Second Order Preservation

Historic preservation has long followed a binary approach: Is a building historically significant enough to be listed, or isn’t it? This seemingly simple question forms the foundation of preservation policy across the United States and has shaped our built environment for decades. But what if this framework is fundamentally limiting our ability to create a more just, sustainable, and representative society? This is the provocative question at the heart of Erica Avrami’s groundbreaking book, “Second Order Preservation: Social Justice and Climate Action Through Heritage Policy” and the subject of a recent Booked on Planning episode.

Traditional preservation practices often focus on what Avrami calls “first order” thinking—prioritizing the physical object above all else. We designate buildings primarily for their architectural merits or connections to famous historical figures, then expect the economic, environmental, and social benefits to naturally follow. But as Avrami argues throughout her book, this approach fails to consider who benefits from preservation decisions and, critically, who bears the burdens of these policies.

The foundations of modern preservation policy emerged during the 1960s when legislation like the National Historic Preservation Act established frameworks that still govern preservation today. These frameworks were heavily influenced by historical architectural and art perspectives that emphasized materiality and aesthetics. James Marston Fitch’s influential concept of the “curatorial management of the built environment” reinforced the idea that architecture should be treated like museum objects, privileging original materials and forms over adaptability and continued use.

This object-centric approach has created significant barriers to representing diverse histories in our built environment. Consider the challenges of preserving sites connected to marginalized communities: Underground Railroad sites that intentionally left minimal documentation; LGBTQ+ historic sites that operated in secrecy due to societal discrimination; or neighborhoods shaped by redlining and urban renewal. Our preservation system demands substantial documentation and physical integrity that many historically significant places simply cannot provide due to the very nature of their histories.

Climate change adds another layer of complexity to preservation challenges. The preservation community has long claimed that “the greenest building is the one that’s already built,” yet this argument requires nuance. Deep energy retrofits are often necessary to truly make historic buildings environmentally sustainable, which may conflict with strict interpretations of preservation standards. Additionally, as extreme weather events increase in frequency and severity, we must consider how preservation policies distribute resources for adaptation and resilience. When historic districts receive special consideration for flood protection, how does this affect neighboring communities?

Perhaps the most promising path forward is what Avrami terms “second order preservation”—an approach that considers the broader impacts and implications of preservation decisions from the outset. This means asking not just “is this building architecturally significant?” but “what social, environmental, and economic outcomes do we want preservation to achieve in this community?” It requires periodic reassessment of designated properties to evaluate whether they’re fulfilling their intended purposes and whether the benefits and burdens are being equitably distributed.

Shifting to a second order approach doesn’t mean abandoning the preservation of buildings and places—far from it. Rather, it means expanding our understanding of what preservation can and should accomplish, and reforming policies to better serve broader social and environmental goals. It might mean reconsidering reconstruction as an act of restorative justice, or creating more flexible standards for energy retrofits to address climate concerns.

The path to policy reform won’t be easy. It will require collaboration between government agencies, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and communities. Each brings different strengths and limitations to the table. Universities can contribute research and innovation, while government entities must take responsibility for evaluating the effects of existing regulations and implementing reforms. Non-profit advocacy organizations play a critical role but may face constraints in critiquing established practices.

As we face escalating climate impacts and continue to reckon with issues of social justice, preservation stands at a crossroads. By embracing second order thinking—considering who benefits, who is burdened, and what broader outcomes we seek—preservation can become a more powerful tool for creating communities that are not just historically rich, but equitable, sustainable, and resilient for generations to come.

Listen to Episode