HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-26 Public Comment - E. Darrow - Bozeman & Historic Preservation_ Comparisons Matter!From:Elizabeth Darrow
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Joey Morrison; Douglas Fischer; Jennifer Madgic; Alison Sweeney; Emma Bode
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Bozeman & Historic Preservation: Comparisons Matter!
Date:Thursday, May 7, 2026 11:56:06 AM
Attachments:Comparison Charleston vs Bozeman Summary.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings Mayor, Morrison Deputy Mayor Fischer and City Commissoners Madgic,
Sweeney & Bode:
Please make sure my comment and comparison goes to the Lakota Group
Consultants and the NCOD Design Gudelines Project as well. Comparison is a
primary teaching tool in art history or most any situation where choices and or
decisions must be made. It also one of the most useful tools for understanding citiesand their approach to historic preservation because it allows us to look more deeplyat how different communities respond to growth, change, and cultural identity over
time. Comparing Charleston and Bozeman reveals not only differences in
architecture and preservation policy, and unique history of place but also largercivic values about stewardship, memory, and development. Both cities haveexperienced intense economic and growth pressures, yet their approaches to
protecting historic character have produced very different visual and social results.
By studying these differences closely, we can better understand how preservation
policies shape the identity, continuity, and livability of a city. Both cities have facedintense growth pressures, yet their decisions about protecting historic character have
led to very different visual and social outcomes. Such comparisons help us
understand that preservation policy is not merely about buildings, but about
safeguarding the continuity, identity, and livability of a community. My morecomplete analysis- some based on my in-depth "interview" with AI, is included in
document attached.
here
Whether historic character is treated as a public asset or as expendable real
estate.
The presence—or absence—of strong historic district protections and design
review.How zoning policy balances growth with neighborhood continuity and human
scale.
Whether preservation is embedded in civic institutions, planning, and public
process.The treatment of older buildings, mature trees, walkability, and vernacular
architecture.
Whether economic growth is guided to support local identity or allowed to
overwhelm it.How development pressures affect affordability, displacement, and long-term
residents.
Whether citizens feel represented in planning decisions or increasingly
overrun by speculative interests.Recognition that preservation is not anti-growth, but a form of long-term
stewardship.
Understanding that once historic fabric and scale are lost, they are often
impossible to recover.Ultimately, the deeper question raised by this comparison is: What is a city
for? Is it primarily a commodity for continual redevelopment and extraction of
value, or is it a civic inheritance held in trust between generations?
Thank you, Elizabeth Darrow
1
• Comment: Elizabeth Darrow Ph.D. Professor Emerita in Art History Cornish College of Arts @ Seattle University
The comparison between Bozeman and Charleston is revealing because both are highly desirable historic places under intense development pressure—yet they have responded very differently to growth, preservation, and civic identity. Charleston is often considered one of the most influential preservation
success stories in the United States. Bozeman, by contrast, increasingly reflects the tensions and failures of a rapidly transforming “New West” city struggling to reconcile speculative growth with protection of place.
Charleston: Preservation as Civic Identity
Charleston made preservation part of city governance almost a century ago. In 1931, it adopted the nation’s first historic zoning ordinance and created the first Board of Architectural Review to oversee
demolitions, alterations, and new construction in historic areas. (Preservation Society of Charleston)
What is significant is not merely that Charleston preserved individual landmarks, but that it recognized entire neighborhoods, streetscapes, and urban character as cultural assets worth defending. Preservation
became embedded in law, planning, tourism, education, and civic identity.
The city also built powerful civic institutions around preservation, including the Preservation Society of Charleston and Historic Charleston Foundation, which have consistently challenged incompatible development and argued that economic growth should serve the city’s historic character—not erase it. (Wikipedia)
Charleston certainly has not “solved” growth pressures. It struggles with:
1. luxury tourism, rising housing costs, gentrification, displacement of longtime residents commercialization of historic districts,
2. and tensions between authenticity and economic exploitation. (Preservation Society of Charleston)
Charleston: Despite those contradictions, Charleston still broadly operates from the premise that historic character is an irreplaceable public good.
1. The underlying question there tends to be: “How do we grow without destroying what makes Charleston "Charleston?”
2. That framing matters enormously.
Bozeman: Growth as Manifest Destiny
In Bozeman, growth has often been treated less as something to manage carefully and more as an
inevitability to accommodate and accelerate an inheritance of the westward expansion of the US. Bozeman’s explosive expansion over the last two decades—especially post-COVID—has transformed the city economically, socially, and physically.
Bozeman lacks:
1. A deeply entrenched preservation culture, strong historic district protections at comparable scale,
2. longstanding architectural review traditions, and politically powerful preservation institutions.
3. As a result, preservation debates in Bozeman are often framed as obstacles to: density,
4. affordability, investment, or “progress.”
2
This creates a recurring pattern:
1. older buildings viewed as expendable,
2. historic neighborhoods treated as underutilized real estate,
3. zoning rewritten to maximize development potential,
4. and local memory subordinated to speculative economics.
5. The irony, of course, is that Bozeman’s desirability depends heavily on the very qualities now
being erased: human scale, historic fabric, continuity,walkability,vernacular architecture, mature trees. Recent commentary has increasingly described Bozeman as risking “loss of historic memory” or where the market value of place overwhelms the lived meaning of place.
(Yellostonian)
The Deeper Difference: What Each City Thinks a City Is For: greatest contrast may not be architectural but philosophical.
• Charleston—despite its flaws—largely treats preservation as a public responsibility and an economic asset tied to civic continuity.
• Bozeman increasingly treats land primarily as an economic commodity.
• Charleston asks: “How do we protect inherited character while allowing change?”
• Bozeman often asks: “How do we remove barriers to maximize growth?”
That difference shapes everything and whether citizens feel represented or dismissed.
Bozeman: Zoning, DBN demolition process, developer access to Commission, public process, neighborhood protections vague, design standards are ignored or criticized.
Charleston demonstrates several things Bozeman has yet to fully embrace. Historic preservation is not anti-growth. Charleston remains economically vibrant while maintaining strict oversight of historic areas. Preservation can coexist with prosperity.
• Strong design review matters
o Once demolition and incompatible scale become normalized, a city loses coherence quickly and often irreversibly.
• Sense of place has economic value
o Tourism, civic pride, and long-term desirability are tied to authenticity—not interchangeable luxury development.
• Preservation requires institutions
o Charleston built organizations, ordinances, and review boards over generations. Preservation survives because it became structural, not merely sentimental.
• Citizens must remain engaged constantly
o Both cities show that development pressure never disappears. Preservation is an ongoing democratic struggle, not a one-time victory.
Where Charleston Also Serves as a Warning Charleston is not simply a success story—it is also a cautionary tale.
• The city preserved architecture more successfully than affordability or social equity. Tourism and wealth transformed parts of Charleston into curated landscapes increasingly inaccessible to many longtime residents. (Wikipedia)
• That warning is highly relevant to Bozeman: preserving buildings alone is not enough if a community loses the people, culture, and economic diversity that gave those places meaning.
3
Conclusion In many ways, Charleston represents what happens when preservation becomes institutionalized early. Bozeman represents what happens when explosive speculative growth arrives before a strong preservation ethic is fully established. One city largely decided its history was a civic inheritance. The other is still deciding whether history is an asset to steward—or an obstacle to redevelopment.