not have. However, the example of success in the field only helps to establish the credibility

21

of the concept, both from an implementation and from a fiscal standpoint. The careful selection of historic property for accommodation purposes requires market analysis and understanding. By paying attention to these details, The Landmark Trust ensures that its branding enhances and links to its mission, creating a viable niche market. English Heritage takes this concept one step further with its model of the bolt on vacation rental to its holdings. By developing buildings that are already in its portfolio, the rental scheme enhances the visitors experience and adds to the cash flow of the organization. Both organizations developed their vacation rental schemes over a large geographic area as befits the intent and holdings of the organizations. That said, both models show how existing structures can be used by other museums to create vacation rentals. The Landmark Trusts Hill House in Scotland provides the example of a historic house museum that allows vacation rental of a portion of its rooms, and by doing so provides the public with an opportunity to immerse itself in the authentic work of an iconic world class architect. English Heritage demonstrates the use of auxiliary buildings for vacation rental purposes, and in so doing preserves structures that required upkeep but no useful outcome. The research into using museum space in this manner resulted from a question posed in a private conversation several years ago, which was how to use dormant museum buildings to the publics and the museums benefit. Initial research explored some of the traditional uses of fallow museum space, such as concerts, meetings, and special events, but those solutions made use of the space for a limited amount of time. After the conversation, several thoughts came to mind: the visitor surveys that spoke to the publics desire for a more immersive experience, the declining attendance figures for some museums, and at the time the construction of new housing at the expense of historic housing. The notion of staying overnight in a museum seemed to provide one model for this question of how to better use dormant museum space. The UK

22

provides successful examples of one type of accommodation model, that of the vacation rental, as opposed to the traditional housekeeper, innkeeper, or hotelkeeper model. Additionally, it presents a model of vacation that is historically American, e.g., the weekly or weekend house rental at the ocean, on the lake, or in the mountains, that forms the basis of many family seasons and memories. The ability to stay on the museum grounds and in a museum property engages the museum visitor in a fundamentally different way than any other museum program. Some of the authenticity of the experience involves the sensory relationship of the visitor to the building. The authenticity of the architecture and setting provides the immersion of the present with the past. The sound of a creaking floor, slightly askew doors, windows and rooms of an older scale, the smell of old plaster and wood, and the surrounding sensory environment can add to an appreciation of the site beyond the traditionally supplied details. Decidedly atmospheric, but not necessarily theatrical or inauthentic, it may help answer part of the call for an immersive experience. The tactile senses help visitors navigate existing sites; enhancing this experience may provide visitors with further insight. Certainly, this is not a panacea for the question of what to do with dormant museum space, but rather it may be a starting point to an answer. The model works in the UK; the model has worked for over a century in family vacation destinations in the US. The UK models of The Landmark Trust and English Heritage provide examples of established nonprofits working within the confines of their missions, and with the active engagement of their staffs, to preserve for and allow the use by the public of historic houses for vacation rentals. The question of viability for US museums rests on the ability and desire of these organizations to underwrite historic rental conversion as means of historic preservation of its buildings, and at the same time engage the pubic in a different manner.

23

Bibliography http://www.aam-us.org/aboutmuseums/abc.cfm (2/19/2011) Website. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/h121-04-1.pdf , These Old Houses (1/24/2011) Website. http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt (1/24/2011) Website. http://www.colonialwilliamsburgresort.com/hotels/deluxe/colonialhouses (12/7/2009) Website. www.english-heritage.org#90398F (2/26/2011) Website. Landmark Trust Handbook, Shottesbrook, Maidenhead, Berkshire: Landmark Trust, 1972. Print Landmark Trust Handbook, Shottesbrook, Maidenhead, Berkshire: Landmark Trust, 2009. Print. http://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/ (12/07/2009) http://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/pdf/autumn_newsletter_2007.pdf (2/19/2011) Website. Pearce Peter, Director of Landmark trust talk Dec 4-5, 1998 symposium. http://www.philaathenaeum.org/hmuseum/pearce.htm (2/19/2011) Website. Pemberton Mark, Head of the National Collections Group, English Heritage. Email Interview, February-March 2011. Pogrebin Robin Small Town, Big Word, Major Issue. December 27, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/arts/design/28librarian.html?_r=1 (1/20/2011) Website. Reach Advisors. Authentic Respite from an Unreal World: The Resonance of Outdoor History Museums. April 2008. Print and PDF. Reach Advisors. Connecticut Cultural Consumers Study, Executive Summary, February 2009. Print. Stanford Caroline, Historian of Landmark Trust Interviewed on Wednesday February 9, 2011 in Oxford, UK. SzntAndrs. http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Will-US-museums-succeed-inreinventing-themselves?%20/20030 (1/20/2011) Website. Wright, Jonathan. Country House Revealed. BBC History Magazine. 12.5 (2011) 77. Print.

24