What If Savannah's Historic District Was Not Preserved?

The Actual History

Savannah, Georgia, founded in 1733 by James Oglethorpe, represents one of America's most significant urban planning achievements. Oglethorpe designed the city with a unique ward system featuring a series of squares surrounded by residences, civic buildings, and churches. This design—revolutionary for its time—created a walkable, community-oriented urban landscape that has been celebrated for nearly three centuries. By the time of the Civil War, 24 squares had been established, forming the backbone of what would later become one of America's largest urban historic districts.

The late 1940s and 1950s marked the beginning of the "urban renewal" era across the United States. Federal funding through the Housing Act of 1949 encouraged the demolition of older neighborhoods, often labeled as "blighted," to make way for modern developments, highways, and parking lots. Cities across America saw their historic cores razed in the name of progress. Savannah seemed destined for a similar fate.

By the early 1950s, Savannah's historic district had fallen into significant disrepair. Once-grand mansions had been subdivided into apartments, maintenance was neglected, and some areas were considered slums by contemporary standards. Several key buildings had already been demolished, including the City Market (1954) and the Union Station railway depot (1963). A proposed "Crosstown Expressway" threatened to cut through the historic district, which would have destroyed much of what remained.

In this critical moment, a group of seven women, led by Anna Colquitt Hunter, formed the Historic Savannah Foundation (HSF) in 1955. When the Isaiah Davenport House—an architectural gem from 1820—was slated for demolition to become a parking lot, the women raised $22,500 to purchase it. This decisive action marked the beginning of a preservation movement that would ultimately save over 1,200 historic structures.

The HSF pioneered the use of a revolving fund, which allowed them to purchase endangered properties, place preservation easements on them, and resell them to preservation-minded buyers. This innovative financial model became a template for preservation efforts nationwide. Their efforts gained momentum when the Savannah Historic District was designated a National Historic Landmark District in 1966—one of the largest in the United States.

The preservation of Savannah's historic district laid the groundwork for the city's economic revitalization. The 1994 publication of "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" further catapulted Savannah into the national consciousness. Today, tourism brings over 14 million visitors annually to Savannah, generating billions in economic impact. The historic district stands as a living testament to both 18th-century urban planning brilliance and 20th-century preservation foresight.

The successful preservation effort in Savannah influenced the national historic preservation movement, helping shape the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and inspiring countless cities to reconsider the value of their historic architecture. What was once considered a radical act—saving old buildings rather than replacing them—has become standard practice in urban planning circles. Savannah's story represents a pivotal moment when America began to reconsider the wholesale destruction of its architectural heritage in the name of progress.

The Point of Divergence

What if Savannah's Historic District had not been preserved? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the efforts to save the Isaiah Davenport House in 1955—the catalyst that launched Savannah's preservation movement—failed, leading to a dramatically different outcome for one of America's most historically significant urban landscapes.

Several plausible variations could have triggered this divergence:

First, financial limitations might have prevented the Historic Savannah Foundation from raising the necessary $22,500 to purchase the Davenport House. In our timeline, this fundraising achievement was already remarkable for a small group of women in 1950s Georgia. Had economic conditions been slightly worse, or had key donors been unavailable, the nascent preservation group might have fallen short of their goal.

Alternatively, political opposition could have been more formidable. The mid-1950s represented the height of urban renewal enthusiasm, and politicians, developers, and many civic leaders firmly believed that demolishing older structures was essential for economic progress. A more determined mayor or city council could have expedited demolition permits or enacted zoning changes that made preservation economically unfeasible, even with the HSF's intervention.

A third possibility involves the timing of preservation efforts versus federal infrastructure initiatives. Had the proposed Crosstown Expressway been approved and funded just a few years earlier, bulldozers might have begun carving through the historic district before preservation sentiment could organize effectively. Federal highway funds were notoriously difficult to redirect once allocated, and many cities found themselves powerless to stop federally-backed demolition projects.

In this alternate timeline, we'll assume a combination of these factors: the Historic Savannah Foundation failed to raise sufficient funds to purchase the Davenport House, which was subsequently demolished for a parking lot in late 1955. This initial defeat demoralized the fledgling preservation movement. Simultaneously, the city government, eager to demonstrate Savannah's modernity and attract federal urban renewal dollars, accelerated plans for the Crosstown Expressway and designated large portions of the historic district as "blighted," clearing the way for wholesale redevelopment.

By 1956, in this alternate timeline, the bulldozers began to roll through Savannah's historic squares, forever altering the urban landscape that had survived for over two centuries.

Immediate Aftermath

Accelerated Demolition (1956-1960)

The failure to save the Davenport House created a domino effect that accelerated the destruction of Savannah's historic fabric. By 1960, much of the original ward system had been obliterated. The Crosstown Expressway cut diagonally through the northwestern portion of the historic district, destroying eight of Oglethorpe's original squares and hundreds of historic structures. The construction created a physical barrier that effectively isolated the remaining historic areas from each other.

The demolished area included Chippewa Square (where the famous bench scene in "Forrest Gump" was filmed in our timeline), Pulaski Square, and Orleans Square. Even the iconic Mercer-Williams House (later featured in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil") fell to the wrecking ball, as it stood directly in the path of the new expressway.

City leaders, emboldened by the initial demolitions, secured additional federal urban renewal funds to create a modern downtown. The River Street area, instead of being revitalized as a historic waterfront, was redeveloped with concrete office buildings and a convention center similar to those in Jacksonville, Florida. Broughton Street, Savannah's main commercial corridor, saw most of its Victorian and Art Deco buildings replaced with modernist structures and suburban-style department stores with large parking lots.

Demographic Shifts (1957-1965)

The demolition triggered significant demographic changes in Savannah. Thousands of residents, predominantly African American families who had lived in the area for generations, were displaced with minimal compensation. Unlike our timeline, where preservation eventually created pathways for some existing communities to remain (albeit with gentrification challenges), the alternate timeline saw a more complete community rupture.

Many displaced residents relocated to hastily constructed public housing projects on the city's periphery, while others left Savannah entirely, accelerating the city's population decline. Between 1950 and 1965, Savannah's population dropped by nearly 20% in this alternate timeline (compared to a much smaller decline in our actual history).

The African American business district along West Broad Street (now Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard) was completely demolished rather than partially preserved. This destruction eliminated important cultural institutions and Black-owned businesses that had served the community for decades, creating economic ripple effects that would last generations.

Economic Realignment (1958-1970)

The reshaping of downtown Savannah initially appeared to achieve its economic goals. Several national corporations established regional offices in the new downtown office buildings, and the modern convention center attracted business travelers. Savannah's port facilities expanded more rapidly than in our timeline, as historic preservation constraints on waterfront development were absent.

However, by the mid-1960s, unforeseen economic consequences emerged. Downtown retail establishments began struggling as suburban shopping centers opened on the city's outskirts. The office buildings experienced higher-than-expected vacancy rates as companies found the new downtown lacked the character and amenities that made it an attractive business location.

Tourism, which would become Savannah's economic backbone in our timeline, developed very differently. Without its historic district, Savannah became known primarily as a port city and commercial hub rather than a cultural destination. The number of annual visitors remained a fraction of what our timeline would eventually see.

Cultural and Preservationist Response (1960-1975)

The destruction of Savannah's historic district sent shockwaves through preservationist circles nationally. Historians, architects, and urban planners documented the loss, using Savannah as a cautionary tale. The National Trust for Historic Preservation featured Savannah prominently in a 1962 publication titled "Lost America: The Price of Progress," which included before-and-after photographs of the city's squares and mansions.

This negative example actually strengthened preservation movements in other cities. In Charleston, South Carolina, preservationists redoubled their efforts to protect their historic district, directly citing Savannah's fate as what they sought to avoid. Similarly, New Orleans preservationists used Savannah's example to build support for stronger protections of the French Quarter and Garden District.

In Savannah itself, a cultural trauma set in as residents witnessed the transformation of their city. Local newspapers, which had initially championed urban renewal, began publishing nostalgic features about "Old Savannah." A small museum dedicated to Savannah's lost architecture opened in 1965, displaying salvaged elements from demolished buildings and Oglethorpe's original city plan.

Long-term Impact

Savannah's Alternative Development Path (1970-2000)

By the 1970s, Savannah evolved along a dramatically different trajectory than in our timeline. Without its historic district as an anchor, the city's development pattern came to resemble other mid-sized Southern cities that had embraced urban renewal, such as Jacksonville or Birmingham.

Urban Form and Infrastructure

The city's famous grid pattern and ward system became merely historical footnotes, surviving only in a few disconnected pockets. The remaining squares became isolated islands surrounded by modernist architecture and parking lots. The Crosstown Expressway, renamed the Oglethorpe Freeway in a somewhat ironic nod to the city's founder, was joined by additional highways cutting through the former historic areas, creating a web of concrete that facilitated suburban sprawl.

Savannah expanded outward rather than focusing on downtown revitalization. Suburban developments proliferated along the highways leading to Tybee Island and toward the South Carolina border. By 1990, over 70% of Savannah's population lived in suburban areas, compared to around 55% in our timeline.

Economic Development Without Heritage Tourism

Without its historic assets, Savannah's economy became more heavily dependent on its port activities and manufacturing. The Georgia Ports Authority expanded the Port of Savannah more aggressively without preservation constraints, making it the fourth-largest container port in the United States by 1985 (higher than its current ranking in our timeline).

However, the tourism industry that sustains much of Savannah's economy in our timeline never materialized at the same scale. Instead of the 14 million annual visitors that Savannah currently enjoys, the alternate timeline Savannah attracted only about 2 million visitors annually by 2000, primarily business travelers and those passing through to beach destinations.

The Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD), which in our timeline has restored over 100 buildings in the historic district and brought thousands of students and faculty to the city, either never established itself in Savannah or existed as a much smaller institution without the canvas of historic buildings to repurpose.

National Ripple Effects on Historic Preservation (1966-1990)

The loss of Savannah had profound consequences for historic preservation nationwide:

Legislative Changes

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 still passed, but with significantly stronger provisions. Lawmakers explicitly cited Savannah's destruction as justification for more robust federal protections. The act included stronger requirements for environmental impact statements regarding historic properties and more substantial funding for preservation efforts.

Several states, reacting to Savannah's fate, passed their own preservation laws ahead of federal legislation. Georgia, ironically, enacted some of the strongest state-level preservation protections in the 1970s, too late for Savannah but in time to protect other historic communities like Madison and Athens.

Preservation Movement Transformation

The preservation movement itself evolved differently without Savannah's successful model. Without the Historic Savannah Foundation's revolving fund as a blueprint, preservation organizations developed alternative financial models, some less effective and others potentially more innovative out of necessity.

The narrative of the movement shifted as well. Rather than emphasizing economic revitalization through preservation (as Savannah demonstrated in our timeline), the movement focused more heavily on cultural loss and national identity. This different framing affected which communities embraced preservation and how they implemented it.

Architectural and Planning Education (1980-2010)

The destruction of Savannah altered how architecture and urban planning were taught in American universities. Oglethorpe's plan, which remains a fundamental case study in urban design courses in our timeline, became instead a historical curiosity—an example of a brilliant design lost to short-sighted development.

Architectural schools placed greater emphasis on documentation techniques and heritage recording, training students to thoroughly document historic structures before their potential demolition. The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) received expanded funding to record endangered buildings nationwide.

Urban planning curricula developed a more pronounced emphasis on the intangible costs of urban renewal. Planning students studied Savannah as a negative example, using economic models to calculate the long-term tourism revenue and cultural capital that was sacrificed for short-term development gains.

Contemporary Savannah (2000-2025)

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, Savannah presents a starkly different urban landscape:

Physical Environment

The city center resembles a typical mid-sized American city with a small cluster of office towers, extensive surface parking, and commercial strips. A few historic buildings stand as isolated remnants, including the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist and the Telfair Academy, which were saved by church authorities and private patrons respectively.

The famous live oak trees draped with Spanish moss, which create the iconic canopy over Savannah's streets in our timeline, are far fewer in number. The urban heat island effect is more pronounced without the historic urban tree canopy, making downtown summer temperatures noticeably higher than in our timeline.

Cultural and Social Landscape

Savannah's cultural identity centers more on its maritime heritage and contemporary Southern identity rather than its colonial and antebellum history. The city still celebrates its founding by Oglethorpe, but with less physical evidence of his vision, these celebrations have a more abstract quality.

Racial and socioeconomic segregation patterns differ significantly from our timeline. Without the gentrification that accompanied historic preservation in our Savannah, low-income communities remained in some central areas but with poorer housing quality and fewer amenities. Other historic neighborhoods where Black communities had roots for generations were completely displaced by urban renewal projects and never reconstituted.

Economic Reality and Recent Trends

By 2025, Savannah's economy shows some signs of trying to recapture what was lost. A "Historic Savannah Reconstruction Project" launched in 2015 has rebuilt one of Oglethorpe's squares to its original specifications, complete with architecturally accurate reproductions of demolished buildings. This project, while popular with visitors, is viewed by architectural historians as a hollow facsimile.

The city's per capita income stands approximately 22% lower than in our timeline, reflecting the absence of the profitable heritage tourism industry. While the port continues to provide economic stability, Savannah lacks the diverse economic base that has made it relatively resilient in our timeline.

Recent city administrations have attempted to pivot toward cultural tourism by promoting Savannah's music scene and contemporary arts, with limited success. The "what might have been" narrative has itself become a draw, with a popular museum dedicated to "Lost Savannah" attracting visitors interested in the city's vanished architectural heritage.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Melissa Chen, Professor of Urban Planning at Georgia State University, offers this perspective: "The loss of Savannah's historic district represents one of the great 'what if' scenarios in American urban planning. In our actual timeline, Savannah demonstrated that historic preservation isn't just culturally valuable but economically advantageous. Without that example, the entire economic model of heritage-based urban revitalization might have developed decades later, if at all. Countless American cities based their revitalization strategies on what they learned from Savannah's success. In an alternate timeline where Savannah was lost, we might still be viewing old buildings primarily as obstacles to progress rather than as assets to leverage."

James Washington, Director of the National Coalition for African American Heritage Preservation, provides an important counterpoint: "We should be careful not to romanticize preservation too much when considering Savannah. In both our timeline and this hypothetical one, Black communities faced displacement—whether through urban renewal's bulldozers or preservation-driven gentrification. The key difference is that in our timeline, at least some physical spaces connected to African American history remained intact, even if the communities themselves were often pushed out through rising property values. In the alternate timeline, both the buildings and the communities were lost. The better scenario would have been one where preservation occurred alongside policies protecting longtime residents from displacement."

Dr. Robert Muldoon, Economic Historian at the University of Virginia, analyzes the economic divergence: "My economic models suggest that by 2025, alternate-timeline Savannah would have approximately 35% lower tourism revenue and 22% lower property values in its central districts compared to our reality. However, it would likely have a more developed industrial port sector. The city's overall GDP might be similar in both timelines, but with very different distribution of wealth and opportunity. The preservation-based economy created more small business opportunities and a larger professional class, while the port-focused economy of the alternate timeline would generate more blue-collar jobs but with greater income inequality. Neither path is inherently superior from a purely economic standpoint, but they create very different types of cities and opportunity structures."