Building alliances, coalitions and increased opportunities for collaboration was a major theme in all discussions. Equal priority was given to the need for more conversation within the field and with potential collaborators outside the field. Within the preservation field there was a sense that more structured exchanges like the ones supported by the Preservation Vision project are needed. Deliberate attempts to creating opportunities that go beyond crisis response and build common ground and shared agendas. The field is perceived as getting bogged down in infighting between groups which is counterproductive. Maybe a protocol can be established to identify more issues to rally behind and agree.
Likewise more effort should be made to participate in meetings and conferences of other fields - to pool resources, build bridges and get at the table. Formalizing interdisciplinary dialogue as a proactive operational approach. To help achieve this perhaps the institutions of formal preservation education should encourage and implement more cross-disciplinary thinking and foster mutual respect for the fields of political, planning, real estate, and architecture for example. In addition to collaborating with professionals, emphasis was also given to building alliances with communities, finding alternate ways to engage people and work inclusively with local groups in an ongoing manner rather than only when there are moments of crisis. Some participants encouraged all preservation groups and practitioners to get into communities and assess what their needs and desires might be and then determine how preservation can respond.
Respondents noted that successful collaboration calls for negotiated trade-offs, well-defined priorities, and reliable data in hand to support rational comparisons, decisions and arguments.
This report is only partial summary of discussions hosted and feedback received by the Preservation Vision: NYC project. Every attempt was made to convey the breadth and content of these exchanges between participants, but brevity demanded that many useful contributions were simplified, combined, or left out altogether. In no case are the assertions and assessments summarized here a reflection of the organizers' opinions or best knowledge; they belong only to the participants and contribute to an open process of deliberation. A final report will provide a more comprehensive and nuanced reflection of these deliberations along with a synthesis of project participants’ visions for the future.
