Historic preservation at a crossroads: Jenrette convenes educators and practitioners to measure the field’s changes
Author: William Richards, Ph.D.
With over a dozen institutions represented and conversations continuing beyond the panels, the day signaled growing consensus: the future of preservation lies not in looking back, but in reimagining how—and why—we preserve at all.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2025, preservation leaders, educators, and students gathered at Decatur House in Washington, D.C., for a full-day symposium hosted by the the Jenrette Foundation centered on the future of historic preservation education in the United States—drawing a cross-section of academic institutions, graduate students, and nonprofit partners to assess the field’s current challenges and opportunities.
With over a dozen institutions represented and conversations continuing beyond the panels, the day signaled growing consensus: the future of preservation lies not in looking back, but in reimagining how—and why—we preserve at all.
Jenrette Foundation President Benjamin Prosky underscored the stakes in his opening comments: “Preservation is at a critical juncture,” he said. “The way we teach and engage with the next generation of professionals today will determine whether the field thrives—or stagnates.”
“To say that historic preservation programs are facing new challenges is an understatement,” said Prosky.
Will Hamilton, the Jenrette Foundation’s Director of Historic Preservation, presented findings from a comprehensive national survey conducted earlier this year. The results pointed to both concern and optimism. Recruitment remains a challenge, particularly in attracting students from underrepresented backgrounds. But the data also revealed widespread interest in interdisciplinary approaches, digital innovation, and stronger community ties—indicating the field is ripe for evolution.
“We wanted to gather a range of information types about historic preservation,” said Hamilton, “such as the fact that all the institutions represented today offer financial support and have active alumni networks. But the challenges are numerous—including the employment prospects for graduates.”
The results Hamilton reviewed will be incorporated into a report and published by the Jenrette Foundation later this summer, on the heels of the foundation’s most recent report, “The State of American Decorative Arts,” issued in June.
Zenic Rice, a second-year graduate student at Clemson University shared candid reflections on the student experience in 2025. Rice discussed the role of critical thinking in the practice of preservation, which he called “a point of contention,” in his classes. “Critical thinking highlights the divisions within our society right now,” but it ultimately leads to connection, collaboration, and community, “reflecting the complexity and excitement of this field.”
Charlotte Boulanger, a recent Columbia University graduate, discussed her experience—and her attraction to preservation after visiting Singapore. “I came to the U.S. to study preservation because I wanted to see how preservation could be challenged and look forward—materials, theory, policy,” said Boulanger, “and we have to see why and how it fits within bigger systems like housing and climate.”
In recounting her experience at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation at Columbia, Boulanger emphasized education’s imperative to be responsive to real-world issues, from climate resilience to social justice. “How can we make sure preservation is serving people in communities, not just protecting buildings—and we are starting to confront that now,” she said.
Preservation in practice
The first panel of speakers tackled a range of systemic issues. Andrea Smith, Ph.D. from the University of Mary Washington, drew from Paris’ Latin motto, Fluctuat Nec Mergitur—“She is tossed by the waves but does not sink”—to characterize the preservation discipline’s resilience amid rapid change—and how that concept of change is often exaggerated as a threat.
“It’s a bad time in many ways, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to sink,” said Smith, who cited the disconnect between the doom and gloom that A.I. generates versus her own observations about the field. Student numbers are up, diversity is on the rise, local and state support for preservation in Virginia is strong, and environmental needs are really opportunities for preservationists.
“What are the actual risks? Funding—and not lack of funding, but uncertainty around funding,” she clarified. “It’s the upheaval that’s very difficult here. Right now we are trying to weather the storm and that means delayed maintenance, it means triage, and it means this is a good time to figure out what to fix first when this storm dissipates.”
Amalia Leifeste of University of Oregon delivered a critical assessment of preservation education’s “existential” challenges, while calling for a curriculum grounded in climate adaptation and cultural equity. Leifeste noted that reading endurance and work-life balance have come to define a generation of preservation students, who rely on A.I. and its sometimes false returns—creating a seismic shift that will also transform preservation practice. It is unclear, says Leifeste, who teaches at Clemson University until August, if that transformation will be positive or negative.
Technology proved to be more than a specter during the day’s discussion, even among presenters whose schools are largely known for their focus on fundamentals like hand drawing. Paul Kapp of the University of Notre Dame offered another dimension of preservation’s present state, presenting Notre Dame as a case study whose pedagogical focus on the “head, heart, and hand” offers an apt metaphor for preservation’s mission in an age of increasingly dominant technology.
“You have to understand what the technology is actually giving you—and you have to know how to work things, like drawings, the ‘old-fashioned way,’” said Kapp, later during the panel discussion, “which has a role in critical thinking, especially as we get more sophisticated in digital platforms.”
Michael Tomlan, Ph.D., from Cornell University, focused on financial incentives and recruitment barriers—including demographic cliffs cited by the Chronicle of Higher Education—and noted that there are a few strategies to fight them, but one stood out—increase enrollment in preservation programs. That’s not just about growing numbers, says Tomlan, it’s also about the educator’s imperative to grow their own approach to teaching. “You have to keep learning about where students are in their thinking—even if we are reinforcing ‘pattern thinking,’ everyone is coming from completely different worlds.”
Different worlds, multiple futures
The day’s second panel examined generational shifts in preservation thinking. The preservation architect Anne Sullivan, who teaches at the Art Institute of Chicago, discussed how younger professionals are pushing the field toward more collaborative, cross-disciplinary practices. Sullivan spoke about social values, the way we gather information, authenticity and truth, and technology as productive areas where these transformations are taking hold.
“We don’t need to convince our students that reusing existing buildings is the way to go because sustainability has been an integral part of their upbringing. But, what has changed is how we access information,” she said, noting that scanned plans, books, and ephemera that have never been more available to more people more quickly than ever before—yet easy access has cheapened the experience of encountering these documents whose tactility is an important part of the story.
Still, she says, preservation enjoys greater visibility these days. “The emphasis at the Art Institute of Chicago is to practice your craft—and my generation is defined by self-trained preservationists, having benefited from professional degrees who took their skills back to their communities,” she said, citing Old House Journal and “This Old House” as media mainstays whose growth occurred in tandem with her generation’s growth—and its legacy of creating broader awareness to preservation’s goals.
“Thirty years ago, it was extraordinarily hard to find contractors to work on our historic homes, relying on independent craftspeople to get the job done—and I don’t see a lot of their children stepping into their shoes these days,” she said, “and that’s why preservation technology education has become so important in the U.S.”
Engagement from multiple perspectives took center stage for the rest of the afternoon. Randall Mason, Ph.D., from the Weitzman School of Design at University of Pennsylvania, encouraged the audience to embrace what he calls the “multiplicity” of what preservation represents.
“The tendency in preservation over the last couple of generations has been to imagine a simpler world, as opposed to admitting the complexities and unknowability of this changing culture,” he said, “and we’ve drawn the field more tightly and built the walls higher, but at the same time, our efforts to do that have run against multiplicity—the things we should pay attention to.”
Mason went on to detail preservation’s three kinds of preservation practices—curatorial, design, and social. Each one has its own rules and futures, but together they offer a multidimensional definition of historic preservation.
“To me, the tensions between these kinds of practices helps us understand the tensions in our academic programs, as well as the choices we make as practitioners. We can’t do all of these things equally well all the time,” he said.
Laurel Bartlett, Ph.D. (Clemson University), highlighted the often overlooked role of professional preservationists in shaping public policy and heritage values—citing their shared and distinctive skillset.
“I think of preservation education as comprehensive—and it’s not an academic exercise because we’re producing skills that are productive, collaborative, and community-focused,” said Bartlett. “I think about our solutions and next steps as being about engaging our community partners, and also surveying our field for what’s in demand.”
Bartlett also raised the possibility of professional certification for preservation, as well, similar to a registered professional archaeologist—lending what she called further legitimacy to the preservationist’s capabilities.
“As an educator, I always ask about what it’s like to work for a restoration company or a conservator,” she explained during the panel’s group discussion, “and making those connections for students is the biggest way to talk about the profession.”
Offline and online
The day’s final session took a more global and theoretical turn—emrbacing the existential line of inquiry that speakers defined during the first two panels.
Jorge Otero-Pailos, Ph.D., of Columbia University, discussed how architectural fragments can be used as teaching tools to explore preservation theory. (Last summer, the Jenrette Foundation convened the country’s top institutions at Otero-Pailos’ Preservation Technology Lab at Columbia to discuss library management challenges—especially architectural fragments.)
“The fact that historic preservation is part of the academy makes it an intellectual discipline—that it’s worthy of research. So, what does ‘intellectuality’ mean today?” he asked, explaining how he constructs student-led investigations around otherwise cast-off objects to help them generate the skills to observe, analyze, hypothesize, and investigate their identities, uses, and means of production.
“We are the experts in the built environment,” said Otero-Pailos, “yet, as the paradigm is shifting within architecture away from new builds to existing structures, nowhere has preservation been mentioned in that conversation,” noting that conversations about adaptive use at the American Institute of Architects’ annual conference, which took place in Boston this month, and the Biennale Architettura 2025, which opened in Venice in May were strangely silent on the role of preservationists. “So, how do we earn that recognition? How do we get a seat at the table?”
Benjamin Ibarra-Sevilla, of the University of Texas, advocated for embedding World Heritage Sites into preservation curricula to internationalize perspectives—and reinforced the importance of travel, hands-on experiences, and first-hand knowledge of how spaces work with materials to create cultural meaning, which is the very foundation, he says, of preservation. Not quite on the opposite end of that argument, but close, was Douglas Appler, Ph.D. (University of Kentucky), who detailed the rise of online preservation education, acknowledging both its increased accessibility and its pedagogical limitations.
“To improve access to preservation, we have to think about embracing online education—but we also have to be realistic about what that means. Flexibility means flexibility, and that’s a shift for faculty, too.”
Vicki Weiner of the Pratt Institute concluded the event with a call for deeper, long-term community engagement, framing it not as a pedagogical trend, but as the foundation of preservation’s future.
“Historic preservation practitioners are being called upon to address social justice issues—from displacement to environmental harms to economic barriers,” she said, “and we want our students to have skillsets that they can bring to communities.”
She explained that place-based historical narratives are not singular, and narratives can be suppressed or erased, but they don’t have to be forgotten—the basis of preservation’s investigation, which pairs with trust-building, the basis of preservation’s success in the field.
“The partnerships we engage in come from long-standing partnerships our instructors have forged—it’s about trust-building. It marries history in ways that strengthen communities.”
While legacy institutions and traditional methods remain part of the conversation, new models—focused on equity, interdisciplinarity, and public engagement—are reshaping the field.
“This kind of convening is really helpful to keep us thinking in the future, not the past,” said Mary Washington’s Andrea Smith. “There is still a huge misunderstanding about ‘historical preservation’ among the public, who think it’s about ‘rich, dead people architecture,’ and to combat that, we need to find allies in sustainability, in economic development, and in social justice.”
“There’s real momentum building around the idea that preservation can’t just be about buildings anymore,” said Prosky in a closing conversation. “It’s about people, memory, and relevance, but the way we reinforce our networks is also so important because networks are our greatest resources,” he said.