As the GLBT Historical Society prepares to move its archives into a new location in San Francisco's Mid Market district and continues to search for a permanent museum site, its new executive director is unsure how much time the nonprofit can devote to protecting and seeking landmark status for LGBT historical sites around the city.
In a recent interview with the Bay Area Reporter, Terry Beswick said his main priority right now is fundraising for the archival group, creating a vision for its future, and implementing that vision.
"My big focus right now is shoring up the finances," said Beswick, who was hired in January on a part-time basis.
Having the historical society play a key role in the efforts to list LGBT historical sites on the National Register of Historic Places or be designated as National Historic Landmarks "makes sense," acknowledged Beswick, adding that doing so "may be an opportunity for funding too."
But his first priority is to oversee the relocation of the archives this May and be unpacked before Pride weekend in late June. Once settled in to the Market Street space Beswick said he would likely have more time to assist with the efforts to preserve and protect the various sites and buildings deemed as having strong connections to the history of the city's LGBT community.
"I think it is appropriate and within the mission of our organization," said Beswick, who had been overseeing the Castro Country Club and previously worked at the B.A.R. in the late 1990s as an assistant news editor.
Beswick said he has been talking with local preservationists and archivists about various sites deserving of landmark status, such as the building at 273 Church Street that housed some of the first groups that responded to the early days of the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s.
"I am very interested in preserving sites," said Beswick, adding that he also has "a reasonable expectation some sites are going to get torn down. Then the question becomes how do we commemorate those sites? It is important that work be done."
Since 2012 the B.A.R. has been reporting on the lack of landmark status or protections for LGBT historical sites, whether in San Francisco, throughout California, or across the country. Two years ago the National Park Service launched an effort to begin documenting the country's LGBT history, and as part of that initiative, called for LGBT sites to be nominated for listing on the National Register or be deemed national landmarks.
Megan Springate, who is coordinating the writing of the National Historic Landmark LGBTQ Theme Study and proposed framework, due out this June, noted that the GLBT Historical Society "has been wonderfully supportive" of the park service efforts, not only hosting a meeting about the federal agency's LGBTQ Heritage Initiative last spring but also helping several of the theme study's authors with images and information.
"They are absolutely a resource that I would recommend to anyone who is considering writing a National Register nomination, or who is interested in LGBTQ history and heritage anywhere in the United States," Springate wrote in an email.
Society is the Right Agency
Many see the GLBT Historical Society as the right agency in San Francisco to take a lead role in the preservation and protection of LGBT sites. Its former executive director, Paul Boneberg, had told the B.A.R. last year that any landmark nominations the society might support should wait, however, until after work on an LGBT historic context statement for the city was completed.
That document, co-written by Donna Graves, a public historian based in Berkeley who is straight, and Shayne Watson, an architectural historian based in San Francisco who is lesbian, was adopted in November.
It included a number of recommendations and next steps city leaders could take to protect LGBT historical sites, such as seeking local, state and federal landmark designations.
The report included a list of 53 sites the authors determined might warrant official recognition, though they specified it was only a partial sampling. The document also suggested the city look at designating LGBT historic districts in North Beach, the Tenderloin, Polk Gulch, and the Castro neighborhoods, as well as along the Valencia Street Corridor, once home to many lesbian-owned establishments.
Asked about creating LGBT historic districts, Beswick said, "It makes sense and is a good idea."
Another suggestion was for the city to place plaques explaining the history of LGBT sites or, if space allowed, to install larger interpretive display signs "especially for more important properties."
"I think the historical society is the logical community-based organization to be leading efforts at preservation," Graves told the B.A.R. "They are already preserving, obviously, material related to LGBT individuals, organizations and events. And participating in efforts to preserve places seems like a natural extension."
Work is underway to seek federal recognition for four LGBT historic sites in San Francisco, as the B.A.R reported last week. Graves is writing a landmark application for the Women's Building, while city preservation planners are seeking National Register listing for Glide Memorial United Methodist Church, the former home of the Japantown YWCA, and an as yet unnamed third location.
In an email to the B.A.R., Watson said one way the GLBT Historical Society could support those and other landmarking efforts is to help explain the process and its benefits for the property owners, who can derail the nominations if they oppose them.
"I really hope to see the GLBT Historical Society continue its dedication to the preservation of LGBTQ sites, not only in San Francisco but perhaps nationwide," wrote Watson. "As one of the most respected and influential LGBTQ heritage organizations in the world, the primary role the GLBT HS could play in preserving important LGBTQ sites is community outreach, education, and perhaps serving as a liaison to property owners."
She also said she plans to discuss with Beswick the possibility of establishing an LGBTQ sites committee that could review properties to nominate and help shepherd them through the state and federal review process.
"Another important role the GLBT HS could play is advocacy for important LGBTQ sites that have been proposed for significant alterations or demolition," wrote Watson, who earlier this year appealed a review of a Mid Market development project that did not take into account the site's LGBT history.
Now that the city has uploaded a database of nearly 300 properties from the LGBTQ historic context statement into the planning department's property information map, Watson suggested that anytime development is proposed for one of the sites an alert could be sent to the historical society.
"From now on, if a property mentioned in our report is proposed for significant alteration or demolition, it should send up a red flag at the planning department," she wrote. "One of the major steps in the environmental planning process is to alert stakeholders of projects that would impact sites associated with the community. Rather than being lost in the shuffle, those alerts could go to the LGBTQ sites committee at the GLBT HS for discussion."
There are other groups supporting the work to landmark LGBTQ sites, noted Watson, such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, California Preservation Foundation, and San Francisco Heritage.
One group that has already nominated properties to the National Register is the Rainbow Heritage Network. It is the country's first nationwide LGBTQ heritage advocacy group, of which Watson is a founding board member.
"There's so much momentum behind LGBTQ heritage preservation that landmarking of LGBTQ sites in SF will happen with or without the GLBT HS's support," wrote Watson. "A lot of it will be initiated at the local and state levels."