Public debate over most landmark nominations focuses on questions of historical significance, the integrity of the remaining physical resources, economic impacts and development alternatives. Questions of morality, however, tend to come into play when the landmarks of GLBT history are proposed for designation, with queer folks claiming we need role models and homophobes arguing against the government legitimizing deviant lifestyles. Queer history is not the only subject that can elicit this type of response. The home of Al Capone, Margaret Sanger's birth control clinic, anarchist Emma Goldman's apartment, and other properties have been the focus of these sorts of controversy. For that reason, preservationists need to be prepared to make the case for preserving historic places based on their historical significance and level of integrity, without making the mistake of selecting only those places that reflect our values. The election of George W. Bush casts a shadow over recent progress in adding so-called "lavender landmarks" to the National Register of Historic Places. However, more liberal political regimes in some localities may allow for new local landmark designations during the next few years, with the added benefit of having enforcement powers, such as stays of demolition, that do not accompany National Register listing.

Whereas the term queer once was a putdown that meant deviant, it has been reclaimed by GLBT people who now wear the badge of difference proudly and defiantly. The literature on gay and lesbian history is now abundant; however attempts to present that history in public venues, such as in schools and at historic properties, continues to provoke intense resistance and fiery controversy. For that reason, questions of preservation and interpretation merit the attention of progressive planners who are committed to an agenda of inclusion. Yet preservation itself has an uneasy place within planning and only a few programs assert the relevance of preservation to planning education. Even fewer have redefined preservation planning in ways that make it a democratic and inclusive sphere of activity. Progressive planners, however, have a common interest in making sure our landmarks reflect histories and points of view marginalized and suppressed by the dominant culture.

Landmark designation of Emma Goldman's New York City apartment, where she published the Mother Earth News and worked at defining the meaning of "free love" in practice, would provide a touchstone for the anarchists who fomented unrest at the recent WTO meeting in Seattle. Such a landmark implicitly would acknowledge anarchism as an important and enduring strand of American political thought. In the past, however, the National Park Service has declined to pursue National Historic Landmark status for Goldman's apartment, citing a policy against designating places (such as apartment houses) where the significance lies in only one part of the building. Yet the association with anarchism also appears to have scuttled the landmark.

Without marking Margaret Sanger's birth control clinic, the issue of women's right to control our bodies seems like a recent problem, rather than an enduring struggle. During the last Bush administration, the nomination for this property was long-delayed on account of vague fears that designation of the clinic somehow would imply Executive and Congressional approval of abortion rights, though it finally won National Historic Landmark designation. GLBT rights would seem more fragile for lack of marking the progress we've made during the past 30 years at the Stonewall Inn. Reaching back yet another 50 years to 1924, through the designation of Henry Gerber's house, would connect the GLBT movement to a longer tradition of struggle against oppressive social and sexual norms. Likewise, the long struggle for racial equality and social justice is affirmed by the designation of the Underground Railroad and the landmarks of the Civil Rights Movement. Having a sense of heritage clearly nurtures contemporary political action.

Planning education hasn't exactly embraced cultural matters within its comprehensive vision. Yet the Culture Wars contribute to the erosion of freedom in the public realm as surely as malls, privatization, and the other nemeses of progressive planning. The task that lies ahead for progressive planners of all sorts is to forge alliances that insure we support one another across lines of difference in making claims to a heritage that resonates. By saving these places and insisting that we use them to tell the truth about the past, we make space for a future in which everyone is welcome.

(1) Martin Filler, "The Architect of a Master Builder's Store of Art," New York Times (2 June 1996), Section 2, 37 and 40.

(2) Paula Martinac, The Queerest Places: A National Guide to Gay and Lesbian Historic Sites (New York: Henry Holt, 1997),120.

For a report of the path-breaking landmark designation of Stonewall Inn, see David W. Dunlap, "Stonewall, Gay Bar That Made History, Is Made a Landmark," New York Times (June 26, 1999), Late Edition (East Coast), 1. Christopher Thomson also provided an insider's account of the NRHP and NHL designation process in an oral presentation at the Third National Conference on Women and Historic Preservation in Washington, DC (May 20, 2000).

Copyright, 2002. Thanks to Planners Network for allowing us make this article available.