USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An urban model of applied preservation

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An urban model of applied preservation
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Butler, David Stewart Barksdale
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anthropology
Archaeology
Urban anthropology
Urban archaeology
Applied anthropology
Historic preservation
Advocacy
Action research
Dissertations, Academic -- Applied Anthropology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This research prioritized the identification and retention of African American cultural heritage in the face of dramatic landscape alteration associated with comprehensive redevelopment. As an approach aimed at providing the most comprehensive understanding of cultural phenomenon, the holistic tradition applied by anthropology asserts that it is productive to identify and apply as many sources of data toward engaging research as is possible. Consistent with this goal, this study applied several categories of data toward investigating material symbols of African American cultural heritage in Tampa, Florida. The holistic anthropological approach demonstrated the relevance and complementarity of research documenting cultural heritage and its relationship to Tampa's contemporary urban landscape, urban archaeology, participatory research, anthropological advocacy, and historic designation and preservation research in a community threatened by large-scale redevelopment.Tampa represented a fruitful context for this research because for the second time in less than forty years, the urban landscape historically associated with African Americans in Tampa is slated to be impacted by wide-ranging demolition resulting from the actions of city and county planners. This research is particularly important in Tampa because urban policy carried out in this area of Tampa during the 1970's eradicated the vast majority of physical reminders of the African American cultural heritage in Tampa. This research proposes that even in the face of dramatic demolition resulting in comprehensive change in urban landscapes, anthropologists have an obligation to prioritize material symbols of cultural heritage which in this context represent enduring evidence of African American cultural heritage in Tampa.Collectively the components of this study represent an anthropological model defined as an Urban Model of Applied Preservation (UMAP) designed to facilitate the anthropological engagement of evolving relationships between urban spaces and their cultural associations with urban populations. This model clarifies a set of complementary methods that might be applied toward investigation prioritizing the effects of urban change on cultural heritage.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by David Stewart Barksdale Butler.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 155 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001920060
oclc - 187086844
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002093
usfldc handle - e14.2093
System ID:
SFS0026411:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

An Urban Model of Applied Preservation by David Stewart Barksdale Butler A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Susan Greenbaum, Ph.D. Brent Weisman, Ph.D. Antionnette Jackson, Ph.D. Bob Brinkmann, Ph.D. Barbara Shircliffe, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 26, 2007 Keywords: applied anthropology, urban an thropology, urban archaeology, advocacy, action research, historic preservation Copyright 2007, David Stewart Barksdale Butler

PAGE 2

i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. ....iii List of Figures....................................................................................................................iv Abstract....................................................................................................................... .........v Chapter One: Introduction...................................................................................................1 Historical Context of the Study Ar ea: Historic Change and African American Education............................................................................................8 Tampa History and African American Education.................................................13 Chapter Two: Urban Landscape Change: Considering the Practice of Urban Archaeology Through the Lens of Perry Harvey Park..................................................22 Urban Archaeology and UMAP.............................................................................22 What is Urban Archaeology?.................................................................................23 The Temporal Context of Urban Archaeology in U.S. Cities................................23 Categories of Urban Archaeo logical Evidence Considered...................................27 Urban Archaeological Practi ce at Perry Harvey Park............................................29 Local Informants and Urban Archaeology............................................................33 Urban Archaeology and the Holistic Approach.....................................................34 Chapter Three: Investigating Material Sy mbols of African American Culture and Heritage in Tampa, Florida A Case Study 37 Cultural Heritage and the Urban Landscape 38 Temporal Context and Representati on of African American Cultural Heritage Sites 40 Urban Renewal and Altered Landscapes 45 Gentrification and Urban Change 51 Cultural Heritage and Historic Designation 54 Historic Designation Vers us Historic Preservation: the Tampa Case Study 61 Evolving Urban Landscapes Considered 65 Urban Change and Equitable Histor ical Representation Considered 70 Chapter Four: Taking a Stand . Pr ioritizing Meacham Elementary through Practice: Anthropological Advocacy, Participatory Action Research, and Historic Designation .....................................................................................................76 Anthropological Advocacy and Ethics..................................................................76 Advocacy and Action Oriented Anthropological Practice.....................................80 Participatory Action Research...............................................................................83

PAGE 3

ii Action Research and African Ameri can Cultural Heritage in Tampa...................84 The Historic Status of Cultural Heritage: Justifying State and Federal Recognition of Meacham Elementary...............................................................88 Chapter Five: Lessons Learned: Contested Urban Space and Cultural Heritage............111 An Urban Model of Applied Preservation...........................................................119 Summarizing the Proposed Model.......................................................................123 References........................................................................................................................131 Appendices.......................................................................................................................145 Appendix A: Summary Descriptions of Historic Districts in Tampa..................146 Appendix B: City of Tampa Local Historic Landmarks......................................148 Appendix C: City of Tampa Local Historic Districts..........................................151 Appendix D: National Register of Historic Places Sites in Tampa.....................152 Appendix E: National Register of Historic Places Districts in Tampa................155 About the Author...................................................................................................End Page

PAGE 4

iii List of Tables Table 1. National Register of Historic Places Areas of Significance 57 Table 2. Ethnic Affiliation as I ndicated on Florida State Historic Structure Forms 74

PAGE 5

iv List of Figures Figure 1. State of Florida Depi cting Study Location 1 Figure 2. Aerial Image Depicting Local Context of Study 6 Figure 3. Harlem Academy Class Photo with Christina Meacham 7 Figure 4. Street Map Depicting M eacham Elementary Location 13 Figure 5. Aerial Image Depicting Meacham Elementary and Perry Harvey Park Indicating Locations Relative to Interstate 275, Tampas Downtown Business District, and Ybor City 77 Figure 6. Representative Photo of Meacham Elementary Advocacy Group 85 Figure 7. Meacham Elementary 88 Figure 8. Streetscape: Looking Ea st on May Street 89 Figure 9. Topographic Map Depicting Meacham Elementary Location 92

PAGE 6

v An Urban Model of Applied Preservation David Stewart Barksdale Butler ABSTRACT This research prioritized the identifica tion and retention of African American cultural heritage in the f ace of dramatic landscape alteration associated with comprehensive redevelopment. As an approach aimed at providing the most comprehensive understanding of cultural phe nomenon, the holistic tradition applied by anthropology asserts that it is productive to identify and apply as many sources of data toward engaging research as is possible. C onsistent with this goa l, this study applied several categories of data toward investiga ting material symbols of African American cultural heritage in Tampa, Fl orida. The holistic anthropol ogical approach demonstrated the relevance and complementarity of resear ch documenting cultural heritage and its relationship to Tampas contemporary urban la ndscape, urban archaeology, participatory research, anthropological advocacy, and historic designation and preservation research in a community threatened by large-scale redevelopment. Tampa represented a fruitful context for this research because for the second time in less than forty years, the urban lands cape historically associated with African Americans in Tampa is slated to be imp acted by wide-ranging demolition resulting from the actions of city and county planners. This research is particularly important in Tampa because urban policy carried out in this ar ea of Tampa during the 1970s eradicated the

PAGE 7

vi vast majority of physical reminders of the Af rican American cultural heritage in Tampa. This research proposes that even in the face of dramatic demolition resulting in comprehensive change in urban landscapes anthropologists have an obligation to prioritize material symbols of cultural herita ge which in this cont ext represent enduring evidence of African American cultural heritage in Tampa. Collectively the components of this study represent an an thropological model defined as an Urban Model of Applied Preservation (UMAP) designed to facilitate th e anthropological enga gement of evolving relationships between urban sp aces and their cultural associat ions with urban populations. This model clarifies a set of complementar y methods that might be applied toward investigation prioritizing the effects of urban change on cultural heritage.

PAGE 8

Chapter One: Introduction This study clarifies a set of compleme ntary methods utilized to investigate historical and contemporary trends in urba n landscape alteration potentially affecting cultural heritage preservation and representation. Consequently, a model was Figure 1. State of Florid a Depicting Study Location developed as a framework clarifying this approach. This model (outlined in chapter five) was formalized as an Urban Model of A pplied Preservation (UMAP) intended to be applied at the city level to augment the an thropological analysis of cultural heritage retention and suppression through time and across urban space. This research facilitated the formation of this model which identified and utilized research stra tegies such as urban archaeology (as a method app lied toward recovering and an alyzing material evidence) 1

PAGE 9

2 and urban anthropology (including anthropologic al advocacy) facilitating the application of action research linked with historic designation initiatives. Likewise, this research investigated federal and state policies affecting urba n locales in the U.S. such as Urban Renewal and segregation of public spaces and facilities (especially schools) along with the residual effects of these policies on cultural heritage re presentation. This research recounts the application of this model in Tampa, Florida. An initial assessment of trends in historic designation in the State of Flor ida conducted as a component of this study demonstrates that this model might be modifi ed to account for broader scale analysis and be applied toward statewide, regional, intra -regional, national, and international studies seeking to identify and compar e trends in effects of urban landscape change on cultural heritage representation and preservation. It is my hope that this research will motiv ate others to question the residual effects of urban change on the historical and contem porary representation of urban space. This research sought to identify and apply research strategies that might facilitate a model for clarifying the anthr opological study of such poten tial effects on dynamic urban environments. Consequently, this study a ddresses the question: To what extent does alteration of the urban landscape effect cultur al heritage and how might anthropologists engage this process and evaluate the magnitude of its effect? As an approach aimed at providing the most comprehensive understanding of cultural phenomena, the holisti c tradition applied by anthr opology asserts that it is productive to identify and apply as many sources of data toward enga ging research as is possible. Consistent with this goal, this st udy applied several categories of data toward investigating material symbols of African American cultural heritage in Tampa, Florida.

PAGE 10

3 The holistic anthropological ap proach demonstrated the relevance and complementarity of research documenting cultural heritage a nd its relationship to Tampas contemporary urban landscape, urban archaeology, particip atory action researc h, anthropological advocacy, and historic designation and preserva tion research in a community threatened by large-scale redevelopment. Tampa represen ted a fruitful contex t for this research because for the second time in less than forty years, a considerable portion of the urban landscape historically associated with African Americans in this city is slated to be impacted by wide-ranging demolition resulting from the actions of city and county planners. This research is particularly im portant in Tampa because urban policy carried out in this area of Tampa dur ing the 1960s and 1 970s eradicated the vast majority of physical reminders of the historic African American Central Avenue community. This research proposes that even in the face of dramatic demolition resulting in comprehensive change in urban landscapes anthropologists have an obligation to prioritize material symbols of cultural herita ge which in this cont ext represent enduring evidence of African American cu ltural heritage in Tampa. The investigation of twentieth century Urban Renewal projects in Tampa indicates that the City ha s pursued consistent priorities over the last five decades. Further, this analysis reveals that the twenty first century redevelopment plan aff ecting the last vestiges of the principle community with a tertiary historical connection to African Amer icans in Tampa indicates that not much has changed. For example, contemporary planners assert that the redevelopment plan will provide a new gateway into Tampa supposed ly improving the viabil ity of its downtown business district and the economic potential of the Ybor City tourist district. Not unlike the Maryland Avenue Tampa Urban Renewal pr oject of the late 1950 s, this project will

PAGE 11

4 link a consolidated business distri ct with Ybor City (the Citys primary tourist district). Likewise, this plan is consistent with the Riverfront Tampa Urban Renewal project of the early 1960s because it seeks to eliminate a substandard area of Tampa and consolidate business districts thereby providi ng direct Interstate access. This is evidenced by the fact that the current Central Park Community Redevelopment Area Plan (WilsonMiller, Inc. and the Hillsborough County City-County Pl anning Commission:2006) calls for a six lane thoroughfare improving access to I 275 to be constructed right through the center of the Central Park Village neighborhood (which contains Meacham Elementary). This research represented a unique a pproach to the anthropological study of cultural heritage and urban landscape change. Often in an urban context the work of applied anthropologists, archaeo logists, and historic preser vationists is disconnected. Even though researchers with these specialties may investig ate the same urban spaces, they rarely serve corresponding roles. Generall y, historic preservationists interact with city and county political entities rather than community memb ers. Unfortunately, as this study demonstrates, this can lead to their rese arch serving the interests of urban planners rather than the communities their decisions affect. Urban anthropologists on the other hand, typically work with living communities and conduct research that results in or augments ethnographic data. Urban archaeo logists investigate material remains representative of a citys past and the results of their research is all too often disconnected from contemporary populations. This study demonstrated the utility of applying this research as a means of directly connecting material evidence sy mbolizing the past with contemporary populations. Consequently, these categories of evidence served complementary roles

PAGE 12

5 connecting contemporary populations with materi al symbols of their past. For example, ethnographic data has the potential to conn ect individuals and groups with cultural heritage while urban archaeology and historic preservation prioritize material symbols and provide tangible evidence documenting th at connection. The current research demonstrated that urban anthropology, urban archaeology, and historic preservation efforts can generate complementary forms of evidence connecting cultural heritage with contemporary urban landscapes. These research strategies were applied toward the study of two components of the urban landscape in Tampa. The symbols of cultural heritage directly engaged by this research include Perry Harvey Park (the site of the 2003 excavation discussed in chapter two) and Meacham Elementary school (the focus of preservation efforts and community action disc ussed in chapters thre e and four). These symbols of urban cultural heritage currently ma nifest as complementary sources of data. The park represents a historic archaeol ogical site rich with material evidence demonstrating the African American occupation of this urban space. Meacham Elementary represents a standing structure that symbolizes the cultural heritage of African Americans in Tampa. The school was constructed in 1926 and originally was referred to as the India Street School; was renamed Meacham Elementary in 1927 following the death of Christina Meacham, Tampas earliest black female principal.

PAGE 13

Figure 2. Aerial Image Depicting Local Context of Study 6

PAGE 14

Christina Meacham (1865-1927) worked in Tampa as a teacher and then in 1914, became the first African American woman principal of a Tampa school-Harlem Academy. Mrs. Tina taught schoolchildren for 40 years. As a leader, she Spurred the growth and development of the Hillsborough County and Florida Negro Teacher s AssociationsChristina Meacham was married to Robert A. Meacham, Jr. Today, Meacham school in Tampa is named in her honor; thousands of Children in Tampa owe much of their education to Mrs. Tina. (Hillsborough County Schools et al. 2006:2). Figure 3. Harlem Academy Class Photo With Christina Meacham Harlem Academy class photo from the 1920s: Christina Meacham is in the back row on the right. St. Petersburg Times Online 2007:http://www. sptimes/2007/01/26/Floridian/Living_history.shtml Despite the long standing hi storical connection with th e community, this schools significance became jeopardized since it is lo cated directly in the center of a multimillion dollar construction project that threat ens to demolish all out dated buildings not incorporated into this proce ss of urban change. Conseque ntly, the school was the center of a conflict in which I found myself involved for over three years. Entities engaged in 7

PAGE 15

8 this conflict over the historic status and the future of the school have included myself, the community surrounding the school, other suppo rtive African American residents of Tampa, and the family of Christina Meacham on one side, and various county and city entities such as the Tampa Housing Aut hority, Hillsborough County Schools, The Tampa Preservation Office, and The Tampa Histor ic Preservation Commission on the other. Resistance against those who devalued this symbol of cultural heritage manifested as a collaborative effort. I applied a variety of methods toward this research serving as an archaeologist (I am certified as a Register ed Professional Archaeo logist; ROPA certified in 2001), an anthropological advocate and action researcher, a historic preservation expert, a Tampa History expert and a political ally. This effort was complemented by the support of Mary Alice Dors ett (civic leader and business owner whose son attended Meacham Elementary), the great granddaughter of Christina Meacham Arndreeta Harris, and her son William Jason Harris (Christina Meachams great great grandson). These individuals contributed signifi cantly to this effort by provi ding critical support at key meetings addressing the significance of the school to the history of the community and by mobilizing local support needed to bolster our position (discussed in chapter four). Historical Context of the St udy Area: Historic Change and African American Education During the eighteenth and early nineteenth century southern states enacted legislation making it a crime to teach Afri can Americans to read and write (Anderson 1988:2). Following an end to the Civil War, education for African Americans was legalized throughout the country and the R econstruction era saw an increase (although disproportionately small compared to those pr ovided for other Americans) in educational facilities. After the Civil War, local co mmunities were in no mood to provide funding

PAGE 16

9 for Black schools. Nevertheless, schools sprang up all over the South, reflecting the strong desire of African Americans to gain th e literacy skills that previously had been denied them(Curtis1996:15). According to Anderson (1988:18) and Sman (2002:196197) African Americans embraced this opportunity and viewed education as a means to overcome exploitation and become informed political participants. Addressing the significance of nineteenth century black schools in Tampa, Howard et al. (1994) assert: There were, of course, no educati onal facilities for Tampa blacks before 1860, and after the Civil War the ex-slave population resolved that its children would l earn to read and write. The evidence shows that the citys blacks bega n setting up their ow n schools in the 1870s and 1880s: Robles Pond, Harl em Academy, Mt. Zion Public School, as well as the Lomax and Rutledge Academy. These schools, along with the teachers and principals represented the African American communitys faith in education, and these nineteenth-century beginnings revealed that Tampa blacks embraced education as a concerted action designed to collectively elevate the race (Howard et al. 1994:6). Anderson (1988:19) explains th at by 1870 there were no southern states without funds specifically allocated for a public school sy stem that included public funding for African American education (Anderson 1988:19). Thus, after the Civil War, educational facilities for African Americans remained largely sepa rate from educational facilities for other Americans (Kluger:1976). This state of affairs was promoted by racist ideologies such as those clarified by state laws (especially the Jim Crow laws established in many southern states following an end to the reconstructi on era in 1877) specifying which public spaces catered to black as opposed to white popul ations specifically mandating separate educational facilities and ot her public accommodations. For example, the 1885 Florida State Constitution established separate schools for white and black children attending both public and private educational facilities in the State (2007: http://www.florida

PAGE 17

10 memory.com/Collections/Constitution/). In Tampa this policy was carried out and Howard et al. (1994) explain White aut horities deliberately demanded a segregated school system (Howard 1994:7). Likewise, Gr eenbaum (1998:3) asserts History in Tampas black community has followed a familiar pattern. Beginning in the early part of the century, Jim Crow segregation produced a highly insular enclave (Greenbaum 1998:3). This course of acti on was consistent with federa l policy justifying separate treatment for African Americans such as the result of the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court ruling which upheld the cons titutionality of racial segregation by maintaining that public accomm odations (this case addressed railroad systems as public transportation facilities) remain sep arate but equal (Fireside:2004). This study asserts that racist policies such as segreg ation impacted the spatial distribution of historic ethnic communities (particularly those established in the nineteenth century) in the U.S. The histor ic spatial distribution of ethnically distinct communities in Tampa demonstrates this phenomenon and the spatial distribution of properties designated as historic ally significant is consistent with this trend. The spatial distribution and historic pres ervation of Tampas larges t and oldest urban African American enclave is prioritized by this study. However, it is important not to overlook the fact that there were also historic Cuban (both black and white), and Italian populations in the city. African Americans have been prior itized by this study due to the disproportionate demolition of the urban la ndscape they historically occupied. The economics of real estate have systematic ally devalued black places in Tampa and elsewhere and made neighborhoods, houses, and institutions of black people highly vulnerable to demolition (Greenbaum 2002).

PAGE 18

11 The constitutionality of segregation was challenged by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 which determined that ed ucational integration would occur because separate facilities were inhere ntly unequal. This case clar ified the federal governments stance on this issue, however, the implementatio n of this policy was largely left to local school districts whose plans for desegregat ion were either voluntary, ordered and supervised by federal courts, or ordered a nd supervised by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). The implementation of this federal ma ndate was met with resistance by many southern states and it was not until the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which outlawed segregation in schools and public places) that momentum shifted toward comprehensive change (Kotz 2005). Walker (1996:3) explai ns Legally mandated separation continued into the 1940s and was not governmentally di smantled until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Walker 1996:3). Integration was promoted further by Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education which was argued in 1970 and decided in 1971. This Supreme Court case held that busing students to facilitate integration was constitutional and this decision forced southern states to in stitute busing promoting integrat ion. There was variation at the local level accounting for disparity in integration implementation in Florida. However, due to pressures from the fede ral government and the courts, by 1971, most Florida school districts were operating desegregation plans e ither by court order or under the supervision of HEW. Scholars (Greenbaum 2002:19, Howard et al., Klugh 2004:21) point to the fact that segr egated African American school s existed within the larger context of American education, however th ey point to the si gnificance of these educational facilities as mechanisms facilitating social connections.

PAGE 19

12 Pre-desegregation era black school s were a part of the larger institution of American educati on in which acceptable standards for curriculum, teaching-styles, student behavior, and most school-related activity, was defi ned by the dominant class of societythese schools developed as community institutions wherein community members could focus their collective energies toward a common goalwhere they could invest in each other and actively create palpable res ources to improve their lives (Greenbaum 2002:19). And becau se these were community institutions that everyone had a vest ed interest in, they reinforced the educational and communal values that allowed their constructionthus providing a locu s for further cultural, social, and symbolic capital development (Klugh 2004:21). Community intervention often led to these schools performing func tions outside their designed function such as after school chil dcare programs which were established at Meacham Elementary in Tampa to aid the surrounding community. As Tampa expanded north and east during the latter half of the ni neteenth century the Central Avenue African American business district and the Scrub (a historic residential African American enclave) were incorporated into the city. Within the city limits of Tampa, Meacham Elementary is located 1.5 miles northeast of the center of downt own and is only two blocks west of Nebraska Avenue which is a primary north-south thruway connecting downtown Tampa with its northern s uburbs (see Figure 4 below).

PAGE 20

Figure 4. Street Map Depicting Meacham Elementary Location Meacha m Elementar y N Mapquest, Inc 2007: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address& country=US&popflag=0&latitude=&longit ude=&name=&phone=&level=&addtohistor y=&cat=meacham+elementary&address=1225+ india+street&city=Tampa&state=FL Tampa History and African American Education By 1900, black residents comprised almo st 28 percent of the citys total population (Brown 1998, Colburn and Landers 1995:209, Howard et al. 1994, Mohlman 1995). The black community located nearest to downtown Tampa at the beginning of the twentieth century was known as the Scrub (which was named for the scrub palmettos that 13

PAGE 21

14 typified the area). When Ybor City was es tablished in 1886 just to the east and south of the Scrub, this black community found itsel f sandwiched between white Tampa on one side and the Latin village of Ybor City on the other (Gr eenbuam 2002). This spatially and ethnically distinct African American co mmunity persisted in this region of Tampa since the 1860s. The southeastern secti on of this neighborhood became the African American business district which was concen trated along historic Central Avenue in Tampa in the vicinity of the intersection of modern-day Nebraska Avenue and Interstate 4 (just east of the confluence of Interstate 4 and Interstate 275). These African American businesses, like many others in Tampa, enjoye d prosperity as a resu lt of the Florida boom of the 1920s. The majority of these enterprises were clustered in a district located at the intersection of Central Avenue and Scott St reet, just northeast of downtown Tampa. Black businesses such as the Central Theater, the Palace Drugstore, and the Tampa Bulletin Publishing Company once lined the streets however none of the independent blackowned businesses once found there still exist today (Weisman et al. 2004). Contemporary scholars (e.g. Brady 1998, Greenbaum 2002, 1998, Howard 1994, Saunders 2000) clarify the lack of historical documentation demonstrating the significance of the African Amer ican community in Tampa. Although scholars have examined the history of African Americans in numerous Southern and Florida cities, surprisingly little has been written about the black community of Tampa, one of the Souths most unique cities, well known fo r its Latin flavor, high quality Havana cigars and Cuban cuisine. During the early decades of the twentieth century, the energy and labor of Tampas African Americans contributed significantly to the towns dramatic growth into an important multicultural, urban ma nufacturing center (Howard 1994:1). Despite the oppressive social and political atmosphere of the Jim Crow South, in the early 20 th century, some African Americans in Tampa emerged as professionals,

PAGE 22

15 public servants, business people and business owners. By the mid-1910s, the African American community of Tampa had a subs tantial number of ci tizens that enjoyed sufficient income and social standing to sponsor educational, cultural and religious institutions aimed at enrich ing the lives of Tampas Afri can American children (Jones and McCarthy 1993). Teachers such as Christina Meacham (the first African American female principal in Hillsborough County and the namesake of Meacham Elementary) strove to improve the educational facilities a nd curriculum provided for black children in Tampa (Howard et al. 1994, Jones and McCarthy 1993:37-38). Relatively little public funding was made available by local or state governments for th e education of black children in Tampa and elsewhere (Shircliffe et al. 2006). Consequently, elementary school classes were often held in private homes, churches, and make-shift buildings, with books and other educational supplies being made available by black business men, church congregations, and African American social service organizations (Gree nbaum 2002:20). Mays et al. (1927: 53-56) clarified that in the early 1920s African American educational facilities in Tampa were typified by poor ventilation, insufficient black board space, poor seating, dark rooms, inadequate desks-some made of boxes. Some of the buildings were old, dilapidated and unfit for human habitation (Mays et al. 1927:53-56). These conditions point to the significance of Meacham Elementary as an improvement to the infrastructure supporting black education in the 1920s in Tampa. One of the earliest schools for black ch ildren in Tampa was the Harlem Academy, which was founded in 1889 (Greenbaum 2002:2 0, Mays et al. 1927). In 1910, it became Harlem Elementary School (a wood frame build ing located at the co rner of Harrison and

PAGE 23

16 Morgan Streets next to St. Pauls A.M.E. C hurch). The building had no electric lighting and only a single wood stove for heat. The only other formal institutions for the education of black children in Tampa by 1915 we re private facilities which points to the lack of public infrastructure catering to th is population. These schools were St. Peter Clavers Catholic School on Sc ott Street, located next to the Allen Temple Institutional A.M.E. Church, and Benedicts School Convent, located at the corner of 20 th Street and East Michigan Avenue. Like Harlem Elemen tary School, these other institutions lacked electric lighting and were heated with wood stoves. By the early 1920s, the educational situation for Tampas black children had im proved, but only marginally. The Harlem Academy was now a three-story brick building with electric lights and central heating and nine other church schools in Tampa we re providing some schooling for more than 600 children. Such schools were held in church auditoriums or rooms in the back of the church. Blackboards and other essentials we re usually lacking. The public street and vacant spaces around the church often served as the playground. By 1927 (Mays et al. 1927:53) there were over 3,000 African American students enrolled in public educational facilities and over 600 enro lled in various private institut ions. At this time schools and classroom spaces catering to this segregated student population were described as being typically undersized and of ten lacking sufficient mate rials (such as books) to accommodate their students (Mays et al. 1927:55). Therefore, when Meacham Elementary was constructed in 1926, this structure represented a hallmark achievement that represented a key improvement in th e classroom/educational environment for African American children in Tampa and H illsborough County and served as a symbol of

PAGE 24

17 the community and its prioritization of education (Anderson 1988, Fireside 2004, Jones and McCarthy 1993, Howard et al. 1994, McCarthy 1995). From 1926 until 1971 (the year Hillsborough County implemented a desegregation plan mandating busing to faci litate integration) Meacham School stood as a segregated black school in the heart of a formally se gregated neighborhood, in the proximity of Tampas historical black busine ss district. Although its construction did not bring about equity in the matters of teachers salaries and the availability of new books and other educational needs, the construction of the new elementary school did symbolize significant improvement to the infrastructure of African American e ducation in Tampa. The construction of Meacham Elementary Sc hool was complemented by the construction of Booker T. Washington on 3 rd Avenue established in 1925 as a Junior High School; however, this institution came to serve gr ades 1-12 until 1926 when the elementary students were transferred to Meacham Elemen tary. Booker T. Washington then received state accreditation as a High School in 1930 a nd this was followed by the construction of George S. Middleton High School on 24 th Street in 1935 (City of Tampa 2003, Kerstein 2001). Meacham Elementary was constructed in 1926 as the first modern public facility in Tampa with the purpose of educating the citys African American children. Within the confines of the Scrub, the school was init ially surrounded by a segr egated residential neighborhood and was located just three city blocks east of the historic black business district (Mays 1927). In 1954 the completion of Central Park Village (consisting of 483 public housing units) altered the residential layout of the ur ban landscape surrounding the school (Kerstein 2001). The urban landscape changed from narrow streets lined with

PAGE 25

18 modest, shotgun style residential dwellings some of which were dilapidated clapboard shacks (Mays et al. 1927), to rows of connect ed public housing apartments. The eleven or so acres of this neighborhood (formerly in the heart of the residential portion of the Scrub) that was transformed into public housin g units in the 1950s is currently the focus of multi-million dollar redevelopment efforts by the City of Tampa and the Tampa Housing Authority. It is because of the fact that Meacham Elementary is surrounded by this valuable real estate that it is and has been threat ened by demolition. Rather than prioritizing the school as a historic structure (w hich it clearly is since it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places) Hillsborough County sc hools has prioritized selling the school property. This property is especially valu able because if Meacham Elementary were destroyed, this would potentia lly provide developers with a large contiguous parcel of land devoid of standing structures. The Ch ief Facilities Officer of Hillsborough County Schools stated in the Historic Preservation Bo ard Meeting (April 2005) that if they were to sell the school property the Housing Aut hority (or a private developer with their approval) would demolish the school and have a contiguous parcel to redevelop. In March of 2007, Hillsborough County Schools made their intentions clear when they designated the school as surplus property. They plan to liquidate this property by exchanging the parcel containi ng the school with another parc el deemed appropriate for a new school location provided to them by the Tampa Housing Authority. In turn, according to Leroy Moore (Chief Operating Officer, Tampa Housi ng Authority) (2006 personal correspondence) if the Housing Author ity acquires this property it intends to pull a permit to demolish the school. As of March 7, 2007 the school had not been slated

PAGE 26

19 for demolition. However, as chapter four w ill explain, despite my actions, as well as those of the Division of Historical Res ources and supportive members of the African American community in Tampa, this status changed for the worse in April 2007. Despite the ignorance of Hillsborough County Schools and the Tampa Housing Authority, Meacham Elementary represents the struggle by African Americans in Tampa to achieve social, political, and educational equality during the segregation era from 1926-1971. In 1971, Meacham School became an inte grated sixth grade center as a part of a court ordered desegregation plan for the district containing Hillsborough County Schools (City of Tampa 2003). During the late 1970s, the school was transformed into an early childhood center servi ng pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. Meacham has won three EDDIE Awards (given to school s by local school districts to recognize teaching excellence and innovation) and is one of the largest cent ers accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (Bair 2000:89). Currently the school is an alte rnative center catering to students from grades 4-12 with behavior problems. In 2006 there were 127 students attending the school; according to Hillsborough County Public Schools 70% (89 ou t of 127) are African American and 88% (112 out of 127) are categorized as economical ly disadvantaged (indicating the continued role of this school in educating Tamp as African American student population) (Hillsborough County Schools 2007: http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/schools/School_Info.asp ? Site=4326). Virtually all of the schools and other facilities that catered to Tampas historically segregated downtown black en clave were destroyed under the auspices of Urban Renewal policy (discussed in chapter th ree and four). For example, nearly the entire historic black downtown business dist rict along with hundreds of homes in the

PAGE 27

20 surrounding scrub neighborhood (just east and north of the business district) were destroyed in the early to mid 1970s (Greenbaum 1998). This policy left African American communities without many of the spac es that formerly symbolized and served as social spaces for their community (Gr eenbaum 2002). Meacham Elementary managed to escape the initial destruction set in mo tion by twentieth-century Urban Renewal. Although this school escaped Urban Renewa l in Tampa in the 1970s, contemporary revenue seeking activities by Hillsborough C ounty Schools and revita lization efforts by Hillsborough County, the Tampa Housing Auth ority, and the City of Tampa have threatened to overlook, devalue, and ultimately destroy this landmark of African American history in Tampa (Froelich 2007, WilsonMiller, Inc. and The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission 2005). Despite the fact that Urban Renewal re sulted in the demolition of the vast majority of buildings histor ically associated with African Americans in Tampa (a historical trend that will be analyzed in chapters two, thr ee, and four), archaeological research has discovered residual elements of the structures themselves as well as associated cultural behavior. Chapter two investigates urban archaeology and demonstrates that this anthr opological specialization has the potential to produce material evidence directly connecting the present with cultural heritage symbolizing the past even after comprehensive urban demolition. I ar gue that when urban demolition projects destroy evidence of cultural heritage above the ground, archae ology might be applied as a tool capable of producing material evidence su pplanting the loss of visible structures. Therefore, archaeological data has the potential to exemplify the dynamic process of

PAGE 28

21 urban change and serve as a pot ential avenue of research th at links anthropologists with evidence symbolizing cultural heritage across the urban landscape. Chapter three undertakes a cr itical assessment of histor ic preservation practice in urban contexts via an inves tigation of material symbols of African American cultural heritage in Tampa (as a case study). Li kewise, this chapter provides and initial assessment of historic designation and pr eservation trends accounting for racial difference in the State of Florida. Chap ter four recounts the collaborative efforts undertaken to preserve Meacham Elementarys place in Tampa Histor y (as an example of action oriented research). Likewise, this ch apter relates this pro cess to anthropological ethics while utilizing Tampa as a case study to examine historic pr eservation practice in urban contexts. Chapter five summarizes the ove rall research project, clarifies the Urban Model of Applied Preservation (UMAP), and rec ounts its application to this study.

PAGE 29

22 Chapter Two: Urban Landscape Change: Cons idering the Practice of Urban Archaeology Through the Lens of Perry Harvey Park Urban Archaeology and UMAP Archaeological research is well suited to the assessment of urban landscape change. This category of res earch is a significant component of UMAP because material evidence has the potential to represent e volving urban landscape usage through time and across space. The chronological and cultural affiliation of this evidence can serve to enhance the work of anthropologists investig ating cultural heritage and its association with intact or altered urban landscapes. Therefore, urban archaeology as a method of assessing residual components of culture demons trates the potential for material evidence to augment our understanding of cultural heri tage through the invest igation of material evidence within the context of distinctive urban landscapes. As a doctoral graduate assistant, my involvement with the 2003 ar chaeological investiga tion of Perry Harvey Park facilitated daily interac tion with community members as they traversed the park and took site tours of the ongoing archaeological dig. This in teraction was complemented by archival research into this neighborhood clarifying the long standing historical connection of this urban landscape with the African American community in Tampa. This realization led to my subsequent involv ement with the preservation of Meacham Elementary (which is located less than thre e blocks east of the park) as a symbolic component of this hist orical community.

PAGE 30

23 What is Urban Archaeology? Urban archaeology is defined by Bradley a nd King (1989:ix) as The study of the evolution and changing character of urban comm unities from their ea rliest origins until modern times (Bradley and King 1989:ix). Likewise, Landmark Archaeological Services, Inc. suggests that Urban archaeo logy examines the development of towns and cities (1999: http://www.fromsitetostory.org/so urces/archinmn/archinmnurban.asp ). While definitions of urban archaeology ar e few and far between in archaeological literature, these definitions clar ify that the goal of urban archaeology is to investigate the origin and evolution of urban communities. As the focus of research, it is significant to note that urban communities, towns, and cities vary according to their cultural and temporal context. Anfinson (1990:4) makes it clear that urban archaeology practiced within the historical context of the United States prioritize s the investigation of modern industrial cites (rather than prehistoric urban centers). Anfinson (1990:3) explains Some may define a city as any incorporated town even if only a hundred people live there. Others think of a city as a majo r population centerWhen we talk about urban archaeology, we generally are talking about doing archaeology not just in a city, but in a large population center (Anfinson 1990:3). Therefore, ur ban archaeology in the United States is the archaeological st udy of urban centers (which usua lly developed as nineteenth century industrial cities) with a focus on th eir inception and change through time. The Temporal Context of Urban Archaeology in U.S. Cities Given that industrial centers in North America developed well after European contact in the fifteenth and sixteenth cen turies, these archaeological resources are designated as historic archaeo logical sites. Due to this temporal context, this

PAGE 31

24 specialization has been the fo cus of historical archaeolo gical practice in the United States. Referring to the archaeology of U.S. cities, The Institute for Minnesota Archaeology explains Lying under our city streets and sidewalks, warehouses and parking lots, is the history of our cities, in mute layers containing the remnants of lives gone byand so it is historical archaeologists those who use both text and artifact in their quest to understand human life in ear lier timeswho delve beneath concrete and asphalt to uncover what lies beneath (1999: http://www.fromsitetostory.org/sources/ archinmn/archinmnurban.asp ). Therefore, due to the post-European contact context of urban archaeology in the United States, historical archaeolo gists typically pursue this specialty. Archaeology undertaken within the confines of contempor ary urban settings in the U.S. has only been prioritized for a few decad es. The relative lack of antiquity of U.S. cities when compared to other parts of the worl d such as Europe resulted in their relative lack of study by contemporary archaeologists. However as time progressed they became less likely to be overlooked by contemporary archaeological practice. In addition, the emergence of government mandates stipula ting when and why urban archaeology must be undertaken in U.S. cities complemented their antiquity and led to their recent emergence as loci for potentia l archaeological research. The Institute for Minnesota Archaeology (1999:http://fromstieto story.org/sources/ archinmn/archinmnurban.asp) reveals that T he archaeology of cities has been going on for a long time. Rome, Babylon, Pompeii, and Mexico City are all cities where urban archaeology has been undertaken. Only in recent times, however, have the sprawling North American metropolises been considered fit for archaeological research. Yet every

PAGE 32

25 city is in fact a huge archeological sit e (1999:http://www.fromsitetostory.org/sources/ archinmn/arcinmnurban.asp). Garrow (1991:1) clarifies that Urban archaeology as a distinct discipline, is still in a formative stage within North America. Relatively little attention was paid to archaeological resour ces within urbanized areas prior to the 1970sGarrow:1991:1). Piper and Piper ( 1987:260) reiterate this sentiment and further assert that urban archaeological reso urces have often been under appreciated by contemporary archaeological prac tice in the United States. St aski (1987) explains that the archaeology of contemporary United States cities has only been pursued consistently as part of the profession since the 1960s (Staski 1987:ix). The Section 106 review process initiated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was the first comprehensive government mandate that affected the practice of archaeology and led to its consistent pr actice in urban setti ngs (King 1998, 2004, 2005; Neuman and Sanford 2001). Therefore, arch aeologists in the United States began to undertake consistent research in contemporar y urban settings afte r the initial laws mandating the assessment of potential impacts on the cultural and natural environments were formalized in the mid 1960s. Anfins on (1990:5) explains What is now known as urban archaeology arose in North America dur ing the 1960s due to the requirements of federally mandated environmental review (w hat is commonly called cultural resource management or CRM). Since the 1960s a hos t of legislative mandates at the local, state, and federal level have further promot ed the practice of urban archaeology in North America. Further, Anfinson (1990:5) assert s These federal requirements were coupled with the realization thatma ny American cities were finally considered old enough to be worthy of archaeological study. Therefore, the relatively recent emergence of urban

PAGE 33

26 archaeological practice in the U.S. has resulted from the passing of time and the implementation of government mandates. The temporal context of urban archaeol ogical practice in the United States necessitates its pursuit by hist orical archaeologists who are typically provided with the opportunity to formulate research questions wi thin a historically documented context. Archaeological practice in U.S. cities has been stimulated by the passing of time and contemporary legislation which has led to the relatively recent prioritization of archaeology in urban contexts in the United States. The ur ban archaeological research undertaken in Perry Harvey Park (Tampa, Florid a) in 2003 is consistent with this pattern and represents an example of how urban arch aeology can provide links to a citys past even when those links are no longer visibly apparent. The connection between an urban landscape devoid of visible evid ence of cultural activity (such as Perry Harvey Park) and a present-day city (such as Tampa, Florid a) can be clarified through archaeological research. Weisman (2004) asserts that urban archaeology is especially important Particularly in cities that have experienced extensive loss of the built environment through urban renewal, archaeo logical resources represent the only physical link to a citys past (Weisman et al 2004: i ). Therefore, especially in the absence of evidence above the ground, urban archaeology is unique ly suited to recover material evidence below the ground that has the potential to be re presentative of a citys past. What urban archaeology does is provide an avenue for re search producing materi al links serving as verifiable proof of the in ception and evolution of an urban landscape.

PAGE 34

27 Categories of Urban Archaeological Evidence Considered Archaeological specialties are defined by the temporal and cultural context of their research focus and the evidence generate d by their research. Therefore, the practice of urban archaeology will be analyzed by identifying common categories of evidence harnessed by urban archaeologists in Florida and the United Stat es. The unique historical context of the state of Florida (within the larger historical co ntext of the U.S.) impacts the specific research questions (and evidence used to engage those quest ions) related to the inception and development of urba n sites in the state. Weisman (2004:4) explains that currently the archaeology of cities in Florid a suffers from a lack of academic training programs designed to prepare archaeologist s for urban archaeology in Florida, and because of the fact that most contemporary urban settlements did not develop until after the Civil War (with the exceptions of St. A ugustine on the east coast and Pensacola on the west coast). Further, he points to the fact that the post-Civil War through World War II archaeological time period ha s thus far not been priori tized by urban planners or researchers in the state (including most urba n archaeologists) (Wei sman 2004:3-4). The specific historical trajectory of the state of Florida impacts urban archaeological practice in Florida by affecting what research questi ons will be addressed by archaeologists within the state. The historical urban contex t provides archaeologists wi th opportunities to utilize sources of data that may not exist in nonurban archaeological research settings. For example, city directories can sometimes provi de addresses and names of residents in a particular urban context (city or community within a city). Likewise, historic fire insurance maps (Sanborn Maps) are an excellent source of data that de scribe the state of

PAGE 35

28 an urban landscape at the time of thei r production (Kester 1993, Oswald 1997, Ristow 1986). Documentary resources lik e these are significant to historical urban archaeology because they provide the archaeologist with a snapshot of urban context that might be compared with previous or future (perha ps contemporary) cultural landscape use. Weisman (2004) explains Other documenta ry sources include aerial and life-scene photographs, building plans and constructi on permits, newspapers and commercial advertisements, and virtually every written source availa ble to the historian. The archaeologist needs to know wh at kinds of documents are av ailable and most appropriate for the type of archaeological problem being studied (Weisman et al. 2004:6). Therefore, documentary evidence might be a pplied as a basis of comparison (as in the case of evolving landscapes) and or as a source of data describing de tails about material evidence related to particular structures (s uch as descriptions of a buildings use and construction materials). However, this documentation cannot inform the urban archaeologist as to subsurface reality of an urban landscape; documents provide a snapshot of urban space while archaeological practice seeks to reveal urban evolution from its inception to the time of excavation. Historical references cannot see into the ground and reveal their accuracy, nor can they reveal potential disturbance/land alteration that may have occurred since they were produced. Therefore, historical documentation serves as a useful tool for urban archaeology; however, it cannot ultimately predict what will be found at urban archaeological sites. Weisman (2004) describes the interplay betw een historical documentation and urban archaeology as beneficial a nd prioritizes a balance betw een the two forms of data.

PAGE 36

29 However, he also cautions against casual use of historical documents in urban archaeology. The historical or documentary record can be the source to begin forming research themes and questions, which are then taken to the archaeological record for answers. However, ar chaeology should not be the mere handmaiden of history and can also be the source of both questions and answers. When trying to understand site formation processes through stratigraphic analysis, the archaeologist is in essence developing an archaeological model of the re lation between human action and tahponomic processes. In this respect, good solid archaeological reasoning (and training) is still requ ired, and the archaeologist cannot simply be a historian who happens to like getting his hands dirty (Weisman et al. 2004:5). While taking cognizance of the fact that hist orical documentation represents a source of data to be confirmed and complemented by excavation, the connecti on between material evidence and the cultural use of urban lands capes might provide th e urban archaeologist with an opportunity to correlate specific behaviors with the cultural use of urban landscapes. Even though this evidence must be recognized as a tool complementing archaeology and not a replacement for excavation, this documentation provides urban archaeologists working in the U.S. and Florida with potentially valuable sources of data tracking changes allowing for insight into th e specific context of urban research. Urban Archaeological Practice at Perry Harvey Park Changes through time in the city of Tamp a, Florida are recorded by a host of historical documents and the Perry Harv ey Park excavation of 2003 (Principal Investigator: Dr. Brent We isman, USF) undertaken as a component of a Florida Department of Transportation re search initiative culminating in the production of a report titled A Model for Evaluating Archaeological Site Signific ance in Cities: A Case Study from Tampa, Florida (Weisman et al. 2004) This study utilized available documentary

PAGE 37

30 evidence such as historical documents (e.g. Brady 1997, Greenbaum 2002, Saunders 2000, Mohlman 1995, Mays et al. 1927) city direct ories, newspaper articles, photographs and Sanborn maps as primary forms of evid ence aiding in the archaeological research design employed at the park. The urban ar chaeological research undertaken at Perry Harvey Park in 2003 took cognizance of these forms of data and the excavation strategies pursued at the park demonstrate the potential results of applying documentary evidence as a research tool impacting rese arch design in urban archaeology. Rather than approaching this landscape in a random fashion and establishing an arbitrary grid across the pa rk, excavation was centered on recovering material evidence from specific locations chosen due to their de piction in maps and descriptions in other historical documents. Phot ographs and Sanborn maps depict enduring elements of this urban landscape such as extant streets (whi ch now dead end into the park) and enduring residential structures that were employed as landmarks providing a basis of comparison with historic maps and other documentation. At Perry Harvey Park, six Sanborn Maps were employed as a means of evaluating record ed changes and those were compared with the current urban landscape at the park (1895, 1899, 1903, 1915, and 1931 v1. and 193151) (Weisman et al. 2004). Weisman (2004) ex plains that these ma ps are an excellent source of information about the placement and material composition of structures within the city limits of many U.S. citiesAdd itionally, the maps show the position of structures and give the street addresses (Weisman et al 200 4:68). These maps facilitated the incorporation of extant components of th e built urban environment into an informed research design.

PAGE 38

31 This project demonstrates the utility of integrating available documentary evidence into the formulation of an informed research methodology facilitating excavation strategies focused on specific elem ents of the historic landscape directly linked to prior landscapes through extant ro adways and structures. Existing urban landscapes have the potential to manifest as a form of evidence serving as a basis of comparison with historic references. We ismans strategy in 2003 clarifies that a historically informed research design must be accompanied by appropriate archaeological field methods. This historically informed approach, in conjunction with controlled recovery and comprehensive contextual interp retation produced superlative results. For example, this combination of research and field methodology led to the identification of a number of intact significant archaeological deposits associated with former activity areas of Central AvenueOur investigations focused on sampling portions of three blocks, and uncovered deposits associated w ith an 1880s saloon, backyard bottle dumps and midden deposits associated with two di fferent residential areas on the block, and deposits that accumulated behind several businesses on Central Avenue (Weisman et al. 2004:14). This excavation revealed that archaeological field methods have the potential to confirm and enhance historical document ation by identifying stratigraphic indicators (stratigraphic context) associated with th e evolving urban landscape. For example, Weisman explains that we were able to id entify and stratigraphically define the urban renewal layer consisting of demolition rubbl e and fill material and show that it is consistently above intact depos its (Weisman et al. 2004:14). Archaeolog ical research at this park accomplished something histor ical documentation cannot bring about. Specifically, it identified archaeological indicators (stratigraphic indicators)

PAGE 39

32 demonstrating changes in this urban environment resulting specifically from demolition associated with urban renewal in Tampa. Archaeological data does more than discuss historical events, it provides material evidence. Material evidence produced by urban arch aeology established that artifacts and features complemented by st ratigraphic context at Perry Harvey Park confirmed the presence of a nineteenth century African American urban business district (to be discussed in detail in chapte r four) destroyed during the earl y 1970s. With this project Weisman (2004) demonstrated how urban archae ological practice has th e potential to be enhanced by applying methods justified by a targeted (rather than a random) research design. He explains Overall, the method wa s successfully applied to this particular research problem, and in this particular loca tion. A much clearer picture of the site was obtained because of intensive coverage of a small area (Weisman et al. 2004:90). No amount of historical documentati on can confirm material evidence it describes. Urban archaeology can be applied as a research to ol to evaluate the presence or absence of material evidence which may or may not always correlate with recorded history. The archaeological proj ect undertaken at Perry Harv ey Park demonstrates that interplay exists between documentation, c ontemporary urban landscapes, material evidence (what archaeological excavation conf irms), and the stra tigraphic context of archaeological deposits. These forms of eviden ce facilitate the formation of research designs informed by cross referencing histor ical documentation of the urban environment with contemporary landscapes. This process se ts the stage for the application of methods designed to maximize the efficiency of excava tion prioritizing the stratigraphic context and meticulous recovery of material evidence.

PAGE 40

33 Local Informants and Urban Archaeology As well as being informed by histori cal documentation and material evidence accurately recovered and interpre ted in stratigraphic context, the research at the park was enhanced by engaging local community members serving as formal or informal informants (including oral histories, formal and informal interviews and daily discussions with neighborhood residents as archaeological fieldwork was undertaken). This interaction with residents of the public housing surrounding the park (and interested passers by) serves as another a basis of comparison with written documents (comparing memory with documentation) and it also provides an opportunity to involve the community in research undertak en near their residences. Weisman (2004) explains that Through oral histories and various forms of formal and informal consultations, the research team learns what resources within th e project area might have particular value or importance to the community (Weisman et al. 2004:15). This source of data was sought after and prioritized by the principal investigat or of this project (Dr. Brent Weisman) and his leadership instilled this philosophy in his supervisors (m yself included) and his field crew (archaeological field school participants). Many urban archaeological projects in Flor ida and in the U.S. overlook or do not pursue interaction with key informants. As an archaeological field technician working my way through graduate school I have pers onally participated in dozens of urban archaeological surveys in Florida that have had no interaction with the community where they took place. Qualitative data generate d via interaction with key informants is important to urban archaeology and commun ity members should not be overlooked as resources with the potential to augment resear ch. This interaction has the potential to

PAGE 41

34 produce a category of evidence that might serve urban archaeologists by affording an opportunity to gain invaluable insight into the eval uation of a given urban landscape (i.e. what if memory is correct and historical documentation is wrong?). Prioritizing the views and insights of those who may have b een a part of events described by history allows for the participation of community members in the research process thereby adding to the significance of archaeological resources to a given community. This interaction allows the urban archaeologist to learn from informants and gauge community support for and awareness of cultural resources such as the archaeological signatures lying beneath the surface of Perry Harvey Park. Urban Archaeology and the Holistic Approach Urban archaeology is uniquely suited to consolidate evidence from the five sources of data identified in this chapter. First, urban archaeol ogy has the potential to recognize that the contemporary built environm ent in proximity to and within defined archaeological study areas are important resource s that may serve as a valuable basis of comparison with historical depictions of urban landscapes. For example, extant roadways or other landmarks have the potenti al to be used as spatial references for locating archaeological evidence. Next, arch aeological signatures themselves (material evidence) associated with human behavior linked with the incepti on and evolution of cities were identified as significant categorie s of evidence for urban archaeologists in the U.S. Third, the significance of stratigraphic context of material evidence (as a gauge of the integrity of archaeological evidence) is of paramount importance to the practice of urban archaeology. Fourth, the importance of background research investigating all available forms of documentary evidence detai ling urban inception and change in and in

PAGE 42

35 the vicinity of archaeological study areas was highlighted as an important category of evidence. Lastly, interaction with local info rmants was identified as a potentially vital resource that is often overlooked by urba n archaeologists. Because archaeological practice begins and ends with research designs that serve to justify appropriate methods applied to the collecti on of data and answer research questions, the Perry Harvey Park case study demonstrates that ta king cognizance of all recognizable forms of data (i.e. applying the holistic approach) and applying th em toward the formulation of informed research designs in urban contexts in the U.S. has the potential to e nhance the practice of urban archaeology. Recent urban archaeological research in Tampa has demonstrated that material evidence can symbolize African American cultural heritage which may be overlooked or misrepresented by written history. The materi al evidence generated by the archaeological assessment of Perry Harvey Park confirms the historic association of this landscape with African American cultural heritage in Tamp a. This research provides comprehensive evidence documenting the process of urban chan ge described in chapter three. Likewise, this research clarifies the historical relationship between Meacham Elementary (discussed in chapter four) and the segregated neighbor hood it catered to for nearly fifty years. Archaeology has demonstrated that there really was a thriving segregated African American business district less than three blocks from the school when it was constructed in 1926 and that this business district was accompanied by a segregated neighborhood (the Scrub) that surrounded the school when it was constructed. Researching Meacham Elementary as an element of this study led to my evolving interest in learning more about how this la ndmark was a component of the historic and

PAGE 43

36 more contemporary community. This awarene ss served to highlight the significance of the urban landscape as symbolic and representative of cultural he ritage. Therefore, validating the historical rela tionship between this community and African Americans in Tampa by means of urban arch aeology served to justify my actions described in forthcoming chapters. This research stra tegy provides urban anthropologists with a method capable of generating material evid ence potentially complementing other data sources accounting for urban cu ltural behavior. This tangib le connection with the past ensured that my resolve would remain steadfa st as I confronted challenges associated with engaging the process of urban change in Tampa.

PAGE 44

37 Chapter Three: Investigating Materi al Symbols of African American Culture and Heritage in Ta mpa, Florida A Case Study The analysis presented in chapter three in cludes a critical overview of cultural heritage as symbolic of cultural behavior taking cognizance of the representation of that heritage in written history a nd contemporary urban landscapes. This study demonstrated that in Tampa the process of Urban Rene wal had the potential to effect this representation. Likewise, this overview facilitated the classi fication of African American cultural heritage sites into two temporal categories. The investigation of these sites pointed to the significance of the built environment as representative of culture and led to the examination of historic preservation pr actice in Tampa and in Florida. This assessment prioritized extracting data from and adding to existing historic designation databases such as the statewide historic stru cture summary data organized for this project (See Table ), National Register of Historic Pl aces district and indi vidual site nomination forms for designated sites in the City of Tampa (See Appendices A,D,E), and local landmarks and districts generated by the City of Tampa (See Appendices B and C). These databases represent summaries of historic designation forms intended to detail the significance of designated prope rties. The data extracted from the aforementioned databases was utilized to investigate overall trends such as the distribution of designated histor ic sites relative to ethnicit y. Likewise, these data were applied in the analysis of descriptive characteristics for individual sites such as the ambiguous assignment of cultural affiliation on designation forms. Therefore this study

PAGE 45

38 critiqued these forms as data representative of the historic desi gnation process at the local, state, and federal levels Criteria utilized by govern mental entities to establish historical significance of prope rties are clarified by the form s they utilize to designate them as such (see Table 2 for a full explanati on of this criteria). Therefore, this study critically examined these forms represen ting the existing framework utilized and established by the Tampa Preservation Commis sion (local designations), the State of Florida (state historic stru ctures), and the federal govern ment (National Register of Historic Places sites). Cultural Heritage and the Urban Landscape If we recognize the potential for elements of the urban landscape to symbolize a group such as African Americans, it is important to note the anthropological interpretation accounting for cultural signifi cance of that physical space. Written interpretations of urban historical spaces and events comprise the historical narratives that symbolize urban physical space and its role with African American Heritage in U.S. history. These narratives, like the spaces they represent are static representations that symbolize cultural behavior at a given time in a designated place. This analysis demonstrates that the contemporary historical representation and preservation of urban space representing cultural heritage has the po tential to mirror the incomplete and/or inaccurate presentation of written history. Tr ouillot (1995:23) suggests that history is a social process and that historical representa tion is impacted by the power structure of the society when and where it unfolds. He contends that For wh at history is changes with time and place or, better said, history reveal s itself only through the production of specific narratives (Trouillot 1995:25). While Trouillot (1995) is critical about the

PAGE 46

39 production of history he also is quick to point out that that it is not only actors that have the potential to be misrepresented or left out of history, but that symbolic spaces representing time and place associated with those actors can also be overlooked or misrepresented. We cannot exclude in advan ce any of the actors who participate in the production of history or any of the sites where that production ma y occur (Trouillot 1995:25). Therefore, it is signi ficant to recognize the potentia l for written history and/or other methods producing data symbolizing cultural behavior to leave out actors as well as the possibility that history may turn a blind ey e to the urban physical spaces associated with them. Likewise, these spaces may be misrepresented in written history and associated with cultural heritage deemed c onsistent with current normative views. It follows that these places associated with specif ic events or people in a given cultural and temporal context represents cultural heritage and that these have the potential to be overlooked as symbolic points of historical reference (i.e. cult ural heritage); especially since others might be created as a result of landscape alteration that redefines the symbols associated with urban space. Blakes 2000 overview of cultural heritage through th e lens of International Cultural Heritage Law suggests that definitions of heritage vary across time and between national and local contexts. Blake ( 2000) concludes that a primary element of cultural heritage is its linkage with gr oup identity and it is both a symbol of the cultural identity of a self-ide ntified group, be it a nation or a people, and an essential element in the construction of that groups id entity (Blake 2000:84). Therefore, when the location where cultural activity occurs is recognized by a cultural group as significant to their history that space qualifies as a sym bol of their cultural heritage. Cultural

PAGE 47

40 heritage is purposefully selected from a myri ad of cultural events and associated locations where they occur across a gi ven cultural landscape. The process associated with the selection and recognition of these spaces as sy mbolic of cultural heritage is broad and complex and varies from one context to th e next (Pollock-Ellwa nd 1992:71). When a cultural group (i.e. a group with common origins, territory, and traditions such as a historically segregated ethnic group in a U.S. city) prioritizes a space as significant to their cultural heritage, this does not guarant ee that it will be respect ed by others outside the group and be preserved (serving as a physic al representation of history) for future generations. For example, cu ltural landscapes can be altere d and cultural heritage can be destroyed (bulldozers do not negotiate and when tangible history is demolished it is gone forever). Scholars point to the fact that African Am erican history in Tampa as well as the vast majority of urban contexts in th e U.S. has been overlooked by contemporary historians (Greenbaum 1998:2, Mohlman 1998:12). This relative lack of representation in written history is consistent with a voi d in preserved material symbols representing African American culture and heritage. Befo re investigating Tampa as a specific city representing a case study, the context of th e examination of African American cultural heritage will be evaluated by assessing contem porary African American cultural heritage sites. Temporal Context and Repr esentation of African American Cultural Heritage Sites Contemporary recognition of African American Cultural Heritage sites in the U.S. can be organized into two temporal categories: 1) heritage sites a ssociated with African Americans prior to emancipation (pre 1863) and 2) heritage sites associated with African

PAGE 48

41 Americans during times of state sponsored segregation in the U.S. (post 1863-circa 1970). Heritage sites associated with the ti me period prior to emancipation in the U.S. are largely made up of historic plantation sites associated with the practice of slavery. For example, Jacksons (2003) critical analysis of historical represen tation of plantation community life highlights the oversimplifica tion and inaccuracy of some historical depictions of African Americans who occupied plantation space at Snee Farm Plantation in South Carolina. Specifically, sh e critiques the use of the label slave as applied to some inhabitants of the plantation. She contends that The continued use of the label slave in the public forum productions of American hi story (i.e. National Historic Site venues) serves to mask the di versity of African plan tation experience and minimize the cultural contributions in the ev eryday lifeways of Af ricans in plantation communities. One way of expanding the view of African life in plantation settings is to critically examine the use of the label slave. (Jacks on 2003a:97-98). Jackson (2003a) demonstrates that this label does not acc ount for specialization and oversimplifies the variation that existed between African American individu als who were enslaved in plantation contexts. Ruffins (1992:572) also underscores the significance of critically assessing the historical representation of African Ameri cans at plantati ons through the analysis of Colonial Williamsburg. Throughout most of its existence, this living history museum made no mention of the nearly fifty percent of the citys 1770s population that was black (Ruffins 1992:572). Likewise, Potter and Leone (2000) are critical of historical representations of African Am ericans at outdoor museums in Historic Annapolis, Maryland. They point to thes e outdoor museums to demonstrate that historical representations of space associat ed with African American cultural heritage

PAGE 49

42 have the potential to be incomplete and inaccurate (Potter and Leone 2000:494). These examples demonstrate that historical repres entation of places associated with cultural heritage should prioritize qua ntity (does representation exis t?) as well as quality (is representation comprehensive a nd accurate?). Anthropologist Jacqeline Nassy Brown ( 2000) prioritizes th e significance of contemporary representation of historical spa ce associated with th e practice of slavery in the U.S. and England. She highlights the example of the seaport at Liverpool, England as a significant space associated with th e international practice of slavery. Brown (2000) prioritizes the symbolic nature of space and its associati on with Africans as a race (distinct ethnic group). When refere ncing the attitudes of contemporary Black Liverpoolians, Brown (2000:343) notes that their own knowing ey es grant place a highly symbolic, yet exalted role: witness. Th e brick of this building and the mortar of that one together give evidence, just as did the embodied presence of ex-slaves who many generations ago, traveled to Br itain with their stories of bondage. Now that no living person can give witness, it is place th at speaks (Brown 2000:343). Brown (2000) contends that material evidence of the slav e trade in Britain (and elsewhere) is highly significant to the heritage of Africans because it stands as an interpretive resource that symbolizes the narrative of African history. Browns (2000) analysis demonstrates that places associated with cultural heritage potentially serve as a source of tangible acknowledgement providing physical evidence associated with written history. Therefore, urban places and spaces serving as material evidence of cultural behavior have the potential to enhance anthropological know ledge the same way artifacts do because they can symbolize cultural heri tage and provide tangible proo f of cultural behavior in a

PAGE 50

43 given context. It is critical that the cultural use of significan t historic places is accurately represented; when urban places or spaces are preserved for future generations the potential for inaccurate representation arises when they are accounted for in written history and presented to the public. Contemporary anthropological re search (Jackson 2003b; Kahn 1996, 2000) addressing the description/representation of cultural heritage sites call for a comprehensive approach to augment the understanding of space. Kahn (2000) and Jackson (2003b) assert that an thropologists have th e opportunity to generate more diverse presentations of cultural heritage associated w ith cultural heritage sites. In her research on the Kingsley Plantation, Jackson (2003b:12) e xplains that it is the combination of the plantation as a physical space in the fo rm of tangible and in teractively accessible reminders (i.e. graves sites, housing remains, waterways) and socially constructed space that help keep it in the minds and memory of those who visit it (Jackson 2003b:12). Therefore, elements of the landscape associated with cultural herita ge such as buildings in urban contexts such as the school priori tized by this study can serve as material evidence representing physical reminders of the past thereby enga ging the validity of written history. Consistent with material evidence generated via urban archaeology, urban places preserved as cultural heritage ha ve the potential to a ugment written history or to question its valid ity. Historic locales in the U.S. represen ting African American cultural heritage following emancipation (circa 1863) have also been cited by a number of contemporary researchers as significant symbolic points of reference. Some rese archers contend that the dynamic nature of urban landscapes has had a devastating effect on the material

PAGE 51

44 evidence of African American cultural heritage. Greenbaum (1998:3) explains that the demolition of buildings associated with African American cultural heritage in U.S. cities affects contemporary awareness and material re presentation of African American culture. Boyds work in a formerly segregated Afri can American enclave in Chicago, Illinois (2000) illustrates the importanc e of recognizing cultural herita ge when it is threatened by contemporary redevelopment projects. Boyds (2000:116) analysis of twentieth century Bronzeville as a historic African American space (a formerly segregated neighborhood within the City of Chicago, Il linois) points to the importan ce of physical urban space in contemporary representations of the past (especially in light of community redevelopment) and to the identity of contemporary community members. When community members refer to the value of sp ace to their community They assert that the buildings in the neighborhood are a part of the history of the race. To them, the identity of Bronzeville is not just contained in these thre atened buildings: it is these threatened buildings (Boyd 2000:116). Furt her, Boyd (2005:278) states According to Mr. Ingram, the buildings in the neighbor hood are physical monuments to the potential and abilities of the en tire race, ones that serve as an example of what each black person can do, and achievements of which the entire community can be proud (Boyd 2005:278). Boyds analysis of the importance of buildings as symbolic spaces representing African American heritage in an urban context in the U.S. during times of state sponsored segregation asserts In Bron zeville, buildings are not just pieces of individually owned property, but symbols of community spirit;This interpretation frames building destruction as equivalent to the demise of racial hi story, and suggests that the plight of individual place entrepreneurs is really the plight of the entire racial

PAGE 52

45 community (Boyd 2000:117). The Bronzeville example demonstrates how the process of urban change and redevelopment can lead to increased cognizance of cultural heritage and promote the recognition of space as a symbol of culture. Commenting on the significance of space to identity in a c ontemporary African American neighborhood in New York City, Gregory (1998) asserts that threats to the built environment were also assaults on shared memories of the past th at formed the bedrock of the communitys political culture and identity (Gregory 1998:143). However, chapter four demonstrates that symbolic space cannot speak for itself. Preservation must complement recognition (especially in evolving urban contexts) if plac es are to serve as references for future generations. Urban Renewal and Altered Landscapes Two processes associated with urban hist ory in the U.S. and Tampa that have disproportionately affected African American cultural heritage and potential preservation of that heritage are urban renewal and gent rification. Urban renewa l acts as a byproduct of urban planning that is typically aligne d with the implementation of eminent domain and federal funding associated with drasti c changes in urban landscapes. While the participation of Florida Cities in this initiative was limited due to a 1952 Florida Supreme Court decision that effectively blocked access to federal subsidies associated with urban renewal, Tampa was an exception to this tr end. In 1958 the state legislature passed a local bill allowing Tampa to initiate an ur ban renewal program. Consequently, between 1959 and 1966 the City of Tampa participat ed in three Urban Renewal projects subsidized by the Federal Govern ment (Kerstein 2001:134-135).

PAGE 53

46 The first of these projects was the 19 59 federally funded demolition of the Maryland Avenue site in Tampa. The Maryland Avenue site included a sixty-oneacre tract in a lower income African American area that housed more than 300 families and included several businesses (Kerstein 2001:136). Commenting on this project, planners boasted that this would eliminate a slum area that provided the city only about $1,000 per acre in ta xes in 1959 (Kerstein 2001: 136). Likewise, planners suggested that this project woul d do away with a slum distri ct that divided the two main business areas of downtown Tampa and Ybor City (Kerstein 2001:136). Therefore a clear goal of the earliest example of Urban Renewal in Tampa is a byproduct of federal funding allocated to increase th e Citys tax base and cons olidate business districts by eradicating areas designated as blighted or substandard and then recreating an urban landscape to best suit the economic interests of the City. In 1963 another comprehensive federally funded redevelopment plan promot ed by the City of Tampa cleared the way for consolidation of business districts and ha d a dramatic effect on its African American population. The Tampa City Council approve d the urban renewal plan for the 160-acre Riverfront project in January 1963 which ca lled for the razing of virtually all the structures on the site. Of the 737 buildings in the project area, 599 were residentialA survey in 1961 recorded that 10 white and 670 African American families had lived there (Kerstein 2001:138). The Riverfront Urban Renewal project served to consolidate and expand the downtown business sector while faci litating direct interstate access to this part of the City. In 1964 Tampas third Urban Renewal project was initiated. This project focused on Ybor City with the goal of maximizing tourist potential while retaining a Spanish

PAGE 54

47 atmosphere (Kerstein 2001:142-143). This project also served to directly connect the downtown business district with Ybor City. This plan encompassed about 160 acres and 900 buildings. The plan called for the demolition of more than 700 of the buildings, most of them occupied by African Americans (Kerstein 2001:143). At the time the head of the Barrio Latino Commission touted the econo mic intent of the plan and declared that a revitalized Latin Quarter would draw to Ta mpa millions of tourists, equivalent to $150 million in new industry, and that Ybor City w ould become a tourist center second to none in the nation (Kerstein 2001:143). Therefore, consistent wi th the previous two Urban Renewal plans carried out in Tampa this one disproportionately affected African American population at the cost of improving the economic viability of Tampa. This plan provided opportunities for developers th at would increase the Citys tax base while directly linking busine ss districts with a tourist center. These Urban Renewal projects were followed by the Jefferson Avenue thoroughfare to Interstate 275 wh ich under the auspices of em inent domain initiated the demolition of African American businesses in th e vicinity of Central Avenue. This was followed in 1973 by multi-million dollar federal grant (facilitated by eminent domain) which destroyed the remaining African American businesses along Central Avenue and improved interstate access to the downtown business district (Kerstein 2001:170). Therefore, in Tampa, Urban Renewal and s ubsequent federally funded projects have historically disproportionately affected its lower income residents (especially African Americans). This research indicates that a purposeful strategy has been in place for decades to consolidate business districts a nd directly link them with Tamp as interstates. Consistent

PAGE 55

48 with this objective, in 2007 the Community Redevelopment Plan for the Central Avenue Park Village calls for the eradication of the la st enduring historic en clave associated with African Americans in Tampa. Th is project will serve to dire ctly connect Ybor City with I-275 to the north (which connects Tampa with c ities to the north such as Gainesville and to the east such as Orlando) and will expa nd the downtown business district to the east linking it with Nebraska Avenue (a pr imary north-south thoroughfare connecting downtown with northern suburbs ). Contemporary urban r edevelopment plans are on the verge of completing what was started in th e 1950s and one is left to wonder if this plan has been in the works for nearly fifty y ears just waiting for federal funds to surface once again to serve the interests of local elites. Contemporary urban researchers demonstrate a pattern that is consistent with the analysis of Tampas Urban Renewal projects. For example, Fullilove (2000:58) speaks to the racially disproportio nate demolition historically associated with urban renewal policy in the U.S. She suggests that Urban Renewa l was used as a method to disperse poor African Americans from inner city neighbor hoods so that the land could be renewed and transformed into more productive economic space for downtown investors. The land-claiming strategy embodied in the Hous ing Act of 1949 was straightforward. An interested city had first to identify the b lighted areas that it wi shed to redoOnce those areas had been defined, the city had the ta sk of developing a workable plan. The workable plan was forwarded to regional urban renewal offices for approval by the federal government (Fullilove 2000:58). When such a plan was approved, the selected areas could be seized by applying eminen t domain. Residents and business owners occupying such sites were given minimal co mpensation and were forced to move on.

PAGE 56

49 The seized urban landscapes were demolished an d federal subsidies allowed cities to sell such property to developers at a fraction of their cost. The developers then built businesses, educational and cultural institut ions, and residences for middleand upperincome people (Fullilove 2000:58). This pa ttern unfolded across urban landscapes in the U.S. during the 24 years that followed the Housing Act of 1949. As is recounted above, Tampa embraced this program with blight identification being followed by land procurement and demolition of its primary low income African American neighborhoods. This action taken by the City of Tampa is di rectly tied to the in terplay between race, place, and power in this urban context. The choice to implement this strategy aligns the position of the City of Tampa with what some might equate to a racist ideology dictating whos history is important, what people are significant, and what enduring elements of the landscape should represent these people (if any). Material cultural objects and physical sp aces represent static symbols serving as cultural markers. These cultural markers do not embody culture itself (a dynamic process) rather they act as symbolic points of reference (spaces) that signify material representations of cultural beha vior. These spaces are sometimes employed as references indicative of a specific cultural group and a part icular temporal period. When referring to the representation of places or space Ka hn (1996) asserts that T hey represent people, their actions, and their interactions and a such become malleable memorials for negotiating and renegotiating human relationships (Kahn 1996:168). Urban Renewal in Tampa in between the 1950s and the 1970s led to the demolition of multitudes of spaces formally associated w ith African Americans during times of segregation. In Tampa, Florida, historic buildings and th e material evidence (artifacts and features)

PAGE 57

50 discovered in Perry Harvey Park are material symbols of cultura l history that add continuity to Tampas African American he ritage (Weisman et al. 2004). Therefore, physical spaces associated with the historic African American Central Avenue district in Tampa potentially impacted by contemporary construction projects should be designated as historic and prioritized as significant components of Af rican American Heritage (i.e. they should be preserved for future generations ). The City of Tampa has an obligation to be as thorough and inclusive as possible when generating lists of historically significant properties that should be protected from current red evelopment plans. To engage this process, I worked fo r nearly four years to document and demonstrate the significance of Meacham Elem entary to the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, the State of Florida, and the Federal Government. It was hoped that the City would add Meacham Elementary to this list prior to it being impacted by contemporary redevelopment efforts. Howeve r, despite efforts aimed at af fecting its future culminating in the addition of this school to the Nati onal Register of Hist oric Places this study demonstrates that since the school has purpos efully not been included in the future redevelopment plans of this area it will eventually fall victim to demolition (the struggle to affect the historic status and to preserve the school is recounted in chapter four). The justification for its demolition (redevelopment in the name of monetary gain) is consistent with explanations touted by urban planners who (starting in the 1950s) have systematically demolished the vast majority of urban spaces historically occupied by African Americans in Tampa.

PAGE 58

51 Gentrification and Urban Change While the process is complicated and variab le, gentrification is more often aligned with private investment than is urban rene wal or contemporary large scale urban plans calling for comprehensive demolitions. More often, gentrification includes the renovation of deteriorated properties in lowincome urban contexts. In certain urban contexts these processes overlap, however, wh en considering their cumulative effects it is important not to generalize to all urban lands capes where they have occurred; a localized contextual approach is more appropriate b ecause it more accurately accounts for local manifestations of these processes. Contemporary accounts of gentrification in anthropological literature (Lees 2000, Smith and Graves 2000, Perez 2000, Prince 2002, Paris 2001) prioriti ze interrogating the process of gentrification in local spatial a nd temporal contexts (such as communities) rather than focusing on global cities Smith and Graves (2000) investigate gentrification as a strategy for corporate grow th in Charlotte, North Carolina and suggest that in this context monetary gain was priori tized over cultural herita ge. Consistent with the notion that monetary value has the potential to displace he ritage value, Perez (2000) asserts that People may, for instance, crea te supportive, place-based networks with neighbors, small business owners, schools, a nd other institutions that both provide material sustenance and engender emotional an d sentimental attachments to a particular place. On the other hand, places generate cap ital; and like other commodities, they can be deliberately packaged and sold in order to maximize financial return. This pursuit of greater exchange value often conflicts with the use value of places; (Perez 2000:37). Therefore, the process of gentrification (a pr ocess prioritizing financial return) has the

PAGE 59

52 potential to highlight the te nsion between these two types of value (heritage value vs monetary value). Perez (2000) demonstrates that processes of urban change such as gentrification (even in the absence of demolition) has the potential to effect cultural heritage because of its effect on peoples ability to use the spaces historically associated with their culture. The processes of urban renewa l, gentrification, and the deinstitutionalization of segr egation in Tampas Historic Central Avenue community motivated many of the upper class residents of the area to move elsewhere and left those who chose to stay (or could not afford to l eave) with few resources to perpetuate their community. Consequently, it is not a surprise to no te that the propertie s that endured the processes of urban renewal and gentrification in Tampa represent structures that provided social services to the community and would not compete w ith the business interests of white investors in the area. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that buildings that provide social services such as the neighborh ood community center, churches, and the neighborhood school is virtually all that is left of this commun ity. Is it possible that they survived because they were not viewed as pot ential threats to the productivity of white business investments designed to replace those that catered to segregated community members? By eliminating the vast major ity of African American owned businesses, blacks were forced to benefit white owned busine sses. Perhaps this is just a coincidental byproduct of urban renewal policy or perhaps no t (this would make an excellent research question for a future study). If purposeful elimination of potential competition represents an insidious component of the justification behind urban renewal policy why then would a school like Meacham Elementary be inte ntionally overlooked by the County Planning

PAGE 60

53 Commission? One potential explanation is the relative lo cation of the school and its geographic location within the overall area bei ng redeveloped (the school is virtually in the center). Rather than havi ng a contiguous parcel of land that could be redeveloped, if the school were preserved it would serve as an obstacle that devel opers would have to work around. Despite the fact that the school is recognized by the federal government as a National Register site symbo lizing African American cultur al heritage, to a developer focused on profit it may represent nothing more than an obstacle to work around affecting profit margins. I assert that the curr ent redevelopment plan is a contemporary manifestation of the historical application of urban renewal policy in Tampa. Elements identified in previous and contemporary re development plans in Tampa have included strategies designed to increase the Citys ta x base and economic pot ential. Plans have consistently called for demolishing blighted or substandard structures and then rebuilding contemporary structures that yield more tax return. Further, these demolitions represent a racist ideology because they disproportionately affect urban landscapes historically associated with African American history; they serve to consolidate business districts to maximize revenue pot ential and are complemented by di rect Interstate access. Despite the urban focus of this study, this research takes cognizance of the fact that places associated with African American cultural heritage in rural contexts should not be overlooked. Green (1991) points to the significance of space as a marker of African American social iden tity set in historical cont ext in a rural community in Georgia. Likewise, Guthrie (1996:1) points to the importance of space as emblematic of rural African American ident ity. Her investigation of Af rican American history on the Sea Islands off the coasts of Georgia and S outh Carolina demonstrate that The area and

PAGE 61

54 its people are especially important to African Americans beca use we find in this sacred place physical, emotional, and spiritual roots of our present-day existence (Guthrie 1996:1). These examples demonstrate that sp ace can be aligned with representation and identity in a variety of cont exts (large urban centers as well as rural communities) and that we should not turn a bli nd eye to the historical and cu ltural significance of physical space. However, community recognition of sy mbolic space is not enough; steps must be taken to preserve those spaces. If material evidence such as buildings or subsurface deposits (archaeological evid ence) symbolizing cultural heritage are to persist as components of the cultural landscape the preservation of that la ndscape should not be disregarded. Cultural Heritage and Historic Designation In the U.S. physical space designated as historic by a government entity is recognized as such at the local, state, and or federal level. Overlap exists between these recognitions and they offer differing levels of protection for the historic sites they identify as significant. My experience drawn fr om this research demonstrates that federal and state recognition of historic sites is largely honor ary. The intent of these designations is preservation; however, they do not provide di rect avenues to secure the preservation of historic places. Federal r ecognition does go so far as to offer conditional grants for rehabilitation and tax breaks for recognized historic places. Local designations are usually more than honorary titles ; they typically go further in protecting historic sites and may go so far as to protect them from fu ture demolition. Addressing the intent behind designation of historical site s in the U.S., Coulson and Leichenko (2004) suggest that Historical designation is a device that be stows recognition on particular properties

PAGE 62

55 because of their importance, in some great or small way, to the history of the city or region in which they are located. While hi storical designation takes place at the local, state and national levels, the putative goal in all cases is the pres ervation of properties with historical and/or aesthetic appeal th at would otherwise be neglected or even demolished (Coulson and Leichenko 2004:1587). Therefore, despite the varying levels of protection they offer (equating to variable treatment of designated properties), historic designation from a government entity in the U.S. shares the common goal of preservation. Criteria utilized to categorize sites as significant and justify recognition via historic designation are somewh at consistent within this hierarchy. Designation forms typically have statements intended to clarify standards for acceptance. The National Register of Historic Places criteria for evaluation states: 1) Districts, sites, buildings, struct ures, and objects may be considered to have significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and/or culture if th ey possess integrit y of location, design, setting, materials, workmans hip, feeling, and association, and: a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; and/or b) are associated with the lives of pers ons significant in our past; and/or c) embody the distinctive ch aracteristics of type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the wo rk of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and dis tinguishable entity whose components may lack indi vidual distinction; and/or d) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history ( http://www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/national.htm# CRITERIA%20FOR%20EVALUATION). For a property to be eligible for listing on th e National Register of Historic Places (and the vast majority of local nominations includ ing Tampa) it must demonstrate integrity as clarified in the above statement and it must also meet at least one of the criteria listed above (a, b, c, or d). For example, the hi storical association with Tampas African

PAGE 63

56 American community (social history) and architectural integrity justified Meacham Elementary as a National Register site under criteria a. Likewise the historical context of this school aligned this structure with Afri can American (black) ethnic heritage and education. Historical context is a generic term utilized by these forms to account for historical and cultural variation. For example, the Nationa l Register of Historic Places bulletin number fifteen under the subheading How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context ( http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/ publications/bulletins/nrb15/ ) clarifies: Identify what the property represents: the theme(s), geographical limits, and chronological period th at provide a perspective from which to evaluate the propertys significanceA theme is a means of organizing properties in to coherent patterns based on elements such as environment, so cial/ethnic groups, transportation networks, technology, or political developments that have influenced the development of an area during one or more periods of prehistory or history. A theme is considered sign ificant if it can be demonstrated, through scholarly research, to be important in American history ( http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/ ). Therefore, these themes are utilized to clas sify National Register sites into categories based on historical context. The category of themes most thoroughly evaluated by this study included those clarifying ethnic heritage. Table 1 (see below) illustrates the categories (including ethnic categories) utilized to clarify a propertys area of significance as a National Regist er of Historic Places site.

PAGE 64

57 Table 1. National Register of Hi storic Places Areas of Significance Agriculture Recreation/Entertainment Literature Architecture Ethnic Heritage: Asian, Black, European, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander, Other Maritime History Archaeology: Prehistoric, Historic-Aboriginal Historic-nonAboriginal Exploration/Settlement Military Art Health/Medicine Performing Arts Commerce Industry Philosophy Communications Invention Politics/Government Community Planning and Development Landscape Architecture Religion Conservation Military Science Economics Performing Arts Social History Education Philosophy Transportation Engineering Law Other These areas of significance repres ent the criteria used to justify inclusion into the national register and narrative descripti ons are required to substantia te this categorization. The state historical structure form for the Stat e of Florida classifies sites according to historical significance based on this criteria establishe d by the National Register ( http://www.flheritage.com/preserva tion/sitefile/forms/FORM_SS_V40.doc ). However, this state form does not require a narrative description justifying this classification.

PAGE 65

58 Therefore, an ethnic groups historic asso ciation with a site designated by a state form in Florida may be overlooked or misrep resented. Likewise, the local nomination forms for the City of Tampa are designed to consider ethnicity as a potential area of significance with no requir ed narrative to substantiate this classification. In Citys such as Tampa classifying ethnicity may be ch allenging. For example, Greenbaum (2002) points out that Tampa is a multi-ethnic place with a Cuban, Spanish, and Italian presence. Her research clarified that Cubans in Ta mpa are divided by race (a phenomenon easily overlooked by historic designation forms). Therefore, ethnicity as a means of classifying the association of historic sites or districts should be more accurately accounted for by state and local historic designation forms. Likewise, when appropriate, multiple ethnicities should be associated with single designations. Ethnic affiliation should be clarified by more than checking a box on a designation form. The amount of documentation utilized to make this determina tion is sometimes arbitrary; there is not a set standard for making this assertion. This designation has the poten tial to be ambiguous and inaccurate and protocol should be standardized to more accurately account for cultural affiliation. The nominations for local districts in Ta mpa demonstrate the potential pitfalls associated with not accounting for ethnic va riation. For example, locally designated historic districts in Tampa such as the Hyde Park district do not account for the African American presence in Dobyville which was a historic component of this urban community (see narrative summaries of historic districts in Tampa provided by Appendix 1). This oversight points to the fact that the designation form classifying the historical significance of this district is incomplete. This example, poi nts to the significance of my

PAGE 66

59 research indicating a relative lack of hist oric symbolic repres entation of African American cultural heritage in Tampa. Futu re research might prio ritize revising current local historic district narratives to account for multiple ethnicities in single districts. Summary descriptions from de signation forms for Tampas lo cal historic districts are listed in Appendix C. District nominations typically establish broad patterns in architecture and cultural heri tage and often leave out el ements that do not conform specifically to these patterns (such as non-c ontributing structures). For example, the West Tampa district mentions working cla ss minorities without any reference to who these people are. Experience drawn from this research has demonstrated that knowledge preservation of cultural herita ge in the absence of physical preservation has the potential to demonstrate its significance to contemporar y and future members of society. After learning that Meacham Elementary was not to be preserved as a standing structure (details forthcoming) I searched for a posit ive result of my efforts focused on preserving the school. This led me to the recognition that it is possible to pr eserve knowledge (i.e. data) without preserving its place of origin. I have slowly come to realize that the archival documentation of Meacham Elemen tary cannot be affected by its demolition (this is not to suggest that documentation s hould supplant preservatio n). Therefore, the meticulous historical and architectural account of the school I organized for the National Register nomination form will serve as a resource that will symbolize this schools place in history. Likewise, the results of mitiga tion have ensured that the school will be represented in the history of Tampa at the loca l, state, and federal levels. Ultimately, this study demonstrates that data such as material evidence generated by anthropological

PAGE 67

60 research or representative historical documentation can symbolize physical spaces (when they are no longer standing) and it is better to have valid representative data than to have nothing at all. While the recognition of historically signi ficant sites by the federal government is based on the same set of crit eria across the country, differi ng criteria for recognition and treatment of historic sites exists between states, counties, and cities. Therefore, a ranking system exists for symbols of cultural heritage. This system manifests as the historic designation process unf olds. Designated properties are ranked as significant and those that are overlooked may be demolished without consideration. This points to the significance of my research hi ghlighting the impact of desi gnation on the representation of cultural heritage. Many U.S. counties and cities (especially those of small or moderate size) lack significant historic preservation legislation and instead rely on federal standards to designate local historically significant spaces. Since it is local preservation legislation that has the most tangible effect on historic spaces, this situation increases the chances that historic recognition will serve as an honorary title ensuring knowledge preservation rather than offering substantive physical prot ection. This inconsiste ncy in preservation standards is compounded by a lack of consistency at the local level when legislation does exist. Bronson and Jester (1997:6) suggest At the local level, the definition of the built heritage of the recent past varies from state to state and municipali ty to municipality (1997:6). Variation in standa rds for recognition and treatment of places symbolizing cultural heritage does little to clarify the fu ture of significant hist oric places potentially impacted by contemporary landscape alterati on. Consistency might better serve the

PAGE 68

61 intent of historic preservation legisl ation which is recognition accompanied by preservation. Historic Designation versus Historic Preservation: The Tampa Case Study A primary goal of this analysis is to prioritize the signi ficance of physical preservation as a variable measuring the effectiveness of historic designations as a vehicle for the preservation of recognized historic African American cultural heritage spaces in the City of Tampa, Florida. African Americans received attention as an ethnic group due to the historic proce sses associated with this context (such as Urban Renewal and educational segregation). Research indicate s that this is the principal ethnic group in Tampa that has been disproportionately imp acted by urban change. Historic African American communities are a component of ma ny urban U.S. contexts and they have broadly similar historical and contemporary experiences. Afro-Cubans may be specific to Tampas history (Greenbaum 2002), but African Americans are not. Future statewide or regional comparisons in the U.S. could se rve to elucidate which cities had nineteenth century ethnic enclaves thereby clarifyi ng potentially productive contexts for the application of UMAP. This study investigates whet her the practice of histor ic preservation might be shaped by some of the same forces that impact the narratives that make up written history. Might the power struct ure of a given cultural context affect what is designated as historically significant and or wh at is preserved? Likewise, if this power structure varies according to ethnicity, might racial difference account for some of this variation? This analysis of preservation represen ts the first time racial difference has been prioritized as a variable to measure preservation equity in Tampa and in the State of Florida. This initial

PAGE 69

62 research evaluating preservation equity will be carried out in this context by searching for patterns related to how sites were designated (locally and or nati onally) across racially demarcated lines both within Tampa and in the State of Florida. This evaluation sought to provide a basis of comparison for repres entation between ethnic groups in Florida while investigating the recogniti on and treatment of cultural heritage s ites by the City of Tampa. The research was carried out by investigating all designated local and national/federal histori c sites in the City of Tampa and all structures recognized as the State of Florida as historic. This include d extensive archival research investigating historic designations conducted at city, state, and federal le vels. Therefore, tertiary sources documenting the practice of historic designation of culturally significant places were prioritized. These include: 1) local historic landmark designation forms 2) state historic structure forms and 3) National Regist er of Historic Places designation forms for National Register sites (federally recognized historic places). Since ethnic affiliation was prioritized in this study as a variable in the recognition of historic sites re presenting cultural heritage and this had never been done before at the local or state level in Florida, I made some interesting discoveries related to available documentary evidence. While conduct ing this research I discovered that the quality and quantity of information included on the designation forms (especially the ones for the City of Tampa) varied greatly. While surveying the names of the authors of designation forms, I learned that some form s were completed by trained professionals (such as Architectural Historia ns) while others were comple ted by individuals with less training. While researching r ecords detailing each designate d historic local landmark in Tampa, I found that regardless of who fille d out the forms, they were often incomplete

PAGE 70

63 (a realization that complicated my efforts) Keeping consistent records (and revising current records that are incomplete) would va stly improve this source of data. One example of a consistent omission was partic ularly aggravating. Specifically, City of Tampa designation forms provide a space to indi cate cultural affiliation with historic places and this section of the form is often le ft blank. During one of my visits to Tampa (personal correspondence: July 2006) to collect data, a worker in the Tampa Preservation office told me in no uncertain terms that I was wasting my time because Cultural Affiliation is not what we are about, we are inte rested in architecture. I was inclined to ask why her departments form had a sp ace for documenting cultural affiliation, however I chose to continue my research and not be swayed by her lack of familiarity with the forms that justify her offices exis tence (local landmark designation forms). This lack of awareness served as personal motivation and further highlights the significance of this analysis. Since cultural affiliation had never been prioritized by the City of Tampas preservation entity (or any published social scien ce researcher) it was necessary to review all available data a nd uncover documentary evidence that may have affiliated ethnic groups with historic places. This search for relevant data pertaining to local historic designations required me to travel to Tampa and spend several weeks researching and making copies of Tampa Historic Designation forms housed in the Tampa Preservation office in downtown Ta mpa (the originals are not available electronically). This research identified key variables representing common elements of historic descriptions in this context and facilitated th e development of a comprehensive listing of Tampas local historic landmarks (findings related to the investigation of this list are summarized in the conclusion).

PAGE 71

64 At the state level, I was surprised to l earn that the database listing historic structures did not account for cultural affiliation as a variable that could be used as a basis of comparison between cultural groups. At my request, the state entity responsible for maintaining this listing (the Florida Master Si te File) reorganized their dataset and for the first time their listing accounted for cultural aff iliation of historic structures. Therefore, one initial result of my research is that statewide data can now be evaluated by researchers prioritizing cultural affiliation as a component of state recognized historic structures in Florida. Resear ch prioritizing nationally rec ognized historic sites (National Register sites) within the City of Tampa le d me to the Florida Di vision of Historical Resources (the state entity that houses Nati onal Register designation forms and reviews potential new listings for the federal governme nt). Following an interview with Dawn Creamer (Administrative Assistant II, Florida Master Site File), I arranged to have designation forms for all National Register sites in Tampa shipped to me from Tallahassee electronically. This facilitated re search investigating cultural affiliation for these historic sites. I disc overed that several pages into the designation forms there is a space for indicating affiliation e ither with cultural groups, individuals, or both. I was then able to evaluate these forms according to cultural affiliation (when indicated). This assessment is also discussed in the conclusion of this chapter. During the course of this phase of my research I also conducted informal interviews with the president of the City of Tampa preservation office and with the de puty State Historic Pr eservation Officer for Historic Preservation in Florid a (the federal governments repr esentative in the State of Florida regarding historic pres ervation practice). Therefore, during the course of this investigation I conducted research at each of th e levels of the preser vation hierarchy in

PAGE 72

65 the U.S. and gained valuable insight into accessing available archival resources. For example, data related to local historic designations in Tampa were collected from Tampas downtown preservation office, informati on pertaining to state historic structures was obtained from the Florida Master Site File in Tallahassee, Florida, and National Register data was compiled from the Di vision of Historical Resources (also in Tallahassee). The results of this gro undbreaking research are summarized in the forthcoming conclusion of this chapter. Evolving Urban Landscapes Considered Tampa has expanded its recognition of African American cu ltural sites in light of this latest wave of demolition (what some mi ght describe as Urban Renewal in the twenty first century) and has recently created a lis t designed to protect symbols of African American culture in the historic Tampa nei ghborhood discussed in chapters one and two. The Tampa African American multiple-properties listing (expanded significantly in 2005) described below serves as recognition of the historic significance of a group of properties to the Historic African American Central Avenue community that emerged in the nineteenth century within the City of Tampa. Econom ic opportunities emerged for business owners aided by federal policy which deprived the black community in Tampa of its infrastructure (medical services, social services and businesses that traditionally catered only to people in the segregated co mmunity). As contemporary researchers we cannot change the course of history. Howe ver, when confronted with dynamic urban landscapes that retain subtle historical asso ciations with cultural behavior we have the opportunity and the obligation to clarify the cu ltural association of enduring elements of

PAGE 73

66 historical data such as places and the materi al evidence they contain representing African American cultural heritage. In 2005, the City of Tampa expanded the Mu ltiple Properties Listing for African American historical sites representing hist orically significant sites associated with African Americans in Tampa. The intent of this preemptive strate gy is to recognize and prevent the demolition of significant symbols of this Historic African American community before they fall victim to imminent redevelopment of the entire community. Currently, this list includes ten enduring structures in the vicinity of this neighborhood of historic signi ficance. The City of Ta mpa Historic Preservation Commissions narrative summary of this mu ltiple properties list states that these buildings: rank among the few remaining structures that represent an enclave that formed among the African-American community, starting as early as prior to the turn of the century. Racial segregation, in turn, included social, economic, and religious segregation and the Black community in Tampa responded by creating a complete, separate social structure within the framework of the City of Tampa. The Central Avenue Business District wa s the heartbeat of the Black community and provided all services needed for daily life to a restricted audience. It was razed by Urban Renewal in the 1970s. The surviving buildings proposed for nomination, all built in brick delineating their importance and success through permanence in material and style, represen t significant community structures that served as touchstones to the cohesive community that formed around the Central Avenue area (City of Tampa Historic Preservation Commission, Continuation Sheet Local Historic Property Multiple Properties List 2005: section E, page 1). This modified listing of signi ficant symbols of the historic Central Avenue community was established in 2005 and sin ce its inception this group has gr own from four to twelve structures. The timing of this expansion is pr obably not arbitrary. Rather, it is likely a result of comprehensive, calculated plans to demolish the vast majority of structures that persist across this urban landscape. The period of historic significance for this multiple-

PAGE 74

67 properties listing is 1912-1948. All of these buildings are either schools or churches pointing to the social significance of these types of buildings as spaces utilized by African Americans within this segregated community. It is significant to note that the only building demonstrating char acteristics consistent with these criteria that has been left off of this list is Me acham Elementary (1225 India Stre et). Furthermore, expansion of this list is likely the result of the threatened status of all structures within the current footprint of the Central Park Community Redevelopment Area Plan (WilsonMiller, Inc. and The Hillsborough County City-County Plan ning Commission 2005). Consistent with the process of urban renewal in Tampa in d ecades past, this plan calls for demolition of structures not incorporated into the future of this new landscape. Therefore, even though this list has been expanded recently it ha s failed to recognize the historic status of Meacham Elementary which is Tampas oldest and only enduring historic public African American school. This oversight is significant to the future repr esentation of African American history in Tampa because this rede velopment plan will have a dramatic impact on the cultural landscape of the Historic Ce ntral Avenue community and will lead to the demolition of virtually all structures not identif ied in the plan as locally significant by the City of Tampa Histor ic Preservation Commission. The twelve properties currently recognized by the City of Tampa as components of the Historic Central Avenue multiple properties group include: 1) Dr. White SR. House 2) Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church 3) Issac Gardner SR. House 4) Jackson House 5) Kid Mason Center 6) Longshoreman s Hall 7) St. James Episcopal Church 8) St. Paul A.M.E. Church 9) St. Peter Clav er School 10) The Gr eater Mount Moriah Primitive Baptist Church 11) The Greater Bethel Baptist Church 12) Paradise Missionary

PAGE 75

68 Baptist Church. Based on first-hand observa tion of the properties in this community, I am of the opinion that this list is generally comprehensive a nd inclusive of historically significant structures that survived urban renewal in this neighborhood. However, Meacham Elementary should be included in this list. This school has been recognized by the federal government as historically signi ficant to the cultural heritage of African Americans in Tampa but has been overlooked by the City of Tampa. This structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an individual building and as a contributing structure to Florid as Historic Black Public Scho ols Multiple Properties List. The local preservation staff are intimately fam iliar with the history and threatened status of this school. In spite of this, it is not included in the local African American multiple properties group and is NOT designated by the ci ty of Tampa as a local landmark. If this school falls victim to demolition the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County Schools, the County Planning Commission, and the Ta mpa Housing Authority cannot claim ignorance. I have personally interacted with representatives of each of these entities and they are aware of Meacham Elementarys histor ic status and significa nce (the details of this interaction are summarized in ch apter 4 of this study). The omission of Meacham Elementary is disturbing due to the proximity of the school to other recognized landmarks and its central location in the community. Likewise the characteristics of the school are consistent with the other properties on the list. For example, the function of this stru cture (i.e. a school cons tructed to cater to African Americans during times of segregation), th e building material used (brick), and its construction date (1926) ar e consistent with other proper ties designated by this list. This omission is the most significant disc overy of the current research regarding

PAGE 76

69 historic structures at the local level. Firs t hand interaction with key officials such as the current Deputy SHIPO (state historic preservation officer) and the current and previous Chief Financial Officers for Hills borough County Schools has demonstrated that this oversight is not consistent with fede ral protocol addressing potential effects of construction on National Register sites (such as Meacham Elementary). Specifically, the Deputy SHIPO informed me that the Complianc e and Review section of the Division of Historical Resources should have the opportunity to review the proposed redevelopment plan prior to it being accepted and finalized by the City of Tampa or Hillsborough County. This office, upon review of the threaten ed status of this Na tional Register Site has recommended that Meacham Elementary be added to Tampas Local Landmarks and should be preserved. An interview on August 2, 2006 with the current Chief Financial Officer of Hillsborough County Schools (Cathy Valdez) indicat ed that they were doing their best to sell the school and make it someone elses problem. Evidently, Hillsborough County Schools is not motivated to, or does not have the financial ability to, preserve this valuable symbol of African Am erican cultural heritage. They are desperate to liquidate this monetary asset, sneak away with the dirty money, and wash their hands of historical responsibility. Rather than rec ognizing the significance of this structure the way the federal government has, they are doi ng their best to sell the property for profit thereby abandoning the historic significance of this public holding. This example demonstrates that the disconnect between th e intent of historic designation and the practice of historic preservation (and associated funding) can complicate the contemporary representation of cultural he ritage in urban space.

PAGE 77

70 Considering the dimensions of the Hist oric African American Central Avenue community (less than one square mile), in light of the fact that relatively few structures that survived demolitions justified by urban renewal policy in the 1970s, and because the majority of residences in the community are public housing units (constructed atop the landscape historically affiliat ed with African Americans in Tampa), the designation and preservation of properties in this community appears equitable acro ss racial lines. If more homes and businesses had survived Urba n Renewal, there would be more properties to consider. Certainly, if urban renewal demolitions had been proportional across racial lines in Tampa, there would be fewer historic properties that historically were associated with non-black communities. Urban Change and Historical Representation Considered Archival research at the local, state, and federal level detailing specifics related to historic cultural heri tage sites is summarized in Appe ndices B-E. These tables were generated after analyzin g designation reports; th erefore, they represent summaries of the tertiary data (well over a thousand pages) designed to augmen t future research initiatives. The current analysis of the equity of histor ical designation in Tamp a demonstrates that places recognized by the local government as historic associated with African American Heritage in the vicinity of Ta mpas Historic Central Avenue community (established in the 1880s) are rare. Only a few structures associated historically with African Americans in Tampa have been designat ed as historic by the City of Tampa. For example, as of October 2006, only 6 out of 55 local historic landmarks were located in the historic Central Avenue African American enclave in Tampa.

PAGE 78

71 Appendix B provides a table providing summary descrip tions of Tampas Local Historic Landmarks. Variable s describing these landmarks were established to facilitate an evaluation of commonal ities and differences betw een landmarks as well as highlighting unique components of each. The current research laid the groundwork for making comparisons between individual landmar ks and for evaluating trends present in the conglomerate. Available documentary evidence established va riables representing these landmarks. These variables include: la ndmark name, address, date of construction, designation criteria (justifi cation for historic status), landmark use (residential, commercial, public, religious, public educat ion, public transportation, social club), historic affiliation/significan ce (individual, ethnicity/cultura l), owner of landmark, and National Register status (is th e local landmark also a National Register site?). Analysis of this data indicates that 22 out of 56 local landmarks (including those with pending status) are federally recognized historic landmarks (National Re gister sites). This study of Tampa local historic landmarks currently represents the most comprehensive analysis of this dataset. This analysis adds to the contemporary understand ing of these landmarks representing cultural heritage because of the prioritization of cultural/ethnic affiliation associated with these sites. Also, descrip tive elements of landmarks were consolidated for comprehensive analysis and local and federal designations of recognized historic landmarks in Tampa were synthesize d as a single group for analysis. The discrepancy in representation of African American cultural heritage sites is mirrored at the state level. For example, as of January 2007, 1,179 (less than 1%) out of 132,978 buildings designated as historic by th e State of Florida are represented as having an association with African American Cultural Heritage. This contrasts with the

PAGE 79

72 representative population of the State. For example, according to the 2000 census (U.S. Census Bureau 2000: http://factfinder.census.gov/se rvlet/QTTable? bm=y&-geo id=04000US12&-qr name=DEC 2000 SF1 U DP1&-ds name=DEC 2000 SF1 U ) for individuals claiming affiliation with one race (97.6% of the total population), 78% (12,465,029) claimed to be White and 14.6% (2, 335,505) claimed to be Black or African American. Likewise, this discrepancy between population and representative sites designated as historic exists within Tampa. According to the 2 000 census (U.S. Census Bureau 2000: http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/fefdl/Cities.pdf /Tampa%20city.pdf ) for individuals who claimed affiliation with one race (97.1% of the total population), 64.2% claimed to be White (194,871) and 26.1% ( 79,118) claimed to be Black or African American. For Tampa, population was considered a representative measure of equity due to the relative stability of the black and white populations over time (Howard et al. 2, Mohlman 1995:79). This comparison might not be valid for urban contexts witnessing dramatic ethnic population fluctuations through time. For example, we should not expect to see representative historical sites fo r newly established ethnic communities. Population as a measure of equity should be carefully scrutinized; when utilized as a variable accounting for differe nce in historic preservation practice, historic populations associated with historic desi gnations should be the focus of the comparison rather than contemporary populations (unless they are consistent with historic trends; as was the case with Tampa). As of January 2007, 1 out of 41 National Register of Historic Places site designation forms affiliated a federally recognized historic site with African American cultural heritage in Tampa. The lone repres entative listed by the National Register of

PAGE 80

73 Historic Places is Meacham Elementary (to be discussed in the conclusion of this chapter and in chapter four). This assessment clearly indicates a lack of pres ervation equity at the local, state, and federal level. For example, 2% of National Register of Historic Places sites (compared to a 26% representative populat ion) in Tampa are affiliated with African American cultural heritage, less than 1% of th e historic structures listed by the State of Florida (compared with a 14.6% representative population) are aff iliated with African American cultural heritage, and at the local level 11% of the City of Tampas historic places (compared to 26% representative populati on) have this affiliation. As has been mentioned in this chapter a variety of local factors (such as preser vation legislation and consistent criteria) and the process of urba n renewal and its residua l affects potentially impact the public designation of historic properties. Researching available state data yielded 2,942 state historic structures with ethnic affiliations recorded on historic structure designation forms. This assessment represents the first contemporary analysis of statewide et hnically affiliated historic structures. These state historic sites re present a sample of the 132,978 hi storic structures currently recognized by the State of Florida. Accord ing to the Florida Division of Historical Resources (Phone Conversation: Dawn Creamer 2006). Since this sample includes all historic structures in the state recogni zed as having ethnic affiliation, evidently the other 128,000 + structures lack an ethnic iden tity (see Table 2 below). The Florida codes for ethnic affiliation on designation forms are: abor (Aboriginal American Heritage), BLAC (African American Heritage), CUBA (C uban Heritage), JEWH (Jewish Heritage), ETHN (Indicates non-specifi ed ethnic designation).

PAGE 81

Table 2. Ethnic Affiliation as Indicated on Florida State Historical Structure Forms ABOR BLAC CUBA JEWH ETHN TOTAL 0 1373 1 1 1569 2942 When considering physical space and historic affiliation of local and nationally recognized historic districts in Tampa, acreage and the time period of historic significance of those districts serves as an indi cator that might provide insight into racial equity and historic status. All periods of hi storic significance associat ed with all historic districts in Tampa (local and national) correspond to times of institutionalized segregation in the U.S. Therefore, none of these districts are documented as being representative of African Amer ican heritage. The public sp aces and institutions that typified these areas did not cater to African Americans (however they did work in many of these facilities). In addition to time serving as an indicato r of a lack of racial equity and historic space, the acreage of non-black historic districts demonstrates how profound this lack of equity is in Tampa. For example, the African American multiple properties listing (a group of structures classified as hist oric, but not designated as a district) represents about 1 acre of space in the City of Tampa. The non-black local districts include over 2,000 acres of physical space. This dem onstrates that less than 1% of the historic space recognized as historically significant to the City of Tampa is affiliated with African American heritage who in 2000 made up 26% of the population of the City: this does not represent ra cial equity. This study represents a unique approach to the analysis of material symbols of culture because it prioritizes a critical appr oach aimed at investigating the process of Urban Renewal and its residual affects on equitable representa tion of potentially 74

PAGE 82

75 significant historic places. Fu rther, this analysis contra sted historic Urban Renewal trends with contemporary revitalization efforts and clearly indicates the perpetuation of the connection between economic benefit and the planned modification of urban landscapes. This research indicates that urban planning designed to complement economic growth has an impact on historic designation and preservation which in Tampa affects the recognition and stat us of significant symbols of African American cultural heritage. The same ideology that underlined segregation in the U.S. pointing to urban manifestations of race, power, and place, is represented by historical Urban Renewal policy and contemporary redeve lopment plans and historic preservation policies. The City of Tampa provides a case study investigating pres ervation practices across racial lines taking cognizance of th e significance of evolving urban landscapes and the potential effect this change can have on representative cultural heritage. Since historic places represent material evidence it follows that historic symbols representing African American cultural heritage have the potential to manifest as standing structures (buildings) or subsurface deposits (artifacts and features) both of which can and should complement archival documentati on and other relevant data.

PAGE 83

76 Chapter Four: Taking a StandPrioritizing Meacham Elementary through Practice: Anthropological Advocacy, Action Re search, and Historic Designation Anthropological Advocacy and Ethics This chapter analyzes and clarifies an thropological practice associated with collaborative research applied toward the preservation of Meacham Elementary. As a measure to curb potential bias affecting research, the discipline of anthropology prioritizes objectivity. However, when prac tice becomes intertwined with an agenda an anthropologist must decide whether or not to knowingly take a side and apply their research toward engaging an issue from an opi nionated perspective. If ethical standards are not objective, and they affect the practice of anthropology, then it follows that data resulting from objective research designs have the potential to serv e an agenda aligned with ethical practice. Therefore, it is feasible for an anthr opologist to justify advocacy as an action consistent with ethi cal practice. Anthropologists have long asserted that an anthropologists primary allegiance should be to groups under study. For nearly four decades this priority has b een reflected in the ethical code outlined by the most representative cohort of pr ofessional anthropologists in North America (Fluehr-Loban 2003:xii). For example, in 1971 this ethical policy was explicitly stated by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in its published Statement of Professional Responsibility (2006:www.aaanet.org/committee/ethi csethcode.htm). One portion of this statement addressed an anthropologists et hical responsibility to groups potentially

PAGE 84

affected by research as a primary component of ethical practice. The AAA statement states In research the anthropol ogists paramount res ponsibility is to thos e he studies. Figure 5. Aerial Image Depicting Meacham Elementary and Perry Harvey Park Indicating Locations Re lative to Interstate 275, Tampas Downtown Business District, and Ybor City. 77

PAGE 85

78 When there is a conflict of interest, thes e individuals must come first (Fluehr-Lobban 2003:12). Despite the passing of decades and a se ries of revisions to these professional ethical standards, this feature of anthropologi cal ethics has persisted and continues to set the standard for the ethical practice of an thropology. Fluehr-Lobban (2003:12) explains: This fundamental responsibil ity to the people studied at once reflected the humanistic essence of the discipline, and as a core principle it guided anthropologists actions. The strength of this core principle was shown by the fact that it was left virtually intact (changing paramount to firs t) in the 1990 revised Principles of Professional Responsibility. Then, in 1998, it was modified to primary ethical obligation and expanded to include animals and materials as well as people in the 1998 code. This statement clarifies what anthropologi sts should do (prioriti ze groups under study when a conflict of interest arises) however it fa ils to explicitly define how to achieve this goal. Halstrup and Elsass (1990) argued that ethi cal responsibilities such as whether or not to assume the role of an advocate manife st as components of research context. It follows that the methods of maintaining ethi cal responsibility vary between projects and among researchers; however, there are two trends in anthropological practice that reflect adherence to this ethical policy. One method is to discontinue research if one is made aware of a conflict of interest involving their research and its potential effect on a group under study. Another method applied toward maintaining the ethica l prioritization of groups under study is anthropological advocac y. Fluehr-Lobban (2003) suggested that advocacy is an individual choice for anth ropological researchers rather than a professional responsibility (2003: 240). Halstrup and Elsass (1990) also asserted that advocacy is not a formal component of the discipline of anthropology. These researchers assert that anthropological data might be a pplied to particular c ontexts rationalized by

PAGE 86

79 individual morality and that this morality is distinct from the discipline (1990:301). However, it is clear that this ethical deci sion is dictated by the ethical standards for practice that have persisted for decades. Th erefore, it follows that advocacy as an application of anthropological knowledge repr esents applied anthropology grounded in ethical responsibility defined by the profe ssional standards of the discipline. The ethical decision to advocate for a group under study when a conflict of interest arises has been addressed by a host of anthropological researchers (e.g. Cook 2003:192; DAndrrade, R. 1995; Davis 2003; Henriksen 2003; Ramos 2003). This decision is collectively viewed as one that mu st be made by individu al anthropologists as potential conflicts of interest arise within specific research contexts. Halstrup and Elsass (1990) propose that the lesson of anth ropological involvement in a multivocal discourse is ultimately moral (1990:308). The morality of anthropological researchers is grounded in and shaped by ethical standards established and perpetuated by the discipline of anthropology. Therefore despite the fact that anthropological data cannot speak for itself and even though ethical decisions are made by individuals, ultimately their actions are supported by the ethical code of the discipline as a whole. Consistent with the ethical practice of anthropology, wh en anthropologists take action to benefit groups impacted by th eir research, they move beyond making recommendations and choose to take action as applied anthropologists which may lead to advocacy (as in the case of my research agenda involving Meacham Elementary). A byproduct of my research (a phone call that will be clarified in the narrative sections of this chapter) motivated me to make a choice as to whether I was willing to take a side and apply my research toward aiding a cause a nd serve as an advocate or discontinue my

PAGE 87

80 research. Therefore, the decision to advocate for the preservation of Meacham Elementary was a moral decision that I pursued because I considered this action to be consistent with the ethical standa rds of anthropological practice. Advocacy and Action Oriented Anthropological Practice The application of social science data to the engagement of real world problems (i.e. taking action as a social scientist) has been employed by researchers from a variety of social science disciplines (such as sociology, psychology, h ealth, education, and agriculture) and is broadly categor ized as action-oriented resear ch. Social scientists from a variety of disciplines have pursued cont emporary applications of action-oriented research and these applications are variable and contextual. My advocacy work aligned with the historic designation of Meacham Elem entary (with the intent of preservation) represents action oriented research. Multiple elements of this approach are consistent with my research agenda. For example, sc holars point to the signi ficance of practical applications of data and co llaboration with those potenti ally impacted by research. Small (1995:942-943) asserts that While the substantive focus has varied, common to all forms of action research is its agenda of producing research that can address practical concerns (Small 1995:942). Fu rther he explains th at action-oriented research values collaboration with non-resear cher participants and that action research is always conducted in the setting where the problem is encountered, and the focus is usually on a single case or unit (Small 1995: 942). LeCompte and Shensul (1999:90) assert Some researchers define action resear ch broadly as any rese arch conducted with a clear institutional or community structural ch ange in mind. Others reserve the term for research designed to address structural inequalitiesaction-research is site-specific and

PAGE 88

81 involves researchers and part icipants (LeCompte and Shensul 1990:90). Greenwood and Leven (1998) assert that social science researchers as actionoriented researchers should collaborate actively w ith their research subjects in order to promote social change. They define action research as resear ch that aims to increase the ability of the involved community or organization member s to control their own destinies more effectively (Greenw ood and Leven 1998:435). Bennet (1996) describes action-oriented research explicitly undertaken as anthropological research to be action anthr opology. According to Bennet (1996) action anthropology in the United States was initiate d with the work of Sol Tax in the 1940s. This approach renounced the employment of practitioners by govern ment or any large organization in favor of voluntary academic proj ects engaging in intensive intervention in the problems and needs of local communities. The approach did not prevail, but its ideas continue to stimulate intere st (Bennet 1996:S23). Even though Taxs agenda did not evolve into a standard anthr opological model, his approach set precedent for future work by anthropologists that prioritize taking ac tion aimed at addressing local needs and interests. My advocacy and associated collaborati on related to the plight of Meacham Elementary is consistent with the primary el ements of action-oriented research including the prioritization of engaging research questions that address site specific (contextual) issues resulting in data that ha ve the potential to affect the justification for the research. Specifically, this study indicates that data produced by my initial archival historical research addressing Meacham Elementary had th e potential to affect the historic status and potentially the future treatment of a symbol of African American cultural heritage in

PAGE 89

82 Tampa. Further, my research is consis tent with Sol Taxs philosophy because it represents a voluntary academic project. I became involved with this project as an advocate subsequent to being contacted by Arndrita Harris (the great granddaughter of Christina Meacham; the namesake of Meacham Elementary). She asked me if I could help preserve the school and when I agreed to volunteer my time to do so, I made the decision to act as an anthropological advocat e. My name was passed along to the Harris family by Mary Alice Dorsett. During the course of this research Arndrita and William Harris (her son; the great, great, grandson of Christina Meacham) provided support at community events and meetings engaging the importance of the school. These two family members served a supporting role prov iding historical info rmation detailing the history of their family and I was the primary representative of this cause. Even though I conducted the ethnographic, ar chival, architectural, arch aeological, and historic preservation research, led disc ussions at key meetings, and produced the technical reports needed to substantiate our position, the collaboration with family members and other supportive members of the Tampa African American community wa s vital to this project. Their support demonstrated that the school wa s significant to the community; not just to an academic researcher. The final sections of this chapter will demonstrate that since 2003 I have spent literally hundreds of hours conducting research and attending meetings aimed at bolstering support for the historic status and future disposition of Meacham Elementary. Contemporary accounts of action-oriented research in anthro pological literature are often concerned with the appl ication of data to an agenda aimed at solving a problem. Therefore in some contexts anthropological research undertaken as action-oriented

PAGE 90

83 research might manifest as advocacy. LeCompte and Shensul (1999) assert that as anthropologists ethnographe rs are not only interpreters of words and deeds but participants or stakeholders in the uses of the research for problem solving. Stakeholders are people who have a vested in terest in ensuring that the resu lts of research are used to solve the problem the research is addressing (1999:13). According to LeCompte and Shensul (1999:13) these stakeholders which might include anthropologists as well as collaborating community members collect, inte rpret, and apply that data in order to maximize benefits to affected communities. They explain that one clearly defined general approach aligned with the application of an thropological data to the resolution or engagement of real world problems has been discussed in contemporary anthropological literature as both action research (discussed above) and participat ory action research (LeCompte and Shensul 1999:14). Participatory Action Research My research efforts surrounding the preservation of Meacham Elementary in Tampa serve as a general example of action-or iented anthropologica l research applied by an anthropologist. This study represents ac tion research that was collaborative and it is aligned with what LeCompte and Shensul (1999) identify as particip atory action research (PAR). Participatory action research represen ts a form of action-or iented research that has been described as one means of addr essing the gap between researchers and the intended beneficiaries of research (Turnbull et al. 1998:3). Turnbull et al. also assert that PAR refers to a process whereby th e researchers and stakeholders (those who potentially benefit from research results) co llaborate in the design and conduct all phases of the research process. PARs ultimate goal is taking action to solve the problem that is

PAGE 91

84 the basis of the research (Turnbull et al 1998:3). Chambers (1992:737) explains how The PAR model is based on a partnership between practitioner a nd applied research orientations (Chambers 1992:737) Likewise, consistent w ith the basic tenants of action-oriented research, White (1991) stresses th e importance of relating participatory practice to the socioeconomic and cultural context in which interactions occur (White 1991:37). Therefore, PAR repr esents a manifestation of action-oriented research that serves to direct ly align researchers with stakeh olders as participants in the research process with the common goal of solv ing a problem or engaging a specific issue. Action Research and African Americ an Cultural Heritage in Tampa When I agreed to advocate for the preserva tion of this school and take the side of the family and the community I moved beyond the realm of purely de scriptive research and became an applied anthropological advoc ate taking action (i.e. an anthropological advocate pursuing action-oriented research). As will be explained in the upcoming sections of this chapter, the problem faced by this family as well as all supportive members of the public and the community surrounding the school was the potential loss of the school due to redevelopment of th e entire neighborhood that encompasses the school (comprised of 483 connected public housing units). Therefor e, the local context of my research and my ethical decision defined my ro le as an applied anthropological advocate acting as an action-oriented researcher engaging various political entities in concert with participating stakeholders. Rather than documenting the effects of redevelopment in this neighborhood and re flecting on the process and its effects on culture and the symbolic repres entation of culture across this urban landscape, I chose to

PAGE 92

take action as an anthropologist and apply my research efforts explicitly toward the preservation of Meacham Elementary. My role as an applied anthropologist in this context led to the application of action oriented research when the family of the namesake of Meacham Elementary contacted me and offered a research partnershi p aimed at the preservation of the school. Figure 6. Representative Photo of Meacham Elementary Advocacy Group David Butler (far left), Ar ndrita Harris (center), Mary Alice Dorsett (center left), Jason Harris (far right) Three generations of family members offe red their assistance in the preservation project and the family and I in conjuncti on with other supportive African Americans from Tampa have worked together in various capacities since we joined forces in November of 2004. Consistent with the basi c tenets of PAR such as collaboration, on more than one occasion, at meetings engaging various governmental entities involved with historic designation and pr eservation at the local, state, and federal level, members of the family, the community, and I have se rved complementary roles. For example, 85

PAGE 93

86 family members (especially the great granddaughter of Christin a Meacham: Arndrita Harris and Mrs. Meachams great, great, gran dson William Jason Harris) have provided detailed family history demonstrating the sign ificance of the school to their family and to African Americans in Tampa while I have served as an advocate providing technical information and insight into the historic designation and preservation process. Additional African American collaborators from Tampa have included: Jewel R. Aires, Doris Scott, Rutha M. Harper, Gloria Philmore, Mary Sheffield, Marie Sheehy, Sara Sims, Helen Taylor, and Oretha Wright. As an anthropological advocate, my servic e to this community manifested as both a facilitator of technical information and as a political consultant a nd ally. My decision to serve as an advocate explicitly aligned me with one point of view and I worked to impact the outcome of a very challenging set of circumstances surrounding historic designation with the intent of preserving Meacham Elementary. Because I chose to take action and align myself with a particular group my re search demonstrating the significance of Meacham Elementary represen ts anthropological advocacy and because I prioritized collaboration with other stakeholders this research represents action oriented anthropological research. The goal of this action oriented resear ch was to demonstrate the historical significance of the school with the intent of setting precedent for protecting the school from demolition (a tenuous goal that remains intact). Our opposition either explicitly aimed to destroy the school or sought to ignore its existence and significance as a symbol of African American cultural heritage in Tampa. By ali gning myself against those who sought to ignore Meacham Elementary as a component of African American cultural

PAGE 94

87 heritage in Tampa I sought to shed light on the inequities of preservation in this local context (highlighted in chapte r three) by working toward a specific goal to address this problem. By addressing this problem in a local cont ext, this research served to recognize structural inequalities involve d with historic recognition a nd preservation of African American historic sites and schools in the State of Florida. For example Black Heritage Sites: An African American Odyssey and Finde rs Guide (1996) lists only three African American educational facilities as significant to Black Heritage in the State of Florida: Bethune-Cookman College, Edward Waters Co llege Centennial Hall, and the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Ca rnegie Library Black Archives, Research Center and Museum (Curtis 1996:60-76). Li kewise, the National Register Multiple Properties Listing for Historic Public Black Schools in Florida lis ts only five schools: Deleon Springs Colored School (DeLeon Spring s), Orange City Colored School (Orange City), Osborne School (Lake Worth), Libe rty Hill Schoolhouse (G ainesville), and Meacham Elementary (Tampa) (2007:http ://en.wikpd.org/wiki/L ist_of-Registered_ Historic_Black_Public_School_Florida). This study demonstrates that the choices researchers make when they are faced with an ethical decision has the potential to significantly affect practice. For example, had I chosen not to take a side when the Meacham family and other supportive African Americans from Tampa contacted me, my research into the cultural heritage of Af rican Americans in Tampa would have been markedly different (and have taken a lot less time). The final sections of this chapter will recount the narrative associated with successfully having Meacham Elementary designated by the federal government as a historically significa nt structure.

PAGE 95

The Historic Status of Cultural Heritage: Justifying State and Federal Recognition of Meacham Elementary The process associated with working toward the preservation of Meacham Elementary manifested as action oriented res earch within a turbulen t urban context slated for large-scale redevelopment aimed at maxi mizing profit and the im age of a revitalized downtown space for Tampa. Archival and ethnographic research focusing on the significance of the school to the history of the surrounding extant community demonstrated that comprehensive engage ment of the power structure impacting redevelopment efforts was required in order to prolong its existence. Figure 7. Meacham Elementary Primary Entrance Decisions affecting urban landscape change potentially impacting historic structures serving as symbols of cultural heritage are made by the local power structure (which may be supported by federal funding) that drives urban planning. Th is power structure consists of local designation entities such as the Tampa Preservation Commission which 88

PAGE 96

are responsible for identifying and designati ng historically significant properties at the local level. Likewise, urban planning strategies are formalized by architectural firms Figure 8. Streetscape: Looking East on Ma y Street (school on left, Central Park Village public housing units on right and straight ahead) and lawyers who coordinate with entities that implement urban pla nning initiatives such as: City Councils, County Commissioners, Mayo rs, and private developers. This study demonstrates that other entities may impact urban planning such as School Districts, School Boards, the Housing Authority, and or ganized residents and citizens who may act effectively to modify urban planning initiati ves. It became clear that the communitys recognition of this building as significant to its own history was not enough to prevent the building from being overlooked and or demo lished as a byproduct of redevelopment. Therefore, I recognized a need for broader and more substantive support for this structure. Consequently, I became versed in historic preservation strategies applied by historic architects, developers and planners, and consulting and engineering firms. This research was applied as I became a facilitator and interpreter of technical information that 89

PAGE 97

90 eventually led to the school being placed on the National Register of Historic Places in April of 2005. This technical component of my advocacy involved a architectural evaluation of Meacham Elementary (typically this work requires the expertise of historic architects) along with the accompanying techni cal expertise required to complete state and federal historic designation forms. Th e architectural description of the school I provided for the 2003 National Register of Hist oric Places designation form clarifies the physical elements of this structure. Many of the characteristics described below can be observed in Figures 7 and 8 (above). The Meacham Elementary School is a two story, Masonry Vernacular style, rectangular, bu ilding with a Portico and a onestory western extension. Above th e portico is a portion of the schools second story, above which lie s the flat roof (which is reinforced concrete with built-up tar and gravel). The walls are finished with brick (English bond). The windows in the center of the school (upstairs and downsta irs) are 4/4 double hung wooden sashes and the windows covering the eastern 1/3 and the western 1/4 of the building are 3/3 double hung woode n sashes (both have architrave trim, plain timber sills, with rails). The second story of the front (north) and rear (south) facades have windows aligned with those on the first story. The main, north faade of the sc hool faces India Street and a yard with mowed grass, 2 live oak trees and a concrete walkway leading to the entrance. The portico (the most prominent feature of the faade) is accessed via the walkway. The entrance is double, metal frame, glass doors that are surrounded by modest casement windows (also framed in metal). The interior of the school reflects the typical schoolhouse interior with linoleum press tile flooring, and a double-loaded corridor with classrooms on either side (Butler 2003). Subsequently, I filled the role of a negotiato r as I interacted with multiple tiers of the preservation and development hierarchy including city, county, and state officials concerning the historic designation process. The timeline demonstrating this process was set in motion when my historic preservati on efforts related to Meacham Elementary began in August of 2003.

PAGE 98

91 As was mentioned in chapter two, I initiat ed research on Meacham Elementary as a component of background research undertaken as a doctoral gradua te assistant for the 2003 University of South Florida archaeological field school (under the direction of Dr. Brent Weisman, USF). The nineteenth and earl y twentieth century artifacts uncovered in Perry Harvey Park (one of three project areas/excavation sites for the aforementioned archaeological field school) demonstrated the longstanding connec tion of the African American community in Tampa to the urban sp ace in the vicinity of the school which is located three blocks east of Perry Harvey Par k. At this point in my research, I had not been contacted by the Harris family and did not have any idea that re searching the school would lead to a campaign that would become the focus of my pr ofessional life for the next three years. After researching Sanborn maps (as was done with the investigation of Perry Harvey Park) in addition to county and school board records for documentation of the school, I found that the school was around 30 y ears older than the public housing units that make up the surrounding neighborhood. Subs equently, after learning that the school was constructed in 1926 to cater to the th en segregated African American enclave adjacent to the Historic Central Avenue Busi ness District/Historic Tampa Black Business District (the focus of excavation at Perry Ha rvey Park discussed in chapter two) it was recognized that the school wa s a component of the cultura l landscape associated with archaeological context of the excavation undertaken in June, 2003. It would have been an oversight not to have documented the anti quity of this structure as it represents infrastructure associated with the extant African American community in the immediate vicinity of the archaeology project. In re trospect, it all seemed so simple: I thought I

PAGE 99

92 would just make sure the state knew the schoo l was there and then be done with that portion of my research (and of course this documentary research would have concluded at the end of the summer field school; at least thats what I thought). After contacting the Florida Division of Historical Resources to make sure that they were aware of the school, I learned that they had no previous knowledge of this significant structure. I had assumed that the school was documented because I was aware of at least one very recent Cultural Resource Assessment survey that was conducted in the neighborhood (2002 Archaeological Site Report). This archaeological and historical assessment of the area failed to account adequately for Meacham Elem entary in its documentation of the area. Therefore, I felt obligated to do so, (in re flection this action was probably my initial step toward applying Participatory Acti on Research). Since my initial background research assignment was to document th e built environment of the neighborhood and because this school represented a significan t cultural resource that could not be overlooked, I felt obligated to make sure that the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources knew its location and was awar e of its relationshi p to the surrounding community. This endeavor enta iled the filing of a Florida Mast er Site File state historic structure form. I began this form in Augus t and it was accepted by the state (following revisions) in October of 2003. After filing the state historic structure form for Meacham Elementary I learned that the school was on the agenda to be considered for local landmark status (a discovery that temporarily set my mind at ease). As mentioned in chapter two this designation affords conc rete protection by absolutely preventing demolition of locally designated historic properties in Tampa (consistent with

PAGE 100

Figure 9. Topographic Map Depicting Meacham Location the intent but not always the result of federal recognition). Therefore, I again prematurely concluded that this might signal the end of my res earch related to the school. As indicated by a public notice at the entryway (an entryway that was approximately 25 feet behind a locked four foot high chain link fence) Meacham Elementary was on the agenda for the October 28, 2003 Tampa Histor ic Preservation Commission board meeting (the City of Tampas local pres ervation entity). A large poste r in the window adjacent to 93

PAGE 101

94 the front door of Meacham Elementary explaine d that the school was to be considered as a potential City of Tampa Local Landmark at the meeting. Such board meetings include votes to designate loca l sites and protect them against future demolition or deny them local historic status. However, the school was never afford ed this opportunity because it vanished from the agenda prio r to the meeting and was therefore never officially considered by the preservation board. When I repeatedly contacted the local hi storic commission to inquire as to why this was the case, my question was avoided. A discussion with the head of the local preservation entity in 2003 (A nnie Hart) revealed no explanat ion for its removal from the agenda. In fact, the person in charge of this City entity could not explain why the school had been removed from the agenda she told me she wasnt exactly sure (Hart: personal correspondence 2003) and suggested that I f ill out a form online recommending that the school be added to their next quarterly mee ting (this I did on two se parate occasions and the school was not placed on their agenda either time). After conducting this investigation, I became suspicious about the Citys motives and became encouraged to take further action. Had I chosen to st op here, it would have been relatively unproblematic for me to have stopped my i nvolvement in the on goings of the school. Input from the Florida Division of Historic Resources served as incentive that fueled my desire to take action to advocate for this school In response to the state historic structure form I submitted, the Division of Historic Resources Bureau of Historic Preservation communicated the following to me regarding the school:

PAGE 102

95 If the major alterations to the school were made in 1954and I will take your word for itthen the building is likely eligible for nomination to the National Register as an example of an AfricanAmerican education facility from the segregation eraIf you want to start the process of nomina ting this property to the National Registeter, please let me know (let ter received on October 9, 2003 from Carl Shiver, Division of Historical Resources). Partially in response to this letter and partly due to the fact th at the school, with no explanation, had been denied the opport unity to be recogn ized by the local preservation entity in October of 2003, I began working on the National Register of Historic Places nomination form (the next st ep toward having this school recognized as a significant cultural resource). The National Regist er of Historic Places represents a list of historic sites recognized as such by the federa l government. This list is maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) and represents an inventory of cultural resources such as districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects, each determined by the NPS to be of historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological, or engineering significance at the national, state, or local level (King 2004:362). Accepta nce to the National Register of Historic Places symbolizes a designation that potenti ally affords more protection than state recognition and provides opportunities for tax breaks and rehabilitation grants for these historic cultural resources. However, this project demonstrates that filing appropriate paperwork does not ensure that historic sites will be accepted as such by the federal government, nor does it mean that local planne rs will adhere to the intent of federal historic status (which is preservation). Working toward National Register designation requires a tedious amount of paperwork. This paperwork is designated a form; however, it is really more like a short book including sections on histor ic and cultural context as well as architecture. To complete this form requires expertise in th e practice of Cultural Resource Management

PAGE 103

96 and historic architecture, as well as a great deal of patience. I started the Meacham Elementary National Register of Historic Places form in October of 2003 and after a few revisions it was accepted by the state of Fl orida Division of Historic Resources in November of 2004. Subsequently, the school was placed on the agenda for the quarterly meeting of the Florida National Register Review Board in Tallahassee on January 27, 2005. This board reviews nominations to the National Register of Historic Places and votes to determine whether or not properties will be accepted (recognized as historically significant by the federal government). Prior to this meeting I was confident that my involvement with the school was over; but I kept reflecting on the impact of my absence if I stopped here, who would be in Talla hassee to advocate for the school at the meeting?. This question was answered when late r in November I was contacted by the descendants of the namesake of the school, Christina Meacham. Following a conversation with Arndrita Harris (the grea t granddaughter of Christina Meacham) the family and I (along with other interested community members) decided we would work together to do what we could to ensure that the school was not overlooked by the City, the State, or the Federal Government. Th is phone conversation initiated collaborative action research involving myse lf (as an applied anthropolog ist serving as a provider of technical information and an advocate), the Ha rris Family (including three generations of relatives from the Tampa area) and other interested community members. A particularly notable member of this group was Mary A lice Dorsett, a prominent local African American leader, advocate, political activist, and a generous, caring mother whose son attended Meacham Elementary and who kne w Christina Meacham. Other supportive

PAGE 104

97 community members who provided support at meetings and agreed to key informant interviews included individuals such as Jewel R. Aires who stated in an interview conducted as we drove to Tallahassee on January 27, 2005 (discussed below) the school should be left intact to commemorate the importance of education to the community (Aires: personal corresponden ce 2005). Likewise, on June 4, 2004, Helen Taylor who attended Meacham Elementary in the late 1930s and early 1940s and worked there in the 1970s (interviewed at the Ki d Mason Center) stated that The city has already taken enough from the black community in Tamp aMeacham should not be torn down (Taylor: personal correspondence 2004). Th is sentiment was repeated by a more contemporary member of the community who attended Meacham Elementary in the late 1970s; Yolanda Lane was interviewed at the Kid Mason Center on June 4, 2004. She expressed resentment against demolishing the sc hool and made this clear when she stated The school is virtually all the community has left, I am completely opposed to the demolition of the school (Lane: personal correspondence 2004). The opinions of these individuals are representative of the fee dback I received from over a dozen community members and other supportive members of the Tampa African American community throughout this research. Their support fueled my aspiration to aid in the plight of the school and served as justification for this proj ect. Likewise, without the collaboration of key individuals such as Mary Alice Dorsett and Arndrita and Jason Harris, this project may have manifested as a t echnical report describing events rather than an applied, collaborative, research study directly engaging historic preservation inequity. On January 27 2005, I rented a bus and we traveled to Tallahassee for the quarterly National Register Review Board meeting (around a 5 hour drive north from

PAGE 105

98 Tampa). To our surprise, we found that the sc hool had been taken off the agenda for the National Register Review board meeting tw o days prior to our arrival (due to complications with the certifie d local government process). After a few tense moments at the meeting, we learned that the school was taken off the agenda because both the local government entities involved with pres ervation in Tampa had abstained from commenting on their opinion. This abstenti on was significant because, before the National Register review board can vote, either the Mayors office or the local preservation commission is required to agree or disagree w ith the Florida Division of Historical Resources recommendation regardin g consideration for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. I found out later that this local complication was the result of a lack of a quorum at the meeting of th e local historic preservation committee. While this could have been a coincidental lapse in attendance by committee members, it could also have been used as an intentional stra tegy. Those who sought to prevent the school from being listed on the National Register hoped this would deter our preservation efforts. When I attended the next local qua rterly meeting (details forthcoming), one member of the local preservation commissi on (the member who failed to attend the previous meeting) abstained comment on th e topic of Meacham Elementary. This individual cited a conflict of interest. It was becoming more and more evident to me that local politics were playing a part in the treatment of this school. Thanks to the understanding of the Nationa l Review board (Dr. Judith A. Bense: Chairman), Arndrita Harris, Mary Alice Dors ett, and I were afforded the unofficial opportunity to advocate for the school at the meeting in Tallahassee. After our presentations, we found the board to be very receptive, and, consiste nt with the initial

PAGE 106

99 assessment by the state, they unofficially indi cated that the school was a fine candidate for the National Register of Historic Places. At this meeting we also learned that the only way to get back on the agenda was to receive the support of the Tampa Historic Preservation Commission. This is the entity that suspiciously removed the school from their agenda in October 2003 and the entity whose lack of action removed the school from the National Register review boards ag enda. Despite this obstacle, we regrouped and decided we would aim for getting on the agenda for their next quarterly meeting in Tampa. When we returned to Tampa we set our sights on the March 8, 2005 Tampa Historic Preservation Commission meeting. The political la ndscape of this participatory action research clearly change d at this point. It became apparent based on local media coverage that the neighborhood surrounding Me acham Elementary was definitely being considered for demolition and redevelopment by the City of Tampa (a process that would involve the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, the Tampa Housing Authority and private developers). It became clear that th is redevelopment plan that was in the works had likely been the source of resistance at the local level. Evidently, complications affecting the historic status of Meacham El ementary occurred as the local preservation commission stalled while urban planners sought consensus for their future plans for the area containing the school. At this point I decided to further my efforts by applying my anthropological research knowledge to prevent redevelopment from stealing history and heritage from this community that had so li ttle left to symbolize the African American history of Tampa. In the back of my mind I knew this would have been another relatively easy time to disengage from this research; however at this point I was committed to the

PAGE 107

100 preservation effort, so I decided I was not giving in without pr oviding all the support I could muster for this cause. Prior to the March 8, 2005 Tampa Hist oric Preservation Commission meeting, members of the Harris family and I atte nded several meetings aimed at bolstering political and community support for the future of the school. For example, on February 19, 2005 we attended and participated in a co mmunity forum meeting organized by the University of South Florida Anthropology Department and held at the Kid Mason Center (the local neighborhood community center) lo cated three blocks west of Meacham Elementary. At this meeting I gave a shor t presentation in suppor t of integrating the school into future plans for the neighborhood. Additionally, members of the Harris family and I met with Hillsborough County sc hool board member Doretha W. Edgecomb to ask for support regarding the future of the school, the Hillsborough County Schools chief facilities officer (who in 2004 was Mary Ellen Ellia), members of the Tampa City Council (including the chairman of the City Council, Gwen Miller), local community members and leaders (including residents, business owners, a nd the director of the Kid Mason Center: Helen Taylor). Likewise, I met with the head of the Tampa Historic Preservation Commission (Hart: Personal Corre spondence 2006) who to ld me that if Meacham Elementary were added to the National Register, the commission would advocate designating the school as a local landmark. Regretfull y, despite what transpired next, this never happened. This same individual in the elevator on the way up to the floor where the meeting was being held asked me if I would speak in favor of the school at the local historic preservation commission meeti ng (despite the fact that he r name was on the agenda to

PAGE 108

101 represent the school on the meeting agenda pamphlet). Typically when historic properties are being considered by a local historic designation en tity (such as the preservation commission) the local historic preservation entity provides information to the commission which they use to make their decisions. However, I learned on March 8, 2006 that this is not always the case. In retr ospect, it is clear that the preservation office was purposefully avoiding addressing preserva tion of the school at the meeting because they were aware of its historic significance but did not want to promote a conflict of interest between their office (who would be obligated to advocate preservation if it recognized the significance of the sc hool) and Hillsborough County Schools (whose ability to liquidate the school as a monetary asset would be compromised if it were preserved as a local historic landmark). Inte raction with the local historic preservation office indicated to me that ethically they knew the right thing to do was advocate for the preservation of this school. However, they apparently thought it in th eir best interest to maintain a good working relationship with Hillsborough County and therefore did not publicly advocate for the schools hi storic significance. At the preservation commission meeting (C hairman: Catherine Byrd) on March 8, Arndrita Harris and I presente d our case for the school. Fo llowing our initial comments, we met resistance from Hillsborough County Sc hools when their chief facilities officer (Mary Ellen Ellia) revealed that the county did not recognize the historic significance of the school and was not in favor of any steps th at might complicate its destruction. It was evident that the Hillsborough County School Boar d failed to consider the significance of this school to the history of African Amer icans in Tampa. Rather, it was clearly indicated that they considered the school to be an economic asset to be destroyed to

PAGE 109

102 produce revenue for future development (rather than preserved as a symbol of African American heritage). Following the chief f acilities officers comments, I offered a rebuttal. Then, after asking me a series of questions related to the history of the school, the Tampa Historic Preservati on Commission voted to support the school as a potential candidate for the National Register of Historic Places. This successful vote meant that the commission agreed with the states re commendation that Meacham Elementary be considered a National Register candidate. This did not mean that they were willing to support the outcome of this consid eration at the local level. It is important to note that they did not designate the school a local landmark, they simply allowed the NR designation process to proceed by allowing the school to be placed back on the Tallahassee Review Board agenda. This Tampa Historic Pr eservation Commission meeting was partially filled with supporte rs of the school including members of the Meacham family, supportive community members, and a contingent of University of South Florida anthropology graduate stude nts. The successful vote was followed by jubilant applause! After gaining the local support needed to once again pursue National Register status for the school, it was placed on the Ap ril 2005 quarterly meeting of the National Register Review Board in Tallahassee. Once again we traveled to the meeting and presented our case to the board (this time officially). Fo llowing a series of questions directed to me related to the historic c ontext and cultural significance of the school, a vote was taken, and the school was accepted by the board for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The pro cess leading to the de signation of Meacham Elementary as a National Register site wa s complicated and tedious, but it was also

PAGE 110

103 rewarding. It has been my honor to work with the Harris family and others as an advocate for this significant structure. Interestingly, the steps in the preservation process which deterred our efforts to protect the school also provided av enues for our group to circumvent those who sought to devalue this symbol of African American history in Tampa and allowed us to make legitimate cha nge regarding the historic status of this school by negotiating varying political and pr eservation contexts. Ironically, the same regulatory framework that prevented designa tion at the local level (and took the school off the agenda in Tallahassee three months previously) eventually facilitated its recognition at the federa l level. In this case action research was applied to engage the potential oversight of what the federal government has recognized as a cult urally and historically significant school. This manifestation of action oriented research demonstrates one method that urban applied anthropologists might apply as a form of action-oriented research aimed at combating the destruction of public symbo lic representations of cultural heritage especially in the face of comprehensive urba n redevelopment. In an urban context, components of culture such as Meacham El ementary should not be overlooked by urban planners. This research demonstrates that even though local politics and urban planning should not stand in the way of preserving significant symbols of cultura l heritage, they all too often do. This study has made it clear that it is possible for city and county planners to overlook the significance of hist oric cultural resources that symbolize heritage in urban space especially when they are in the way of profitable redevelopment. By May of 2005, according to the head of the Tampa Preservation office (phone conversation May 4, 2005: Dennis Fernandez) the Tampa Housing authority initiated a

PAGE 111

104 Request for Proposals (RFP) from private i nvestors interested in redeveloping the neighborhood that surrounds Meacham Elementary. Thanks to our efforts, this RFP mentioned Meacham Elementary and suggested that the private de velopers treat the school as a National Register property, which means they should be less likely to demolish the school and be more likely to incorporate the bui lding into their redevelopment plans. Between May of 2005 and March of 2006 the City of Tampa accepted a contract for the redevelopment of the urban landscape surrounding Meacham Elementary with the initial plans calling for the treatment of the school as a historic structure to be incorporated into the r evitalized neighborhood. By May of 2006 the Central Park Community Redevelopment Plan had been formalized. This plan was prepared by the Hillsborough County C ity-County Planning Commission and WilsonMiller, Inc. (a local developer). As was mentioned in chapter three, despite the fact that Meacham Elementary is on the National Register of Historic Places, it was overlooked by this plan. The Harris family contacted me in June 2006 and alerted me that an upcoming Tampa City Council meeting was going to determ ine whether or not th ey would side with the redevelopment plan. Arndrita Harris, William Jason Harris and I attended this meeting and I gave a presentation explaining that Meacham Elementary was not addressed in the redevelopment plan. At one point in the meeting the City Council asked if there was anyone who would like to comment on the plan. At this point I was given the opportunity to address the Tampa City C ouncil regarding the importance of Meacham Elementary and to make sure they knew it was not included in the redevelopment plan. Following my presentation, Gwen Miller (city council member) assured me that she was

PAGE 112

105 aware of the school and guaranteed her support toward ensuring it was not overlooked by city and county planners. This was enc ouraging and the Harrises and I were hopeful that the sentiment voiced by the city council wo uld lead to substant ive protection for the school. At this meeting I made sure to clarif y that if the current redevelopment plan did not include the school, it was likely to be demo lished (a point the council listened to but failed to act on). In March of 2007 as I was preparing the final draft summarizing these events I received a phone message from the Harris fam ily that ended with Mr. Butler we need you to come and take charge on ce again, the heat is on, the school is in serious jeopardy. A conversation on March 3, 2007 with William Jas on Harris informed me as to a startling change in the status of the school propert y. He informed me that in February 2007, Hillsborough County Schools made it clear that th ey planned to sell the school for profit when they designated Meacham Elementary school as surplus property. Also, he told me that the Tampa Housing Authority was pl anning to acquire the property and that a demolition permit had been initiated for the sc hool. Next, I learned that this proposed demolition permit was to be considered by the Tampa Preservation Commission on March 20, 2007. Consequently, we decided to attend this latest event addressing the school and I once again chose to advocate for th e preservation of Meacham Elementary. Following our conversation, I spent the ne xt several hours making strategic phone calls aimed at searching out methods to bolst er support for the school Initially, I spoke with the Chief of the Bureau of Historic Preservation for the State of Florida (Barbara Mattick). I informed her about the direct th reat to a National Regi ster site (Meacham Elementary) and asked for her insight. As mentioned in chapter three, earlier in this

PAGE 113

106 process the Division of Historic Resources (a department of the Bureau of Historic Preservation) sent a letter of support to Hillsborough County Schools and to the Tampa Preservation Commission supporting the preserva tion of the school. However, this time Mrs. Mattick explained that their role in ur ban planning (not unlike historic designation) is limited to making suggestions regarding the status of historic properties (Mattick: Personal Correspondence 2007). She informed me that the Meacham Elementary preservation issue was primarily a local problem and that the State merely makes recommendations (Mattick: Personal Co rrespondence 2007). Suggestions do not necessarily affect redevelopment plans desi gned to maximize profit. There is not a legislative mechanism in place in the Unite d States to legitimize the opinion of the federal government or of states as it relate s to historic structures. No matter how historically significant a property is, if local planners justify demolition it can be razed without recourse. It would seem that the role of states a nd the federal government is to designate properties as histor ically significant rather than to regulate the practice of historic preservation. Because of federal inability to regul ate preservation practice, support was mobilized and I attended the March 20, 2007 meeting of the Ta mpa Historic Preservation Commission Meeting (Chariman: John Tennison) and advocated the preservation of Meacham Elementary. What remained to be seen was whether this local preservation entity (headed by Dennis Fernandez) would side with the demolition plan advocated by their City and County colleagues or whether they would side with the preservation of Tampas only enduring symbol of public educational opportunity for African Americans: Meacham Elementary. It became apparent that this decision would likely

PAGE 114

107 determine how this significant historic stru cture would serve this rebuilt community (if it were given a chance to do so) and how its association with Tampas African American history would manifest as a byproduct of its future use. As the time of the meeting neared I learne d that it had been planned specifically to address the future of Meacham Elementary. The meeting was touted as a demolition review and the school was the only item on the agenda. On March 19, 2007 (the day before the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting) I spoke with the chief of the Tampa Preservation Office; Dennis Fernandez. He alerted me that his office had already held its monthly meeting and that this wa s a special meeting organized explicitly to consider the demolition permit request for Meacham Elementary. The National Register status of the school justifie s the initiation of a process clarified in Tampas City ordinances addressing the demolition of such controversial properties (Fernandez: personal correspondence 2007). It is significant to note that this step would not have been required had the school not been on th e National Register of Historic Places; had this status not been achieved the sch ool would have been demolished without consideration. The local process initiated in this situa tion calls for the chair (John Tennision) or vice chair (David Rigall) of the Tampa Hist oric Preservation Commission to conduct a meeting to receive public testimony regarding th e school. This individual (rather than the entire commission) is responsible for dete rmining whether the demolition permit will be opposed by the commission. It came as no surprise to me to learn during the conversation with Mr. Fernandez that the chair of the commission had a conflict of interest and could not conduct the meeting. S ubsequently, I learned th at this individual

PAGE 115

108 had previous business ties with Hillsbor ough County Schools; the county entity that initiated the demolition permit and sought to liquidate the school as surplus property! The irony of this saga never seemed to endt he chair of the Tampa Historic Preservation Commission (the entity who is responsible for prioritiz ing preservation of cultural heritage in Tampa) is chaired by an individual who has a conflict of interest related to a previous affiliation with the entity seeking to demolish a National Register site (Meacham Elementary). The vice chair (David Rigall) assumed re sponsibility of this meeting and was responsible for making the decision that woul d determine the treatment of the school. The protocol for this meeting accounts for three possible outcomes. If the vice chair chose not to stand in the wa y of demolition the commission would declare that they did not oppose demolition and the proposed permit would be approved. A second option was for the vice chair to opt for a mitigation plan representing a compromise between interested parties. The th ird option results from a decision to oppose the demolition and this involves initiating an emergency local designation to preserve the property and then the issue would move on to the City Counc il who would vote to determine the treatment of the property (Fernandez: personal correspondence 2007). On March 20, 2007, once again, I pushed aside my other responsibilities and drove over a hundred and fifty miles (round tr ip) to downtown Tampa to advocate for Meacham Elementary. As I made the trek I found myself contempl ating the process in which I had participated since 2003. As I wa tched the cars crissc ross the lanes of the interstate I had a brief moment of satis faction recognizing that no matter what the outcome of this meeting, my actions since 2003 had demonstrated a steadfast

PAGE 116

109 commitment to this project; this moment of clarity was soon m uddied by thoughts of how I would respond to the City and County lawyers as they plotted to justify the demolition of the school. At the demolition review meeting I made a lengthy presentation and engaged in a lively debate with representatives of Hillsborough County Schools and the Tampa Housing Authority. Jason Harris (the grea t grandson of Christina Meacham mentioned previously) also gave a short sp eech stressing the significance of the school to the historic African American community in Tampa. However, despite our efforts the vice chair of the Tampa Preservation Commission decide d not to oppose the demolition of Meacham Elementary. Instead he opted to define a mitigation plan that required certain actions to be taken by Hillsborough County Schools and th e Tampa Housing Authority. Therefore, this preservation effort failed to result in physical preserva tion of the school building; however, the place of this school in Tampas history was clarified and preserved by this process. Likewise, mitigation clarified se veral conditions that must be met by these entities. First, archival quality photos and drawings of the school are to be produced and housed in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Next, a historic al marker is to be placed at the location where the school once stoo d. Also, the name of the school is to be transferred to a new school within Hillsbor ough County. Likewise, this mitigation plan called for the production of a narrative descrip tion of the schools place in Tampa history. Lastly, the plan facilitates salvage of building material following demolition and advocates the construction of an African American museum in a wing of the St. James Episcopal church which is situated one bloc k north of Meacham Elementary (specifics defining the size and makeup of this museum we re not clarified by this mitigation plan).

PAGE 117

110 Despite the fact that the school is slated for demolition, a positive outcome of this meeting was that it facilitated knowledge pr eservation demonstrating the historical significance of the school. The outcome of this process demo nstrates that urban planning in Tampa over the last five decades demonstr ates a pattern prioritizing the consolidation of business districts and a tour ist district augmented by inters tate access. Scholars (e.g. Greenbaum 2002, Fullilove 2000) as sert that the Tampa exampl e is not an exception to the rule and that many urban centers in the U.S. have pursued urban planning initiatives that have had similar outcomes differentia lly impacting historic African American communities. Greenbaum suggests These ev ents in Tampa were scarcely unique or isolated. In virtually every city in the United States, fe deral bulldozers destroyed the homes and businesses of African Americans (Greenbaum 1998:2). Therefore, future research might prioritize investigating additional urban contexts where this pattern has taken place and clarify the outcome of this process via the application of UMAP (discussed in chapter five).

PAGE 118

111 Chapter Five: Lessons Learned: Contested Urban Space and Cultural Heritage In this study I sought to identify and a pply urban research st rategies facilitating the anthropological investigati on of the process of urban landscape change. This analysis led to the identification of multiple lines of evidence and avenues for engagement that might be pursued by anthropologists working in urban contexts. The complex nature of this study carried out in a tumultuous ur ban context required a dynamic approach facilitating research designs aimed at engaging multiple research questions that emerged as conditions evolved in a discrete urban cont ext. Recounting the related facets of this study demonstrates if one is to maintain a research agenda imp acted by political and economic context, flexibility is a necessity. Collectively the components of this study represent an anthropological model designed to engage evolving re lationships between urban spaces and their associations with urba n populations. This m odel clarifies a set of complementary methods that might be applied toward investigation prioritizing the effect of urban change on cultura l heritage. Initially, this study asserted that archaeology is well suited to the investigation of urban landscape change across space and through time. Evidence produced via the archaeological project cited by this study demonstrates that residual evidence of urban change is accessible when subsurface deposits are intact and proper recovery methods are applied. This archaeological component of the study confir ms the historical processes that justified my actions as an anthropologi cal advocate. Archaeo logical excavation and its results provided me with a first hand experience that confirmed the historical

PAGE 119

112 relationship between a historic African American community and Meacham Elementary. I was therefore steadfast in my commitment to perpetuate and enhance its contemporary association with the historic African American community in Tampa that had been largely eradicated in the 1960s and early 1970s due to Urban Renewal policy and was once again impacted by redevelopment plans. The value of archaeology to the interpretation of urban space is highlighted by this research because this excavation was conducted in an urban space that currently exists as a park (explained in chapter two). Fortunately, the current redevelopm ent plan indicates that this park is slated to be left intact as an archaeological resource and a symbol of cultural heritage. However, no visible evidence indicates its historical association with African American cultural heritage in Tampa. Therefore, my initial research agenda was aligned with the investigation of mate rial evidence (artifacts and f eatures) symbolizing the cultural heritage of African Americans in Tampa. This archaeological phase of the study demonstrates that residual material evidence of cultural heritage persists even after comprehensive demolition of urban landscapes. In addition to field and laboratory responsibilities associated with this projec t, I researched historic buildings with associated cultural, spatial, and temporal affiliation in Tampa. While reviewing documentary evidence clarifying the historical affiliation of buildings standing in this neighborhood I b ecame exposed to a larger body of knowledge related to processes and trends in historical designation and preservation of buildings which I later identified as a source of evidence complementing the material evidence generated via the aforementioned urban ar chaeological project. Consequently, I conducted extensive research investigating the processes of urban change taking

PAGE 120

113 cognizance of racial gaps in representation in terms of historic designation in Tampa, Hillsborough County, and Florida. This comprehensive comparison of the ethnic affiliation of historic sites had never been done in the City, County, or the State, and the results of this analysis (detailed in chapter th ree) clearly indicate a gap in the diversity of representation with regard to the tr eatment of historic buildings. This analysis suggested that this lack of equity is tied to key historical and contemporary processes such as Urban Renewal and segregation policy that have affected the formation of contemporary urban landscapes For example, this research indicates that in Tampa segregation led to the formati on of a distinct historic African American urban enclave established in the mid to la te nineteenth century (the Scrub and the associated Central Avenue business district ). Likewise, the investigation of Urban Renewal projects and contemporary redevelopm ent plans demonstrated that this urban landscape has been greatly affected by demolition projects and that virtually nothing has been left intact to commemorate this lands capes association with African Americans in Tampa. Greenbaum (1998) clarifies the extent of this demolition Demolition of surrounding neighborhoods and ultima tely the near total destru ction of buildings in and around Central Avenue was the result. By the 1990s there were few vi sible signs that it had ever existed. The eradication of Central Avenue eliminated evid ence of the business traditions that had existed in the African American community (Greenbaum 1998:3). This analysis demonstrates that racist policies such as segregation accompanied by disproportionate demolition of African American urban enclaves have had a residual effect on historic preservation practice. The Tampa case study clearly demonstrates this pattern and the distribution of designated historic properties and districts is consistent

PAGE 121

114 with this trend. Greenbaum (1998:3) explains th at this pattern is not isolated to Tampa; indicating that future studie s might apply UMAP toward th e investigation of additional urban contexts in the U.S. The same thi ngs that happened on Central Avenue more than twenty years ago were occurring in cities thr oughout the United States Beal Street in Memphis, Auburn Avenue in Atlanta, Twelfth and Vine in Kansas City, and scores of other cultural treas ures were thoughtlessly harmed or destroyed (Greenbaum 1998:3). Further, the economics of real estate have sy stematically devalued black places and made neighborhoods, houses, and institutions of black people highly vulnerable to demolition. Consistent with the current redevelopmen t initiative calling for the demolition of the contemporary Central Avenue Village neighborhood and its historic school (Meacham Elementary), all three of the histor ic urban renewal projects disproportionately affected Tampas African American population. For nearly fifty years these redevelopment initiatives have targeted areas historically occupied by African Americans in Tampa. This land has been sought after by City planners and developers since the mid twentieth century. Kerstein (2001:135) explai ns that Tampa selected its first project site the Maryland Avenue area between downtown and Ybor City, close to the former Scrub neighborhood where Central Park Villag e public housing had been built (Kerstein 2001:135). This project represen ted the eastern expansion of the City into formerly segregated areas of Tampa once occupied by African Americans. Likewise, this study demonstrated that the next two urban re newal projects consolidated the downtown business district and the tourist district (Ybor City) as development expanded to the east and north by eliminating pockets of residential space historically occupied by African Americans in Tampa. Contemporary redeve lopment efforts complete this cycle by

PAGE 122

115 moving further north eradicating the last residential space historically associated with African Americans which happens to be situated between the interstate and Ybor City. This analysis indicates that this process has not been arbitrary, rather the prioritization of economic viability through the consolidation of business districts and increasing the Citys tax base has been a clear strategy embraced by City planners for nearly five decades. In 2001 Kerstein noted that The cost of Tampas Urban Renewal projects were borne disproportionately by lo w and moderate income African AmericansPlanners, the mayors, the majority of the city council, and Tampas most influential business leaders were in consensus that the potential econom ic viability of Tampas downtown and Ybor City areas were more important than the co sts imposed upon a significant sector of the population (Kerstein 2001:145) Therefore, this study suggests that in Tampa socioeconomic factors and ethnic affiliation have been correlated with the process of urban landscape change. I asse rt that processes initiating and perpetuating urban change are currently and have been hi storically aligned with the business interests of Tampas elite who sought out the path of least resistance as they eradicated landscapes they disapproved of in the name of economic im provement. This practice serves as an indicator of racist policy and its e ffect on power and place in urban contexts in the U.S. The changes in Tampas urban landscape ove r the last fifty years illustrate the residual affects of urban lands cape alteration on preservation policy and practice. This analysis found that within the City of Tamp a, African Americans account for 26% of the contemporary population; however, only 11% of the structures currently designated as historic at the local level are affiliated w ith African American cultural heritage. As explained in chapter three, this contemporary comparison is appropriate for the Tampa

PAGE 123

116 case because historic and c ontemporary African American population statistics are comparable. For example, between 1900 and 1930 the African American population in Tampa fluctuated between 28% (1900) and 21% (1930) (Howard et al. 1994:2, Mohlman 1995). These population statistics demonstrate that African Am ericans have consistently been a representative component of Tampas history. This study further qualifies the appropriat e use of population statistics as a means of comparison by asserting that it is also si gnificant that the same urban space has been occupied by African Americans since before the start of the twentieth century. For example, if this population had been transi ent without a prolonged occupation of the same space, this comparison might not accurately account for representative cultural heritage in urban space. A dditionally, the lone National Register site within the City limits of Tampa is currently Meacham Elemen tary (which is slated for demolition). Likewise, this analysis account ed for acreage dedicated to hist oric districts. It was found that less than 1% of urban space (~1 acre vs. 2000 acres) assigned to historic districts in Tampa is dedicated to African American history associated with the City. The Tampa case study demonstrates that Urban Renewal is one cause for this pattern. This research indi cates buildings that once cater ed to segregated African American populations have largely been destroyed by the expansion of the Citys downtown business district. The spaces wher e these structures once stood have been ascribed new identities as urban landscapes ha ve evolved over time and their historical association with African American history is not represented by this generic disjointed built environment. The last vestiges of th e historic Central Avenue enclave in Tampa will soon fall victim to this trend as it is demolished to make way for what contemporary

PAGE 124

117 urban planners refer to as Tampas new town square which will replace the 483 public housing units that have surrounded Meacham El ementary for over 50 years with nearly 2000 residential units and an accompanying sho pping district. Ironically, media coverage from June of 2007 indicates the surprise of Tampa City Council member Doretha Edgecomb at the fate of Meacham Elementary (Froelich 2007). This is ironic because at the March 8, 2006 City Council meeting in Ta mpa I made it clear that the school would be in imminent danger if th e City Council voted to allow the 2007 Central Park Village Community Redevelopment Area Plan to move forward without accounting for the school. Researching urban places and spaces initiated my collaboration with African Americans working to preserve Meacham Elem entary as a symbol of African American cultural heritage in Tampa. This decision le d to my work as an anthropological advocate (discussed in detail in chapter four) who chos e to support others prioritizing a category of material evidence symbolizing African American cultural heritage in Tampa. My work as an advocate supporting the preservation of Meacham Elementary has been arduous and was met with resistance from the beginning. Since 2003 entities engaged in this conflict of interest over the historic status and the future treatment of the school have included myself, the community surrounding the sc hool and supportive African American residents of Tampa such as Dorris Scott, Ma rie Sheehy, Mary Sheffied, Sara Sims, Karen Sanders, Ortha Wright, Yolanda Lane, Helen Taylor, Gloria Philmore and Rutha Harper (also noted in chapter four). Collaborators al so included the family of the namesake of the school Christina Meacham (Ardreeta Harris Jason Harris, and Sara Sims Arndreetas sister). Together we stood on one side of this issue versus various county and city

PAGE 125

118 entities on the other incl uding Hillsborough County School s, the City of Tampa Preservation Office, the Tampa Historic Preservation Commission, and the Tampa Housing Authority. This advocacy and associat ed archival research demonstrated that while historic designation affords recogniti on in the present and documentation for the future, it does not ensure physical preserva tion. Likewise, my an thropological advocacy work demonstrates that anthropologists have the opportunity to apply historic preservation legislation initia tives as a tool to highlight the significance of symbols of cultural heritage. Experience drawn from this research demonstrates that knowledge preservation is better than no pres ervation at all. This research context and my decisions as an ethical research er have led me to pursue three associated research agendas. Firs t, I served as an urban archaeologist. Next this context and personal insight led me to arch ival research investigating gaps in racial equity of historic designation. Third, I made the decision to take action as an anthropological advocate engaging a dynamic process that has resulted in multiple successes and at least one failure (the planned demolition of Meacham Elementary). This work has been successful because it has resulte d in a change in the historic status and historic documentation of Meach am Elementary. Extensive documentation of this school and its association with Afri can American educational oppor tunity in Tampa is now on record. Likewise, this research is successf ul because it is connected with an urban archaeology project that produced evidence that predated th e first round of urban renewal affecting this urban landscape. Further, the mitigation plan set in motion by efforts to preserve the school (detailed below) clar ifies protocol that serves to enhance representation of Africa n American cultural heritage in Tampa that must accompany the

PAGE 126

119 current redevelopment initiative. It is my hope that some time after the school is demolished, urban archaeology might someday ha ve the opportunity to be applied as a method to provide tangible evidence complementing the documentation provided by this research. While urban archaeology might pot entially be applied to recover material evidence of Meacham Elementary in the fu ture, and documentary evidence has been generated that might complement this investigation, it is disappointi ng that fragments of this building and the associated cultural behavi or that transpired there are all that will endure Tampas latest large-scale demolition project. Knowledge preservation and potential archaeological evidence might serve to symbolically represent this structure; however, I assert that physical preservation of the school as an intact structure that could be viewed by future generations. There are degrees of success with all research initiatives, and this project would have been more successful if the school had been left standing. An Urban Model of Applied Preservation This study represents a research model that enhances the an thropological study of urban landscapes by clarifying a set of associat ed research agendas that might be applied by anthropologists investigating the dynami c relationship between urban places/spaces and associated cultural behavior The application of these li nes of evidence toward this urban anthropological research study has manifested as what I propose as An Urban Model of Applied Preservation (UMAP). Wh ether evaluating historical trends or contemporary processes, it is my hope th at this study will au gment the work of anthropologists investigating th e places and events associated with cultural behavior across time in urban space.

PAGE 127

120 This model demonstrates that urban arch aeological research can be applied to interpret cultural behavior associated with historical and contempor ary urban landscapes. This component of the model emerged as I pur sued a specific rese arch question tied to the overall research agenda. I sought to answer: How might an anthropologist demonstrate historical continuity as a m eans to correlate urban space with a cultural group through time and what just ification exists for this re search? For this study this research question was engaged by applying ur ban archaeological methods to investigate an urban landscape associated with a historically segregated neighborhood in Tampa. As mentioned in chapter two, this urban space (Perry Harvey Park) is devoid of standing structures. Therefore, urban archaeology is particularly significant to UMAP because it can provide evidence of beha vior associated with urba n landscapes lacking standing structures. The spatial and hi storical context of the material evidence generated by this research (a product of the historic use of this landscape circa 1880 1970) was applied to validate the cultural significance of Meach am Elementary (a component of the contemporary landscape prioritized by this study). Therefore, urban archaeology represents a method that might be applied toward the collection of data (material evidence) associated with cu ltural behavior that can no longer be observed above the surface of the urban landscape. Even though the buildings located along Tampas historic Central Avenue Busine ss District that once served as a focal point of cultural behavior were demolished under the auspices of urban renewal (discussed in chapter three), archaeology has produced evidence of th ose structures and of cultural behavior associated with the spaces they occupied.

PAGE 128

121 Therefore, archaeological re search represents the com ponent of this model that might be applied to evaluate changes in an urban landscape after they have transpired. As is often the case with scientific inquiry, answering one question as sociated with this study led to the generation of mo re. Therefore, this discover y led to the formulation of a related research question: What other sources of evidence might be applied by anthropologists investigating the historical or contemporar y process of urban landscape change? Further, how might these data sources complement archaeological data by demonstrating historical and contemporary processes associated with that change? Consequently, urban structures were id entified by this study as an appropriate source of data to engage these related que stions. Data generated by this study was applied to evaluate historical and contemporary processes asso ciated with the historical designation and preservation (or a lack thereof) of urban structures. This resulted in the recognition of a significant discrepancy between ethnicity and represen tative population versus the buildings that are preserved and their associated ethnic affiliations. Findings indicate a lack of preservation equity be tween ethnic/racial and socioeconomic groups whose urban space has been differentially affected by historic and contemporary demolition justified by government sponsored initiatives such as Urban Renewal. This analysis clearly indicates a lack of preserva tion equity based on ethni c affiliation at the city, county, and state levels and demonstrat es that urban planning directly affects the application of historic preserva tion legislation. This analysis indicates that the results of urban planning can be measured by evaluating tr ends in historic designation established by local, state, and federal en tities. The current research demonstrated that urban planning and urban change are not disconnect ed from the socioeconomic structure of

PAGE 129

122 cities and of societies where they transpire. The Tampa case study indicates a strategy designed to eradicate substandard African American residential and commercial spaces and replace them with consolidated business districts augmented by direct Interstate access and a prosperous tourist district. It would seem that development supposedly aligned with improving the economic viability of urban space is prioritized over cultural heritage; especially if you are poor and especially if you are not white. The third related research question ai med at assessing urban landscape change and cultural behavior associ ated with urban space focuses on those who may have memory of that behavior. After recognizi ng the potential signif icance of urban space with or without standing build ings this study sought to iden tify how those who participate in cultural behavior might augment the anth ropological study of ur ban space? Further, this study sought to identify how anthropol ogists might work with community members to engage the process of urban change that might affect their communities? For this study, this question was pursued as a method to collect data to mobilize support toward the preservation of Meacham Elem entary school. As chapters three and four explain, this school has stood as a symbol of African American cultural heritage in Tampa for over eighty years and this study indicated that ma ny of those who had a hi storical association with the school prioritized its significance in the history of their community thereby standing as a symbol of cultu ral heritage. This qualitat ive research culminated in Participatory Action Research (discussed in chapter four) wherein family members of the namesake of the school (Christina Meacham ), members of the surrounding community, and I worked together to preserve the schools place in the histor y of the community. Initially, this goal focused on physical pr eservation; after it was discovered that

PAGE 130

123 preserving the school was not possible due to the economic interests of the City of Tampa, this goal shifted toward maximizing knowledge preservation of the school (a goal which has been met). This component of the model demonstrates that community members can serve as significant research part ners who can provide valuable information based on first hand experience associated with urban landscapes and specific buildings. Likewise, when anthropologists work alongside community members to advocate preservation, historic inequities can be confronted (even if they cant be resolved). Therefore, the Applied Model of Urba n Preservation has engaged a set of interrelated research questi ons and these questions led to the identification and investigation of several poten tial data sources that mi ght be applied toward the anthropological study of urban landscape s and associated cultural behavior. Consequently, the investigation of previously standing structures and their historical cultural affiliation prioritized by this study highlighted the si gnificance of this residual data. Likewise extant data sources such as standing structures and community members are recognized as sources of data that pot entially clarify histor ical and contemporary processes affecting the cycle of urban landscape change. Summarizing the Proposed Model The Urban Model of Applied Preservation (UMAP) is designed as one potential framework for the anthropologi cal investigation of historical and contemporary urban landscape change. This model consolidates a set of methods into an urban research framework generated from the investigation of the process of past, present, and emergent urban landscape change in the City of Tampa demonstrating that the model as applied in this study is intended to examine cities as re search contexts. Howe ver, as explained in

PAGE 131

124 chapter three an initia l assessment of the State of Flor ida was also conducted to look for trends in statewide data that might be utilized for future re search at a statewide scale. Therefore, chapter three clar ifies that this model might be modified to account for variation in the scale of inquiry and be applie d toward the investigation of states, regions, nations, or at a multi-national scale. The international nature of twentieth century policies leading to dramatic urban landscap e alteration has had a major impact on the urban landscape of many cities around the wo rld and continues to do so in the present day. Examples of internationa l cities demonstrating this process that might serve as appropriate contexts for the future app lication of UMAP include: Bejing, China (2007:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_ren ewal#_ ref-0), Bilbao, Spain (http://www. bilbao.net/nuevobilbao/jsp/b ilbao/homeModulosjsp?idioma=I&color=rojo), London, England (2007:http://www.1ddchistory.org.uk/ beforelddc/index.html), Melbourne, Australia (Jupp 1999), Paris, France (1972: Downie), Toronto, Canada (2007: http:// www.thedistillerydistrict.com/frameset.htm, Purdy 1994). Regardless of where it is applied and at what scale, this model represents a framework for urban anthropological research designed to augment the retention (i.e. preservation) of cultural heritage in urban space. It is rec ognized that this retention may manifest as the documentation of cultural he ritage before it is forgotten or as the preservation of the built environment before it is altered or destroyed by future urban change. The steps of this proposed model are outlined as follows. I. Research the historical trajectory of the built environment of a given urban context.

PAGE 132

125 A) Investigate the inception of that ur ban context and evaluate the geographic layout of the city making sure to note the presence or absence of historic ethnic enclaves such as the African American section of Tampa investigated by this study. B) Identify historical processes that affected changes over time in the urban landscape. Two related pro cesses identified by this st udy include state sponsored segregation and Urban Renewal. II. Interrogate the processes that have re sulted in urban landscape change. Compare historical urban landscape use with contemporary trends and prioritize factors such as socioeconomic and ethnic associations with urban space through time. A) Incorporate data from step I to evaluate whether historically segregated urban spaces allocated to non-white urban populations (especially African Americans since they have been the largest minority population in the vast majority of U.S. cities including Tampa) have been differentially affected by large scale redevelopment projects such as those promoted by urban renewal policy. B) Consider economic implications. Investigate whether large scale construction projects altering th e landscape have disproportiona tely affected urban spaces historically and or currently occupied by groups with low socioeconomic status. C) Likewise make sure to consider the pot ential affects of lo cal politics on the process of urban change. This study demonstr ated the profound affect of local politics on the preservation of Meacham Elementary. III. Determine whether preservation equity exists in your urban study area. This can be achieved by investigating the practice of historic preservation in a given urban context. Determine what has been designated as histor ically significant in your urban study area

PAGE 133

126 and evaluate ethnic affiliation and the spatial orient ation of designated sites. For Tampa, a measure of equity was established relative to population through time. As clarified above and in chapter three, the relatively stable African American population that has persisted since the onset of the twentieth century accompanied by continuous occupation of a formerly segregated urban space by this distinct ethnic group ju stified this strategy. A) Recognize that if a historically si gnificant space is located in a formerly segregated urban space that catered primarily to non-black populations it is not likely to be associated culturally (by hi storic preservation offices) wi th African Americans. This is not to suggest that African American cultural activities (suc h as work) should be overlooked in these areas. In fact it points to the significance of these behaviors because they are typically overlooked. In this model I propose that anthropologists endeavor to investigate historical cultural associations of urban space themselves rather than relying on descriptions provided by historic al designation forms. IV. Take Action. If preservation inequity exists between socioeconomic and or ethnic groups, this model calls for ac tion (if preservation is e quitable your analysis will demonstrate this to be the case). A) Apply data collected thus far to co nfront inequality if it is discovered. Additionally, a research desi gn should be formulated clarifying specific methods designed to generate data that will engage th is inequity. Research agendas might include: urban archaeology, the applicati on of historic pres ervation legislation facilitating either physical preservation or knowledge preserva tion, and or accompanying anthropological advocacy. These methods were successfully a pplied to engage preservation inequity in

PAGE 134

127 Tampa and this project demonstrates that co ntemporary research cannot change the past, however, it can make a difference for the future. As outlined above, the first component of the UMAP framework requires an investigation of the historic co ntext of the urban study area. Th is step is essential to the overall model which proposes that the analysis of historical events associated with urban landscape change provides a starting point fo r contemporary research investigating this process. Two historical trends identif ied by UMAP that had a profound affect on Tampas historic and contemporary urban lands cape were the proce ss of Urban Renewal and state sponsored segregati on. In Tampa and in other ci ties across the U.S. state sponsored segregation (circa 1870-1970) was designed to require th e collective use of specific components of the urban landscape by either white or black U.S. citizens; it thereby delineated the social use of urban sp ace in U.S. cities. Therefore, this policy accounts for differential historic use of urban landscape by tw o distinct groups of urban residents. This approach accounts for this prescribed landscape use by prioritizing the affects of this policy which limited or outlawed the use of certain urban spaces by African Americans. The Tampa case study demonstrated th at since the late 1950s formerly segregated areas of the city historically a ssociated with African Americans have been systematically targeted by large-scale urban redevelopment projects. Research indicates that for nearly fifty years the same City has disproportionately designated buildings associated with non black populations as histor ically significant while at the same time carrying out policies to systematically e liminate buildings and spaces defined by the historic government segregation policy as ex clusively African American urban spaces.

PAGE 135

128 This study has shown that representative hist oric buildings associated with the white urban population have been preserved in Ta mpa and buildings associated with black populations have been devalued and destroyed. It is clear that urban spaces in Tampa that were historically segregated and speci fically allocated to the historic African American population have been disproportionate ly demolished. For example, all three of the urban renewal projects carried out in Ta mpa were consistent with this pattern. Likewise, the current redevelopment initia tive that will result in the demolition of Meacham Elementary is consistent with this pattern. Therefore, UMAP proposes that when engaging causes and effects of contem porary redevelopment projects, background research should set the stage for a basis of comparison across time in urban space. The historic approach investigating specific urba n contexts advocated by this model clarifies that comprehensive landscape change has a residual affect on cultural heritage representation in urban space. Consequently, when urban landscapes are subject to demolition and subsequent redevelopment UM AP recognizes that symbols of cultural heritage can be replaced by new structures th at may or may not be consistent with the historical use of urban space. It follows that background research unde rtaken as a component of UMAP should identify the most potentially productive category or categories of evidence to collect and apply toward the anthropological investigation of how, and why urban landscape change occurred. Variation in urban history will clar ify that some urban contexts require urban archaeological research and others may justif y anthropological advocacy. However, this model ensures that the goal of preserving cu ltural heritage is facilitated (knowledge preservation or the preservati on of material symbols).

PAGE 136

129 For example, background research assessi ng historical trends associated with broad scale urban change in the Tampa study area demonstrated that direct access to business and tourist districts has served to justify unjust urban planning protocol which has in-turn affected the practice of historic preservation in Tampa. Therefore, UMAP proposes that anthropologists assess this aff ect in a given urban context by evaluating what has been designated as historically significant and prioritizing the historic ethnic affiliation of designated properties. Next this model proposes that these associations be compared with contemporary population estimates as a means to gauge historic preservation equity in a given urban context. Fundamental to the application of this m odel to Tampa is the notion that equitable preservation should be comparable to relative population size of ethnic groups categorized as black or white by the U.S. cen sus. When preservation is found to be less than equitable, UMAP calls for research investigating underlying causes. It is significant to note that a measure of equity must be de fined by research context. For example, in Tampa equity was measured based on repres entative preservation for an ethnic group; however this may not be appropriate in all cont exts. Therefore, researching the historical processes and cultural variation particular to a given context should serve to clarify appropriate measures that might be utilized to evaluate equity. Next, this model calls for act ion. If an anthropologist chooses to apply his or her skills to engage this lack of preservation e quity across urban space this research agenda might lead to anthropological advocacy (as it did with this study). Whether or not urban anthropologists act as advocates or empower others to advocate for themselves, the steps outlined in this model will facilitate urban preservation of cultural heritage as either

PAGE 137

130 preserved knowledge or symbolic mate rial evidence. UMAP proposes that anthropologists engage preservation inequ ity by working with community members to facilitate the historic designation of buildings they consider historically significant to their own cultural heritage (suc h as the historic association of Meacham Elementary with African American history in Tampa). Researching the equity of preservation practice through the co urse of this study indicates that historic desi gnation does not always equate to physical preservation, however it does facilitate knowledge preservation in the form of docum entary evidence. The application of this model to Tampa demonstrates its potential success as a means to facilitate knowledge preservation in the fo rm of comprehensive documentary evidence and I am grateful to have worked with othe rs to have affected Meacham Elementarys place in history. Likewise, I am hopeful that the model generated by this study will aid the contemporary and future anthropologica l engagement of the myriad processes of urban landscape change.

PAGE 138

131 References American Anthropological Association 2006 American Anthropol ogical Association Code of Ethics. Electronic Document, http://www.aaanet.org/committ ee/ethicsethcode.htm, accessed November 02, 2006 Anderson, James D. 1988 The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Anfinson, Samuel 1990 Archaeological Regions of Mi nnesota and the Woodland Period. In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson. G.E. Gibbon, ed. Pp. 135-166. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Publications. Bair, Richard 2003 The History of the School District of Hillsborough County. Tampa, Florida: Hillsborough County Schools. Bilbao Spain Historical Development 2007 The History of Bilbao, Spain. Electronic Document, http://www.bilbao.net/ nuevobilbao/jsp/bilbao/homeModulosjs p?idioma=I&color=rojo, accessed July 08, 2007. Brady, Rowena F. 1997 Things Remembered: An Album of Af rican Americans in Tampa. Tampa, Florida: University of Tampa Press. Brown, Cantor Jr. 1998 Floridas Black Public Officials, 1867-1924. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Bennet, John W. 1996 Applied and Action Anthropo logy: Ideological and Conceptual Aspects. Current Anthropology 37(1):S23-S53. Blake, Janet 2000 On Defining Cultural Heritage. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 49(1):61-85.

PAGE 139

132 Boyd, Michelle 2005 The downside of racial uplift: The m eaning of gentrification in an African American neighborhood. City and Society 17(2):265-288. 2000 Reconstructing Bronzeville: Racial Nestalgia and Neighborhood Redevelopment. Journa l of Urban Affair s 22(2):107-122. Bradley, J. and H. King 1989 County Wicklow: Urban Archaeology Su rvey: Part ix. Dublin, Ireland: Office of Public Works. Bronson, S. and Jester T. 2000 Conserving the Built Heritage of the Modern Era: Recent Developments and Ongoing Challenges. APT Bulletin 28(4):4-12. Brown, Jacqueline Nassy 1998 Black Liverpool, Black-America, and the Gendering of Diasporic space. Cultural Anthropology 13(3):291-325. 2000 Enslaving History; Narratives on local whiteness in a black Atlantic port. American Anthropological Association 27(2):340-370. Chambers, Erve 1992 Review of : Social Theory for Acti on: How Individuals and Organizations Learn to Change. William Foote. American Anthropologist 94(3):737-738. City of Tampa 1988 Landmark Designation Report for Tampa Theatre & Office Building. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1988 Landmark Designation Report for Tampa Union Station. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1988 Landmark Designation Report for We st Tampa Public Library. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1988 Landmark Designation Report for Biglow-Helms House. Report prepared by the Architectur al Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1989 Landmark Designation Report for Sulphur Springs Tower. Report prepared by the Architectural Re view Commission, City of Tampa. 1989 Landmark Designation Report for Tampa Bay Hotel. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa.

PAGE 140

133 1990 Landmark Designation Report for Commercial Bank Building. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1990 Landmark Designation Report for Palmerin Hotel. Repor t prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1990 Landmark Designation Report for St. Paul A.M.E. Church. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1994 Landmark Designation Report for Episc opal House of Prayer/St. James House of Prayer. Report prepared by the Arch itectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1994 Landmark Designation Report for Hillsborough Lodge #25 F&AM. Report prepared by the Architectur al Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1994 Landmark Designation Report for Tampa City Hall. Repor t prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1995 Landmark Designation Report for Tampa Free Library. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 1996 Landmark Designation Report for Floridian Hotel. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2001 Landmark Designation Report for El Centro Espanol de West Tampa. Report prepared by the Architectur al Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2001 Landmark Designation Report for Old Peoples Home. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2001 Landmark Designation Report fo r Sicilian Club. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2001 Landmark Designation Report for Souders Building. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2001 Landmark Designation Report for Union Depot Hotel. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2002 Landmark Designation Report fo r Old Tampa Waterworks Pumping Station. Report prepared by the Arch itectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2002 Landmark Designation Report for Pa lace of Florence. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa.

PAGE 141

134 2002 Landmark Designation Report fo r Fire Station No. 1-Tampa Firefighters Museum. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2003 Landmark Designation Report for Cusc aden Park & Pool. Report prepared by the Architectural Re view Commission, City of Tampa. 2003 Landmark Designation Report for Kid Mason Center. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2003 Landmark Designation Report for Da vid L. Tippin Water Treatment Facility. Report prepared by the Architec tural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2003 Landmark Designation Report for Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2004 Landmark Designation Report fo r Berriman-Morgan Cigar Factory. Report prepared by the Architectur al Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2004 Landmark Designation Report for Dr. Jacob White House. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2004 Landmark Designation Report fo r Hillsborough County High School. Report prepared by the Architectur al Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2004 Landmark Designation Report for Jackson House. Repor t prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2004 Landmark Designation Report for Robles House. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2004 Landmark Designation Report for R oosevelt Elementary School. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2004 Landmark Designation Report for Teco Trolley Barn/Tampa Armature Works. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2004 Landmark Designation Report for The Classic Courthouse. Report prepared by the Architectural Revi ew Commission, City of Tampa. 2005 Landmark Designation Report for Babe Zaharias Golf Course. Report prepared by the Architectural Re view Commission, City of Tampa. 2005 Landmark Designation Report for Ga ry Public School. Report prepared by the Architectural Re view Commission, City of Tampa.

PAGE 142

135 2005 Landmark Designation Report fo r Guida House. Report prepared by the Architectural Re view Commission, City of Tampa. 2005 Landmark Designation Report for Plant-Hatton House. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2005 Landmark Designation Report fo r Seybold Bakery. Report prepared by the Architectural Re view Commission, City of Tampa. 2005 Local Historic Properties Multiple Properties Listing Report for African American Multiple Properties. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2007 Landmark Designation Report for Beach Park Gateway. Report prepared by the Architectural Re view Commission, City of Tampa. 2007 Landmark Designation Report for Channel District Warehouse. Report prepared by the Architectur al Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2007 Landmark Designation Report for Dan Kiley Garden. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2007 Landmark Designation Report for Fort Homer Hesterley Armory. Report prepared by the Architectur al Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2007 Landmark Designation Report fo r Historic Bridges Over the Hillsborough River (Cass Street Bridge, Columbus Drive Bridge, T.N. Henderson Bridge at Hillsborough Avenue, Kennedy Blvd. Bridge Laurel Street Br idge, Platt Street Bridge). Report prepared by the Archite ctural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2007 Landmark Designation Report for MacFarlane Park. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2007 Landmark Designation Report for Pete r O. Knight Cottage. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. 2007 Landmark Designation Report for Ta mpas Cigar Factories. Report prepared by the Architectural Re view Commission, City of Tampa. 2007 Landmark Designation Report for Tolles-Comb. Report prepared by the Architectural Review Commission, City of Tampa. Coulson, Nancy and Robert Leichenko 2004 Historic Preservation and Ne ighborhood Change. Urban Studies 41(8): 1587-1600.

PAGE 143

136 Colburn, David R. and Jane L. Landers, eds. 1995 The African American Heritage of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Cook, Samuel R. 2003 Anthropological Advocacy in Histor ical Perspective: the Case of Anthropologists and Virginia Indians. Human organization 62(2): 191-201. Curtis, Nancy 1996 Heritage Sites: An African Amer ican Odyssey and Finders Guide. Chicago: American Library Association. DAndrrade, Robert 1995 Moral Models in Anthropol ogy. Current Anthropology 36(3):399408. Davis, Dana-Ain. 2003 What Did You Do Today? Notes Fr om a Politically Enga ged Anthropologist. Urban Anthropology 32(2):147-73. Downie, Jr., Leonard 1972 Paris Under Construction. Washington: Alecia Patterson Fund Newsletter. Distillery District in Toronto Canada 2004 History of the Distillery District. Electronic Document, http://www.thedistillery district.com/frameset.htm, accessed July 8, 2007. Fireside, Harvey 2004 Separate and Unequal: Homer Plessy and the Supreme Court Decision That Legalized Racism. New York: Carroll & Graf. Fitzpatrick, Dan 1999 The Story of Urban Renewal In East Liberty and Elsewhere, Pittsburgh's Dominant Public Policy Tool Didn't Work Out as Planned. Pittsburgh: PostGazette: Sunday, May 21, 2000: Business and Technology:1. Florida Heritage.Com 2007 Florida Historical Structure Form. Electronic Document, http://www. flheritage.com/preservat ion/sitefile/forms/FORM_SS_V40.doc, accessed July 4, 2007. Froelich, Janis 2007 Meacham School Tries to Dodge the Wrecking Ball. Tampa Tribune:June 28, 2007.

PAGE 144

137 Fullilove, Mindy T. 2000 Root Shock: How Tearing up City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What We Can Do About It. New York: Ballantine Books. Fluerhr-Lobban, Carolyn, ed. 2003 Ethics and the Profession of Anthropololgy. 2 nd Edition: Dialogue for Ethically Conscious Practice. New York: Alta Mira Press. Garrow, Patrick H. 1981 Archaeological Resource Study at Roger Williams National Memorial. Report Prepared For the National Park Servi ce, Department of the Interior: Washington D.C. 1989 Old is Old Enough? Age as a Factor of Significance in Urban Archaeology, Assessing Significance in the Urban Environment. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland, 1989. 2008 Status and Future of Urban Ar chaeology. Paper presented at the 57 th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at the Courthouse Block, Knoxville, Tennessee. Report Prepared for the General Se rvices Administration, Washington D.C. Green, Melissa F. 1991 Praying For Sheetrock: A work of nonfiction. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Greenwood, Davyd J. and Morten Leven. 1998 Introduction to Action Research: So cial Research for So cial Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greenbaum, Susan D. 2002 More Than Black: Afro-Cubans in Tampa. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. 1998 Central Avenue Legacies: African Am erican Heritage in Tampa, Florida. Practicing Anthropology 20:2-5. Gregory, Steven 1998 Black Corona; Race and the Po litics of Place in an Urban Community. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Guthrie, Patricia 1996 Catching Sense: African Amer ican Communities on a South Carolina Sea Island. Westport: Bergin & Garvey. Halstrup Kevin and Patricia Elsass 1990 On Anthropological Advocacy: A Contradiction in Terms? Current Anthropology 31(4):301-311.

PAGE 145

138 Henriksen, George 2003 Consultancy and Advocacy as Radical Anthropology. Social Analysis 47(1):116123. Hillsborough County 2006 Central Park Community Redevelopment Area Plan. WilsonMiller Inc. and Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. 2005 Educational Pamphlet Produced for December 28, 2006 banquet held at the Harlem Academy. Tampa: Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County Public Schools 2005 Hillsborough County Public Sc hool Information. Electronic Document, http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/schools/School_Info.asp?Site=4326, accessed May 12, 2007. Howard, Walter and Virginia Howard 1994 Family, Religion, and Education: A Profile of African-American Life in Tampa, Florida, 1900-1930. The Journal of Negro History 79(1):1-17. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology 1999 Doing Archaeology in Minnesota: Urba n Archaeology. Electronic document, http://www.fromsitetostory.org/s ources/archinmn/archinmnurban.asp accessed August 5, 2006. Jackson, Antionette T. and Allan F. Burns 2003a EthnoHistorical Study of the Ki ngsley Plantation Community. Jacksonville, Florida: National Park Service. 2003b Africans at Snee Farm Plan tation: Informing Representations of Plantation Life at a National He ritage Site. In Signifying Serpents and Mardi Gras Runners. Celeste Ray and Luke Eric Lassiter, eds. Pp. 93-109. Athens, The University of Georgia Press. 2002 Anna Kingsley: From Slave to Woman of Distinction. FlaVour: 3(3):27-28. Jones, Maxine D. and Kevin M. McCarthy 1993 African Americans in Florida. Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press. Jupp, James 2000 The Snowy Mountain Scheme and Multicult ural Australia. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. Paper presented at the Academy Symposium: November 1999.

PAGE 146

139 Kahn, Miriam 1996 Your Place and Mine: Sharing emotional landscapes in Wamira, Papua New Guinnea. In Senses of Pl ace. Kahn Miriam ed. Pp. 167-196. Santa Fe, School of American Research Press. 2000 Not Really Pacific Voices: Politics of Representation in Collaborative Museum Exibits. Museum Anthropology 24(1):57-74. Kerstein, Robert 2001 Politics and Growth in Twentieth-Century Tampa. Ga inesville: Univ ersity Press of Florida. Keister, Kim 1993 Charts of Change. Hi storic Preservation 1(3): 7-9. King, Thomas F. 2005 Doing Archaeology: A Cultural Re source Management Perspective. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Incorporated 2004 Cultural Resource Laws a nd Practice: an in troductory guide, 2 nd Edition. New York: AltaMira Press. 1998 Cultural Resource Laws and Practi ce: an introductory guide Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Kluger, Richard 1976 Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black Americas Struggle for Equality. New York:Knopf. Klugh, Elgin L. 2004 African American Schoolhouses: Comm unity, History, and Reclamation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of An thropology, University of South Florida. Kotz, Nick 2005 Judgement Days: Londaon Baines, J ohnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws That Changed Am erica. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Landmark Archaeological and Environmental Services, Inc. 2002 Historic, Industrial, and Urban Archaeology. Electronic document, http://www.landmarkarchaeology.com/spec.html accessed September 3, 2006. Lecompte, Margaret D. & Jean J. Schensul 1999 Designing & Conducting Ethnographic Re search. New York: Alta Mira Press.

PAGE 147

140 Lees, Loretta 2000 A Reappraisal of Gentrification: towards a geography of gentrification. Progress in Human Geography: 24(3):389-408. London Documents Developmen t Corporation Monograph 2000 Initiating Urban Change: London Docklands. Electronic Document, http://www.lddchistory.org.uk/be forelddc/index.html, accessed July 4, 2007 Mapquest, Inc. 2007 Street Map: 1225 India Street. Electronic Document, http://www.mapquest.com/ maps/map.adp?formtype=addre ss&country=US&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude= &name=&phone=&level=&addtohistory=&cat=meacham+elementary&address= 1225+india+street&city=Tampa&state=Fl&zipcode, accessed July 3, 2007. Mays, B. E., Arthur Ra per, and J.H. McGrew 1927 A Study of Negro Life in Tampa: Made at the Request of the Tampa Welfare League, the Tampa Urban Le ague, and the Tampa Young Mens Christian Association. Tampa: City of Tampa. McCarthy, Kevin M. 1995 Black Florida. Hippocrene Books, Inc: New York. Missouri Department of Natural Resources State Historic Pr eservation Office 2005 National Register of Historic Pl aces Nomination Criteria. Electronic Document, http://www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/national.htm#CRITERIA%20FOR%20 EVALUATOIN, accessed July 9, 2007. Mohammed, Michael 2007 Living History: The Records ar e Long Gone, But the People of Tampas Harlem Academy Keep Its Story Alive. Electronic Document, http://www.sptimes. Com/2007/01/26/Floridian/Living_history.shtml, accessed July 10, 2007. Mohlman, Geoffrey 1995 Bibliography of Resources Concerning the African American presence in Tampa, 1513-1995. MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida. 1998 Dusty But Useful Data: Applied An thropology and Archival Research. Practicing Anthropology 20(1):12-14. National Park Service 1983 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form 10-900 : West Tampa Historic District, Tampa, Florida. 1985 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form 10-900: Hyde Park, Tampa, Florida.

PAGE 148

141 1990 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form 10-900: Ybor City Historic District, Tampa, Florida. 1993 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form 10-900: Seminole Heights Historic District, Tampa, Florida. 1995 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form 10-900: Tampa Heights Historic District, Tampa, Florida. 1998 National Register of Historic Pl aces Nomination Form 10-900: Hampton Terrace Historic District, Tampa, Florida. 2007 National Register of Historic Pl aces Registration Form, National Park Service Form 10-900; Revised Oct. 1990. National Register of Historic Places Online Database 2007 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Electronic Docu ment, http://www.nps.gov/hi story/nr/publication /bulletins/nrb15/, accessed July 9, 2007 Neuman, Thomas W. and Robert M.Sanford 2001 Cultural Resources Archaeology: An Introduction. New York: AltaMira Press. Oswald, Diane L. 1996 Fire Insurance Maps: Their Hist ory and Applications. College Station, TX: Lacewing Press. Panamerican Consultants 2001 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Perry Harvey Senior Park. Tampa, Fl: Report Prepared for Award Engineering. Paris, Jenell 2001 Weve Seen This Coming: Re sident Activists Shaping Neighborhood Redevelopment in Washingt on, D.C. Transforming Anthropology 10(1). Perez, Michelle 2000 The other real world: gentrifica tion and the social construction of place in Chicago. Urban Anthropology a nd Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development: Spring 31(1). Piper, Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper 1987 Urban Archaeology in Florida: th e Search for Tampas Historic Core. The Florida Anthropologist 40(4):260-265. Pollock-Ellwand, Nancy 1992 Heritage Advocacy in the Cultural Landscape. APT Bulletin 24(3/4):71-78.

PAGE 149

142 Potter, P. and M. Leone 2000 Establishing the Roots of Histor ical Consciousness in Modern Annapolis, Maryland. In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, I. Karp, C. Mullen-Kreamer, and S. Lavine, eds. Pp. 476-505. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. Prince, Sabiyha R. 1999 Changing Places: Race, Class, and Belonging in the New Harlem. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development: Spring 2002 31(1). Purdy, Sean 2006 Framing Regent Park: the National Film Board of Canada and the Construction of Outcast Spaces in the Inner Ci ty, 1953 and 1994. Media, Culture and Society: 27(4):24-57. Ramos, Alcida Rita 2003 Advocacy Rhymes With Anthropology. Social Analysis 47(1):110-15. Ristow, W. Walter 1986 American Maps and Mapmakers. De troit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press. Ruffins, Francis 1992 Mythos, Memory, and History: African American Preservation Efforts, 1820-1990. In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, I. Karp, C. Mullen-Kreamer, and S. Lavine, eds. Pp. 506-611. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. Saunders, Robert W. 2001 Bridging the Gap: Continuing the Flor ida NAACP legacy of Harry T. Moore. Tampa, Florida: University of Tampa Press. Shircliffe, Barbara J., Sherman Dorn, and Deirdre Cobb-Roberts 2006 Introduction: Schools as Imagined Communities. In The Creation of Identity, Meaning, and Conflict in U.S. History, Deirdre Cobb-R oberts, Sherman Dorn, and Barbara J. Shircliffe, eds. Pp 1-31. New York:Palgrave. Small, Stephen A. 1995 Action-Oriented Research: Models and Methods. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(4):941-955. Smith, Heather and William Graves 2000 Gentrification as Corporate Growth Strate gy: The Strange Case of Charlotte, North Carolina and Bank of America. Journal of Urban Affairs 27(4):403-418.

PAGE 150

143 Span, Christopher M. 2002 I Must Learn Now or Not at A ll: Social and Cultura l Capital in the Educational Initiatives of Formerly Enslaved African Americans in Mississippi, 1862-1869. Journal of African American History 87(Spring):196-205. Staski, Edward. (ed.) 1987 Living in Cities : curre nt research in urban archaeo logy. Pleasant Hill, CA: Society for Historical Archaeology. The Florida Memory Project 2004 Floridas Early Constitutions Online at the Florida State Archives. Electronic document, http://www.floridamemory.c om/Collections/Constitution/ accessed July 3, 2007. Trouillot, Michel-Rolph 1995 Silencing the Past: Power and the Produc tion of History. Boston: Beacon Press. Turnbull, Ann Ramirez, & Barbara J. Friesen 1998 Participatory Action Research as a Model for Conducting Family Research. Austin, TX: The University of Kansas and Portland State University. U.S. Census Bureau 2000 U.S. Census Bureau: Fact Sheet: Florida. Electronic document, http://factfinder.cens us.gov/servelet/QTTable ? bm=y&-geo id=04000US12&qrname=DEC 2000 SF1 U DP1& -ds name=DEC 2000 SF1 U, accessed November 12, 2006. U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Table DP-1 Profile of General De mographic Characteristics: 2000: Geographic Area: Tampa City, Florida. Electronic document, http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/fefdl/Cities.pdf/Tampa%20city.pdf accessed November 12, 2006. Walker, Vanessa Siddle 1996 Their Highest Potential: An Afri can American School Community in the Segregated South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Weisman, Brent and Lori D. Collins 2004 A Model for Evaluating Archaeol ogical Site Significance in Cities: A Case Study from Tampa, Fl orida. Report Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, Cultu ral Environmental Management Office. Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida Press.

PAGE 151

144 Whyte, William F. 1991 Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 1989 Advancing Scientific Knowledge Through Participatory Action Research. Sociological Forum 4(3):367-385. WilsonMiller, Inc. and The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission 2005 The Central Park Village Co mmunity Redevelopment Area Plan. Report prepared for the City of Tampa.

PAGE 152

145 Appendices

PAGE 153

146 Appendix A: Summary Descriptions of Historic Districts in Tampa Hyde Park (8HI1050) Hyde Park is significant as the oldest and best preserved of Tampas early residential neighborhoods. With structures dating from the late 1800s through the 1920s, the houses in Hyde Park are representative of the various architectural styles favored by Americans prior to World War II. Housing types range from wood frame shotgun houses to high style masonry mansions. The area is marked by a variety of other structures as well: apartment buildings, churches, commercial buildings, and even light industrial structuresall from the historic period. Established as a neighborhood for Tampas wealthier citizens, the area eventually attracted persons of all economic backgrounds. The area is also associated with the pioneer settlement of the Tampa Bay region and its early economic development. In addition to the majority of its older houses, Hyde Park has retained much of its or iginal ambience and streetscape (National Register Nomination Form: Hyde Park, Tampa, Florida 1985 Section 8:1). West Tampa (8HI1076) The West Tampa Historic District contains a variety of residential, commercial, social, and industrial buildings in an area located north an d west of downtown Tampa. Established in 1893, West Tampa grew an as independent city until 1925. Building contin ued in West Tampa until the depression of the early 1930s. The building stock remaining includes excellent examples of frame vernacular and bungalow style housing from the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. The district also cont ains brick vernacular commercial buildings and the elaborate So cial Clubs from the early 20 th century. The most important buildings in the district are the 11 three-story bric k cigar factories. The area has traditionally housed low to middle income minority working families and continues to do so. The major intrusion in the area is the interstate highway (National Register Nomination Form: West Tampa Historic District, Tampa, Florida 1983:Section 7:1). Ybor City (8HI1313) Founded in 1886, Ybor City is significant in Span ishand Cuban-American immigration history. The district is also of importance in American industrial history, for it contains the largest collection of buildings related to the cigar industry in America and probably the world. In addition to factories, the districts buildings include workers housing; the ethnic clubs organized by Ybor Citys immigrants, who included Italians and Germans as well as Cubans and Spaniards; and the commercial buildings that served the community. Most buildings date to the first two decades of the 20 th century. Historically, Ybor City was a rare multi-ethnic and multi-racial industrial community in the Deep South and is highly illustrative of manifold aspects of the history of ethnic and r ace relations (National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Ybor City Historic District, Tampa, Florida 1990:1). Seminole Heights (8HG3294) The Seminole Heights Residential District is an ap proximately 170 acre residential neighborhood located about three miles from downtown Tampa. The district contains mainly single family dwellings dating from c. 1912 to 1939. In addition, the area contains a school, several chur ches and other buildings associated with non-commercial functions. The houses in the di strict are mainly bungalows, but a wide variety of architectural stylestypical of those that were popular in the first half of the 20 th century in the United Statesare represented in the neighborhood. The district comprises 438 structures, of which 325 are contributing and 113 are noncontributing. Noncontributing buildings include those erected after 1942 or those constructed prior to th at date that have been severely altere d (National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Seminole Heights Historic District, Tampa, Florida 1993:Section 7:1).

PAGE 154

147 Tampa Heights (8HI5688) The Tampa Heights Historic District comprises appr oximately 200 acres and contains 427 buildings, the majority of which are single family dwellings. The dist rict also features several churches, a school, a fire station, and a handful of commercial buildings. There are 289 structures (68 percent) that contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood, while 138 (32 percent) are considered noncontributing. The historic buildings date from c. 1980 to 1945 and represent a wide variety of architectural styles. Most of the houses in the district are bungalows or wo od frame vernacular residences er ected between cir ca 1910 and 1925; however the district also features ex amples of such formal styles as Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Tudor Revival, and Mediterranean Revival (National Re gister of Historic Places Nomination Form: Tampa Heights Historic District, Tampa, Florida 1995:Section 7:1). Hampton Terrace (8HI6821) The Hampton Terrace Historic Distri ct is an approximately 115 acre residential neighborhood located about three miles north of downtown Tampa, Florida. The neighborhood is dominated by single family dwellings dating from the 1920s to the present. A variet y of architectural styles, typical of those that were popular in the United States during the first half of the 20 th century, are represented in the neighborhood. Most of the homes in the district are small and have little ornamental detailing. All of the buildings in the district are either single family or multiple family dwellings. The district contains 421 buildings, of which 304 are contributing and 117 are noncontributing. This is a ratio of 72 percent contributing to 28 percent noncontributing. The noncontributing buildings include those erected after 1948 and those constructed prior to that date that have been severely altered with in the last 50 years (National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form Form 10-900: Hampton Terrace Historic District, Tamp a, Florida 1998:Section 7:1).

PAGE 155

Appendix B: City of Tampa Local Historic Landmarks Landmark Name Landmark Address Date of Construction Designation Criteria Landmark Use: Residential, Commercial, Public, Religion, Public Education, Social Club, Public Transportation Historic Affiliation/ Significance: Personal, Public, Ethnicity/Cultural? Owner NR Site Y/N Beach Park Gateway 4200 Block of W. Swann Ave. 1926 Pending Not Indicated Not Indicated NI N Berriman-Morgan Cigar Factory 1403 N. Howard Ave. 1904 A C Commercial Tampa Cigar Industry City of Tampa Y Biglow-Helms House 4807 Bayshore Blvd. 1908 B, C Residential Personal: S. Lus Biglow, Jack Wilson (developers & businessmen) NI N Channel District Warehouse 204 N. 12 th Street 1928 Pending NI N The Classic Courthouse 611 N. Florida Ave. 1905 A, B, C Public Courthouse Public: Tampas oldest hist. Govmt. Bldg. Personal: James Knox Taylor (architect) NI Y Commercial Bank Building 4902 Commerce Street 1926 A,C Commercial Bank Architectural Style (Neoclassical Revival) NI N Cuscaden Park & Pool 2900 N. 15 th Street 1930 A, B, C Public Park NI Y David L. Tippen Water Treatment Facility 7125 N. 30 th Street 1925 A, C Public Water Treatment Public: Tampa Waterworks Treatment Facility City of Tampa N El Centro Espanol de West Tampa 2306 N. Howard Ave. 1912 A, C Residential Ethnicity: Spanish Private Y Episcopal House of Prayer/St. James House of Prayer 2708 N. Central Ave. 1922 B, C Religion Personal: William Richardson (civic & rel. leader) Private Y Fire Station No. 1 720 E. Zack St. 1911 A, C P ublic Fire Station Public: Museum Public N Floridian Hotel 905 N. Florida Ave. 1926 A Commercial Hotel Private Y Fort Homer Hesterly Armory 522 N. Howard Ave. 1941 Pending Not Indicated Not Indicated NI N Gary Public School 3610 E. 10 th Ave. 1913 A,C Public Education Nonblack segregated school Public N Greater Mt. Moriah Primitive Baptist Church 1225 N. Nebraska Ave. 1948 A,C Religion NI Private N Guida House 1516 Renfrew St. 1952 B Residential Personal: George Guida Sr. (Itallian businessman & civic leader) Mediterranean Style Public Y 148

PAGE 156

Appendix B: (continued) Landmark Name Landmark Address Date of Construction Designation Criteria Landmark Use: Residential, Commercial, Public, Religion, Public Education, Social Club, Public Transportation Historic Affiliation/ Significance: Personal, Public, Ethnicity/Cultural? Owner NR Site Y/N Historic Cass Street Bridge Cass St reet 1926 Pending Public Tr ansportation Bridge over Hillsborough River Public N Historic Columbus Drive Bridge Michigan Ave. 1927 Pending Public Transportation Bridge over Hillsborough River Public N Historic T.N. Henderson Bridge Hills borough Ave. 1939 Pending Public Transportation Bridge over Hillsborough River Public N Historic Kennedy Blvd. Bridge Lafayett Street 1913 Pending Public Transpor tation Bridge over Hillsborough River Public N Historic Laurel Street Bridge Fortune Street 1927 Pending Public Transportati on Bridge over Hillsborough River Public N Historic Platt Street Bridge Platt Street 1926 Pending Public Transportation Bridge over Hillsborough River Public N Hillsborough County High School/D.W. Waters Center 2704 N. Highland Ave 1911 A, C Public Education Not Indicated Public N Hillsborough Lodge #25 F & M 508 E. Kennedy Blvd. 1928 A, B Social Club Not Indicated NI Y Jackson House 851 E. Zack St. 1899 1915 (addition) A, B Residential: Boarding House Personal: Moses Jackson, Sarah Jackson Robinson (black businessmen & developers) Ethnicity/Cultural: Af rican American/Black NI N Kid Mason Center 1101 N. Jefferson St. 1948 A, B Store/Social Services Personal: Kid Mason Fendall (black businessman) Ethnicity/Cultural Affiliation: African American City of Tampa N Dan Kiley Garden 400 N. Ashley Dr 1988 Pending NI N Peter O. Knight Cottage/Tampa Historic Social Building 245 S. Hyde Parke Ave 1889 B,C Residential/Social Club Personal: Pe ter Knight (Pioneering Industrialist and community leader) NI N MacFarlane Park 1801 N. Lincoln Ave 1908 Pending NI N Old Peoples Home/The Home 1202 E. 22 nd Ave. 1924 NI Not Indicated Not Indicated NI Y Old Tampa Waterworks Pumping Station 1810 N. Highland Ave. 1902 A Public Water Public Water Pumping Station City of Tampa N Palace of Florence 45 Davis Blvd. 1925 A, B, C Resi dential Residential Appartment Bldg: Davis Island (mediterranian style) Personal: D.P. Davis (developer) Private Y Palmerin Hotel 115 E. Davis Blvd. 1925 NI Public Hotel Public: Upper Scale Hotel: Davis Island Private Y Paradise Missionary Baptist Church 1112 Scott Street 1924 NI Religion Not Indicated NI N Plant-Hatton House 4505 W. Beachway Drive 1926 NI Residential Residential Dwelling Private N 149

PAGE 157

Appendix B: (continued) Landmark Name Landmark Address Date of Constructi on Designation Criteria Landmark Use: Residential, Commercial, Public, Religion, Public Education, Social Club, Public Transportation Historic Affiliation/ Significance: Personal, Public, Ethnicity/Cultural? Owner NR Site Y/N Robles House 2604 E. Hanna St. 1900 A,B,C Residentia l Personal: Robles Family esp. Horace Theodore Robles (early Hills borough Co. Pioneers) Residential Dwelling Private Y Seybold Bakery 420 S. Dakota Ave 1926 C Co mmercial Bakery Bakery Private Y Sicilian Club 2001 N. Howard Ave. 1929 A Social Club Ethnicity/Cultural: Sicilian/Italian American (mediterranian style) Private Y Souders Building 115 S. Felding St. 1914 A,C Residential Dwelling Private Residence: currently used as office Private Y St. Peter Claver School 1401 N. Governor Street 1929 NI Private Education Not in folder in preservation office; Private Catholic School that catered to African Americans Private N Sulphur Springs Tower 8105 N. Fl Ave 1927 NI Not Indicated Not Indicated NI N Tampa Bay Hotel/Plant Hall 401 W. Kennedy Boulevard 1891 A, C Public Hotel Not Indicated City of Tampa Y Tampas Cigar Factories/Multiple Properties Group Not Indicated NI Pending Cigar Factories Cigar Industry of Tampa NI N Tampa City Hall 315 Kennedy Ave. 1915 A,C Pub lic City Hall City of Tampa City of Tampa Y Tampa Free Library/Old Tampa Free Library 102 E. 7 th Ave. 1917 NI Public Library City of Tampa NI Y Tampa Theatre and Office Building 707 thru 711 N. Franklin Street 1925 NI NI Mediterrenian Revival Style NI Y Tampa Union Station 601 N. Nebraska Ave. 1912 NI Public Railroad current: storage Not Indicated Private Y Teco Trolley Barn/Tampa Armature Works 1910 N. Ola Ave. 1911 A,C, D Transportation/Industry Development of Tampa as a Port City: 19111946 NI N Toles-Comb 1822 E. Park St. 1925 Pending Not Indicated Not Indicated NI N Union Depot Hotel 862 E. Zack Street 1912 A, C Public Hotel Not Indicated NI Y West Tampa Public Library 1718 N. Howard 1913 NI Public Library Not Indicated Public Y Dr. Jacob White/Dr. Jacob White Sr. House 3321 N. 22 nd Street 1925 A, B, C Residentia l Ethnicity: African American Private N Bebe Zaharias Golf Course 11412 N. Forest Hills Dr. 1926 A, B Golf Course Personal: Mildred Bebe Didrikson Zaharias 1949-2006 (helped found the LPGA) City of Tampa N Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church 2901 N. Highland Ave. 1925 A, C Religion Gothic Revival Style NI N (City of Tampa Landmark Designation Report:2007, 2005, 200 4, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1990, 1989, 1988) 150

PAGE 158

Appendix C: City of Tampa Local Historic Districts District Name Period of Historical Significance Year of Local District Designation National Register District Y/N, Year of Designation? Overall Acreage Number of Buildings Hyde Park 1886-1933 1988 Y, 1985 860 +/839 contributing 561 non contributing Seminole Heights 1912-1928 1995 Y, 1993 215 +/425 contributing 135 non-contributing Tampa Heights 1890-1945 2000 Y, 1995 200 +/304 contributing 187 non-contributing Ybor City 1886-1940 1975; expanded in 2002 Y, 1974 601 +/1,180 contributing 546 non-contributing Hapton Terrace 1913-1955 Pending 1999 140 +/Not yet defined West Harbor View Avenue 1913-1926 Pending N Not yet defined 27 contributing 4 non-contributing West Tampa 1894-1955 Pending 1983 Not yet defined Not yet defined (City of Tampa Landmark Designation Report:2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1990, 1989, 1988) Notes: A contributing building is consistent with the theme(s) an d or date range prioritized by the historic district nominatio n. A non-contributing building has either been significantly altered or was built after the significant historic period the district represents. 151

PAGE 159

Appendix D: National Register of Historic Places Sites in Tampa National Register Site Name NR Site Address Date of Construction Date of Designation Designation Criteria Landmark Use: Residential, Commercial, Public, Religion, Private Social Club Historic Affiliation/ Significance: Personal, Public, Ethnicity/ Cultural Affiliation Owner City of Tampa Local ? Y/N Anderson-Frank House 341 S. Plant Ave. 1839 1982 C (Architectur e) Residential Colonial Revival Style Arch. Private N BerrimanMorgan Cigar Factory 1403 N. Howard Ave. 1904 1983 A,C (local) Commercial Tampa Cigar Industry City of Tampa Y Ciculo Cubano (Cuban Club) 2010 N. Avenida Republica De Cuba(10 th ave and 14 th Street) 1917 1972 Political Social/Humanitarian Social Club (for men) Cuban Private N The Classic Courthouse 611 N. Florida Ave. 1905 1974 A,B,C (local) Public Courthouse Public: Tampas oldest historic government bldg. Personal: James Knox Taylor: architect Y Curtis House 808 E. Curtis Street 1905-06 1987 Not Indicated NI NI NI N Cuscaden Park & Pool 2900 N. 15 th Street 1930 1974 A,B,C (local) Public Park NI NI Y El Centro Espanol De West Tampa 2306 N. Howard Ave. 1912 1974 A,C Residential Ethnicity: Spanish Private Y El Centro Espanol De Tampa 1526-1536 7 th Ave./Currently 1532 7 th Ave 1912 1988 Ethnic History Social Club Ethnicity: Spanish Private N El Pasaje 1318 9 th Ave. 1896 1972 Not Indicated NI NI NI N Episcopal House of Prayer/St. James House of Prayer 2708 N. Central Ave. 1922 1991 B,C (Architecture) Religion Personal: William Richardson (civic and religious leader) Private Y Floridian Hotel 905 N. Florida Ave. 1926 1996 C (Architecture) A (Historical events) Commercial Public Hotel Private Y 152

PAGE 160

Appendix D: (continued) National Register Site Name NR Site Address Date of Construction Date of Designation Designation Criteria Landmark Use: Residential, Commercial, Public, Religion, Private Social Club Historic Affiliation/ Significance: Personal, Public, Ethnicity/ Cultural Affiliation Owner City of Tampa Local ? Y/N Fort Homer Hesterly Armory 522 N. Howard Ave. 1941 Pending 2005 Pending Public Armo ry U.S. Military Public Y The Gardner House 209 W. Palm Ave. 1924 2003 Not Indicated NI NI NI N Hillsborough Lodge #25 F & AM 508 E. Kennedy Blvd. 1928 1986 Community members & architecture Social Club NI NI Y Hutchinson House 304 Plant Ave. 1908 1977 Architectur e Residential Second Empire Style Private N Johnson-Wolff House 6823 S. De Soto Street 1885 1974 Architecture Social/Humanitarian Residential Occupied Residence Private N LeClair Apartments 3013 & 3015 W. San Carlos Street 1926 1988 C (Architecture) Residential Residential Apartment bldg. Private N Leiman House 716 S. Newport Ave. 1916 1974 C (Architecture) Residentia l Occupied Residence Private N Meacham Elementary School 1225 India Street 1926 2005 A (Education, Ethnic Heritage) Public Education Ethnic Heritage: Black Public: Hills. County Schools N Old Peoples Home/The Home Association 1203 E. 22 nd Ave. 1924 2000 A (Social History, Health/Medicine) C (Architecture) Nursing Home, Colonial Revival Health Care, Residential Public Y Old School House University of South Florida Campus Lafayette Street 1858 1974 C (Architecture) A (Education) Private School (relocated) Private School for Girls Private: Daughters of the American Revolution N Old Tampa Childrens Home 3302-3306 N. Florida Ave. 1922 1999 Not Indicated NI NI NI N Palace of Florence Hotel 45 Davis Blvd. 1925 1989 C (Architecture) Residential Residential Apartment Bldg.: David Island (Mediterranean Style) Personal: D.P. Davis: Developer Private Y Palmerin Hotel 115 E. Davis Blvd. 1925 1989 C (Architecture) Public Hotel Davis Island/Upper Scale: Mediterranean Style Private Y 153

PAGE 161

Appendix D: (continued) National Register Site Name NR Site Address Date of Construction Date of Designation Designation Criteria Landmark Use: Residential, Commercial, Public, Religion, Private Social Club Historic Affiliation/ Significance: Personal, Public, Ethnicity/ Cultural Affiliation Owner City of Tampa Local ? Y/N Robles House 2604 E. Hanna 1900 2006 A,B,C (local) Residential Personal: Robles Family (pioneers) Private Y Seybold Bakery 420 S. Dakota 1926 1985 C (lo cal) Commercial Bakery Bakery Private Y Sicilian Club 2001 N. Howard Ave. 1929 1983 A (l ocal) Social Club Ethnicity: Sicilian/ Italian American (Mediterranean Style) Private Y S.H. Kress Bldg. 811 N. Franklin Street 1929 1983 Not Indicated NI NI NI N Souders Building 115 S. Fielding Ave. 1914 1985 A,C (local) Residential Residential (currently office) Private Y SS America Victory 705 Channelside Dr.Berth 271 1948 2002 Not Indicated NI NI NI N Stovall House 4621 Bayshore Blvd. 1926 1974 C Re sidential Occupied Residence NI N Taliaferro House 305 S. Hyde Park Ave. 1890 1974 Not Indicated NI NI NI N Tampa Bay Hotel/Plant Hall 401 W. Kennedy Blvd. 1891 1972 Architecture Literature Military Public Hotel Public Hotel City of Tampa Y Tampa City Hall 315 E. Kennedy Blvd. 1915 1974 C Arch itecture Public City of Tampa Public Y Tampa Free Libarary 102 E. 7 th Ave. 1917 1991 A,C Public City of Tampa Public Y Tampa Theatre & Office Bldg. 707-711 N. Franklin Street 1925 1978 Architecture Theatre Public City of Tampa: Mediterranean Style City of Tampa Y Tampa Union Station 601 N. Nebraska Ave. 1912 1974 Architecture Public Railroad Public Public Y Tampania House 4611 W. North A Street 1925 1985 C (Architecture) A (Community Planning) Residential Residential (currently commercial) Private N Union Depot Hotel 862 E. Zack Street 1912 2000 A,C (lo cal) Public Hotel Public NI Y West Tampa Public Library 1718 N. Howard Ave. 1913 1983 NI Public Library Public Public Y Ybor Factory Bldg. Currently 1901 N. 13 th Street 1886 1972 Industry Cigar Factory Cigar Industr y Private Included in Tampas Cigar Factories/Multiple Properties Group (City of Tampa Landmark Designation Report:2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1990, 1989, 1988) 154

PAGE 162

155 Appendix E: National Register of Historic Places Districts in Tampa District Name And Florida Site # Year of Designation Designation Criteria Period of Historical Significance Number of Contributing Structures Historic Affiliation Function/Use Acreage +/Ybor City (8HI1313) 1974 A,B,C 1886 1940 956 Ethnic Heritage: Hispanic, Cuban Industry Industry, Commerce, Domestic, Social 369 Hyde Park (HI1050) 1985 B,C 1886 1933 1255 Architecture, Community Planning, Exploration/Settlement Domestic, Commercial, Religion, Light Industrial 560 West Tampa (8HI1076) 1983 A,B,C 1893-1933 909 Architecture, Commerce Commercial, Education, Religion, Domestic 273 Seminole Heights (8HI3294) 1993 A,C 1912 1939 325 Architecture, Community Planning and Development Education, Religion, Domestic 170 Tampa Heights (8HI5688) 1995 A,C 1890 1945 289 Architecture, Community Planning and Development Education, Religion, Domestic 200 Hampton Terrace (8HI6821) 1998 A,C 1920 1948 304 Architecture, Community Planning and Development Domestic 115 North Franklin Street (8HI8536) 2002 A,C 1903 1921 8 Architecture, Commerce Commerce, Domestic 3 Mediterranian Revival Style Buildings of Davis Island (8HI3633) A,C 23 Architecture, Community Planning and Development Domestic 23 (National Register of Historic Places National Register Information System: http://www.nr.nps.gov/ nr/research/nris.htm)

PAGE 163

About the Author David Butler received a Bachelors De gree in Anthropology in 1996 with Honors in the Major from the University of Central Florida. He received a Masters Degree in Anthropology with a specialization in Public Archaeology from the University of South Florida in 2000 and initiated doctoral study in Anthropology at the University of South Florida in 2001. From 2000 until 2007 he taug ht Anthropology at Valencia Community College in Orlando. Likewise, he served as an adjunct professor of Anthropology and Archaeology at the University of Central Florida from 2001 until 2006. In 2006 he began teaching Anthropology and Archaeology as an adjunct at Rollins College. In 2007 he was awarded the title Visiting Scholarly L ecturer in Anthropology and Archaeology at Rollins, and in the summer of 2007 he b ecame a visiting Assistant Professor in Anthropology and Archaeology at Rollins College. Mr. Butler became certified as a Registered Professional Archaeolo gist (ROPA certified) in 2001.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001920060
003 fts
005 20080123111315.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080103s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002093
035
(OCoLC)187086844
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
GN397.5 (ONLINE)
1 100
Butler, David Stewart Barksdale.
3 245
An urban model of applied preservation
h [electronic resource] /
by David Stewart Barksdale Butler.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
2007.
520
ABSTRACT: This research prioritized the identification and retention of African American cultural heritage in the face of dramatic landscape alteration associated with comprehensive redevelopment. As an approach aimed at providing the most comprehensive understanding of cultural phenomenon, the holistic tradition applied by anthropology asserts that it is productive to identify and apply as many sources of data toward engaging research as is possible. Consistent with this goal, this study applied several categories of data toward investigating material symbols of African American cultural heritage in Tampa, Florida. The holistic anthropological approach demonstrated the relevance and complementarity of research documenting cultural heritage and its relationship to Tampa's contemporary urban landscape, urban archaeology, participatory research, anthropological advocacy, and historic designation and preservation research in a community threatened by large-scale redevelopment.Tampa represented a fruitful context for this research because for the second time in less than forty years, the urban landscape historically associated with African Americans in Tampa is slated to be impacted by wide-ranging demolition resulting from the actions of city and county planners. This research is particularly important in Tampa because urban policy carried out in this area of Tampa during the 1970's eradicated the vast majority of physical reminders of the African American cultural heritage in Tampa. This research proposes that even in the face of dramatic demolition resulting in comprehensive change in urban landscapes, anthropologists have an obligation to prioritize material symbols of cultural heritage which in this context represent enduring evidence of African American cultural heritage in Tampa.Collectively the components of this study represent an anthropological model defined as an Urban Model of Applied Preservation (UMAP) designed to facilitate the anthropological engagement of evolving relationships between urban spaces and their cultural associations with urban populations. This model clarifies a set of complementary methods that might be applied toward investigation prioritizing the effects of urban change on cultural heritage.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 155 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Advisor: Susan Greenbaum, Ph.D.
653
Anthropology.
Archaeology.
Urban anthropology.
Urban archaeology.
Applied anthropology.
Historic preservation.
Advocacy.
Action research.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Applied Anthropology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2093