In conjunction with Boyer’s sentiments about the artificial nature of historic preservation, tourist studies reflect a conflict with connecting to the authenticity of a given place. The proliferation of tourism has, indeed, turned travel into “an ordinary experience, taken for granted as a routine part of life.”^vi Studies even reflect that “[T]he viewing of a harbor or a walk through downtown is insufficient as a tourist experience.”^vii Thus, it was a concern for South Street’s developers to “try to anticipate the tourist’s desire for the extraordinary.”^viii The difficulty in achieving the extraordinary is finding the balance between “carnival-like diversion” and an authentic reflection of the area’s culture.^ix The juxtaposition of maritime education programs and major retailers, the most notorious being the Pier 17 mall complex, instead pushes forth one over the other. The museum and historic district often fight with the mall for the proper association of the name “South Street.” The former owner of a maritime knick-knack store Captain Hook’s, Joe Hill, remarked, “People come here for a seaport and what do they get? A shopping mall, just like they have at home.”^x With the mall seemingly reigning supreme, this “suburban-style” observation of South Street by waterfront enthusiasts like Philip Lopate seems understandable and unavoidable.^xi The “historical and cultural identity” of historic tourist sites like South Street become “completely irrelevant” in these viewpoints.^xii What, then, is left to appreciate about the waterfront with all the distraction of historical falsities and commercialization?

Historical Appreciation and Enjoyment

Although it often seems that the prevailing critiques of South Street Seaport are negative, the sometimes muted voices of supporters also make valid arguments as to why the restoration of the Seaport was carried out in a proper and fitting fashion. One argument urges critics to take into consideration the state of the Seaport as opposed to what it had become during the Decline Period, in order to appreciate the work done during the Restoration. One time marine historian for the South Street Seaport pointed out that it would not have been possible to “…freeze the buildings in a decaying state; they had to be stabilized and restored.”^xiii In 1983 after the opening of the complex, critics who argued the area lacked genuineness and substance were answered by supporters like Time Magazine writer Wolf Von Eckardt, who asked, “Would it have been more authentic to leave the special place to rats and rapists? Are the historic values better served if they are bulldozed for parking lots or office towers? What is wrong with turning a once rowdy commercial area into a less rowdy commercial area?”^xiv He and others adhering to this school of thought have suggested that replacing the decaying area with anything that made it safe and able to be utilized by both the local and visiting public was a positive improvement.

Many opponents often turn to original proponent of South Street’s restoration, Peter Stanford, for support. Although he is now very vocal about his thoughts that his original vision was never met, and that what now exists in South Street Seaport is “…international airport-style junk,”^xv proponents have pointed out that what Stanford originally wanted might really have been impossible, and what exists now is a workable solution. Longtime South Street Seaport Museum employee and Museum Historian Jack Putnam stated that what Peter Stanford wanted, to entirely recreate the exact atmosphere of the 19^th Century, could not happen in the middle of New York City. He argues that this city, with the most expensive real estate in the world, could not house a Williamsburg-like attraction. He says that what exists in the museum and architecture of the area is evocative of the 19^th Century, which creates a historical atmosphere that is effective without the inconveniences of things like outdated businesses for which there is no longer a market. Putnam argues that although the retail market is a compromise from Stanford’s original vision, he sees nothing wrong in it. It is money-making and attractive to visitors. He thinks that the mall pulling people in to the Seaport district, where they might wander into the museum and learn about the history makes the mall a positive and useful section of the South Street Seaport Historic District.^xvi

Some supporters have gone even further than Mr. Putnam, claiming that the commercial and retail aspects of the Seaport are not only a good way to lure tourists into the area, but a fitting and entirely appropriate addition, representative of the Seaport’s history, that rightly belongs there. Peter Neill, President of the South Street Seaport Museum from 1985 through 2004, pointed out that “Historically, the Seaport is all about the union of culture and commerce.”^xvii and that the restored area is nothing different. He, and others sharing his viewpoints, feel that it is only suitable that commercial developments fill an area that gained historical significance as a thriving commercial port. They claim that what built New York up into the thriving world capital that it is today is the commerce found in places like South Street Seaport, and it is right to continue the tradition in this way.

Endnotes: