Two different preservation approaches in neoliberal times
[The Case of the Third Ward in Houston and Ocean Drive/ Collins Avenue in Miami Beach]
Tulane School of Architecture and Built Environment
With support from the Ann and Frank Masson Travel Fellowship, I conducted a comparative field study of two historically significant neighborhoods—Third Ward in Houston and the Architectural District in Miami Beach—to examine how preservation functions under neoliberal urban governance. This research combined photographic documentation, site analysis, archival review, and interviews to trace how each neighborhood has navigated the pressures of gentrification, tourism, and displacement through preservation policy and practice.
In Houston’s Third Ward, a historically Black neighborhood systematically disinvested through redlining and highway expansion, preservation emerged as a form of community resistance. Through Project Row Houses, residents and artists repurposed historic shotgun houses into affordable housing and cultural infrastructure, using preservation as a tool for autonomy and social equity.
In stark contrast, Miami Beach’s Architectural District—the first 20th-century district listed in the National Register—embraced preservation as a means of economic revitalization in the wake of urban decline. With limited public funding, the city turned to private investors and market incentives, transforming heritage architecture into symbolic capital for tourism, real estate, and consumption. Zoning reforms, sidewalk leasing ordinances, and Business Improvement Districts redefined the public realm and accelerated the displacement of longtime residents, particularly elderly, immigrant, and working-class communities.
By situating both sites within the broader theoretical framework of neoliberalism as defined by scholars like David Harvey, Jamie Peck, and Neil Brenner, this project revealed the contradictory roles preservation can play in shaping urban futures. It demonstrated that preservation, far from being a neutral act, can either fortify local communities or facilitate their erasure—depending on who drives the process, who benefits, and how policy is implemented.
