Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission member Karen Loysen must not have gotten the memo: historic preservation is no longer just about pretty old buildings built by rich (white) men. Over the past 20 years, the field has sought to become more inclusive and people-centered. Loysen, a Pittsburgh architect, seems to be out of touch with current best practices in historic preservation.
Loysen’s unsophisticated and narrow perspective on historic preservation was on display in her statements about Pittsburgh’s Tito-Mecca-Zizza House as it worked its way through the HRC hearing cycle on its way to historic site designation. Though Loysen and her HRC colleagues declined to recommend landmarking the site, on June 7, 2022, the Pittsburgh City Council voted 6-2 to make the Tito-Mecca-Zizza House Pittsburgh’s newest historic site.
The landmark nomination that I prepared in 2021, in collaboration with Tito, Mecca, and Zizza family members, included many historical family photos. These pictures show the Victorian home over the span of several decades, lovingly used by the families. The photos also provide invaluable snapshots in time that show how some elements of the historic home have remained unchanged and how other elements were altered or replaced in the late 20th century. They are an invaluable asset any historian or architectural historian would be eager to have to make the case for a property’s historical significance.
But Loysen couldn’t see that. Loysen made several comments at the November 3, 2021, HRC meeting where the commission first discussed the property’s “viability” as a City of Pittsburgh historic site. Viability meetings are sessions meant only to determine if the nomination was properly prepared and contains sufficient information for the HRC to render an informed opinion about its historical significance. Loysen apparently didn’t understand the purpose of the meeting and she didn’t see the value of the historical photos:
Well I did have one question and I — a lot of the photographs that we’ve seen are about family at the house and what I couldn’t tell from the photographs that were presented were related to the viability of the structure. And I didn’t know whether there was any assessment of that or any further documentation as to the soundness of the building and whether it could be restored.
I mean there’s a lot of little detail photographs, but it was hard for me to tell viability-wise and I didn’t see anything that was an assessment of the fact that it’s sturdy enough to be restored.
Loysen also appeared to be confused about what the HRC is required to do under Pittsburgh’s historic preservation law. She seems to think that associational significance is not sufficient to warrant designating historic landmarks. In other words, if an old building has a compelling story but the building isn’t up to her aesthetic standards (read: architect designed, owned and occupied by long-dead rich white people), then the building is expendable.
Just before voting to deny a favorable recommendation to the Pittsburgh City Council regarding the Tito-Mecca-Zizza House, Loysen offered her opinion about how the property should be commemorated:
What I guess keeps crossing my mind is, if it’s about the story, isn’t there a way to tell the story appropriately in a way that also allows for development of the neighborhood. I mean the History Center tells stories about the history of things and they’re not necessarily in the building in which they occurred. Or, you know, there’s other places. There’s other ways to tell a story when the story is cool or important. But it might not be because the architecture of the building is significant.
I guess I’m just tossing this out there because it keeps crossing my mind every time this project comes in front of us, is it the story or is it the building?
Loysen also had this to say:
I think it’s a compelling story but I think it’s plausibly more appropriate for a state historical marker, you know, rather than the entire site are my initial thoughts. But I could be open to nominating it all based on number three. Also just because, like to speak a little frankly, I highly don’t see City Council approving this. You know how they get when it comes to contentious arguments when property owners are against it. The City Council has the final say.
I recommend that Loysen keep her day job and not go into the psychic biz because the City Council did approve it. And, she’s in the wrong place if she thinks the Pittsburgh HRC was appointed to review proposed historical markers and potential new museum collections. The law says in plain English what the HRC’s role is with regard to designations: “Investigate and report on the appropriateness of structures, districts, sites and objects which are being considered by City Council for historic designation and to make recommendations to the Council about approval or disapproval of such designations.” I didn’t see anything in there about historical markers or museum collections.
If your local historic preservation oversight board has to ask why a landmark nomination has lots of historic photos of people at the building, find better board members.
Additional information about the fraught process behind designating the Tito-Mecca-Zizza House as a City of Pittsburgh historic site is published in these two articles:
An insider’s take on the Tito-Mecca-Zizza House landmarking (Pittsburgh City Paper, June 15, 2022).
and
Historic Preservation And Erasing Women’s History In Pittsburgh (The Metropole [Urban History Association blog], March 30, 2022.
© 2022 D.S. Rotenstein
Shortlink for this post: https://wp.me/p1bnGQ-3QU