Edsel and Eleanor Ford House

By Mary A. van Balgooy, Vice President, Engaging Places LLC

Last week, I attended the 2025 AASLH Historic House Museums Summit, “Interpreting Historic House Museums Today,” held at the Edsel and Eleanor Ford House in Grosse Pointe Shores, Michigan. Over 100 museum professionals from across the country came together to assess where interpretation stands today and how it should evolve over the next decade. The Summit’s objectives were clear: attendees would examine the current scope of historic house interpretation, identify trends for the next 10-15 years, and define the major issues shaping the field. Through keynotes, breakout sessions, and informal discussions, attendees tackled major questions about our roles, responsibilities, and hopes for the sector.

Big Ideas from the 2025 AASLH Summit

One of the most powerful themes to emerge was the need to embrace “whole history.” Instead of narrowly focusing on furniture, technology, or architectural details, participants stressed telling a full, human-centered story. This includes voices often left out of traditional interpretation: women, people of color, laborers, and marginalized groups. The idea is not merely to add these perspectives but to reframe interpretation through them, reflecting the complexity and moral ambiguity of historical figures and events.

A second major idea was that historic house museums must move beyond passive presentation into active engagement. Museums should create dialogic experiences where visitors reflect, question, and even challenge the past. Skills like listening, civil discourse, and conflict navigation were identified as essential for future staff training.

Finally, participants stressed the importance of using interpretation as a tool for healing and community building. At a time of social division, historic sites have a unique role to play in fostering empathy, historical curiosity, and nuanced understanding.

Findings and Recommendations

Continue reading →

Last year, the National Trust for Historic Preservation adopted a new Collections Management Policy (CMP) and widely promoted it at professional conferences and in national publications as a model to house museums and historic sites to resolve some of their stewardship challenges. At its heart is,

“a new approach—one that treats the historic structures and landscapes, and the object collections, as being the same type of resource. This approach places the historic buildings and landscapes on a par with objects and documents, strengthening the interconnected stewardship and interpretation of these historic resources.”

It’s a good idea but it’s not a new approach.

American Wing at the Met featuring the 1822 Branch Bank of the US.

American Wing at the Met featuring the facade of the 1822 Branch Bank of the United States.

Early in the twentieth century, museums of various types began collecting buildings. Henry Ford moved Edison’s laboratory and the Wright Brothers bicycle shop to his Greenfield Village, John D. Rockefeller quietly bought dozens of buildings to create Colonial Williamsburg, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art installed the facade of the Branch Bank of the United States as the featured object of its 1924 American Wing. Much later, landscapes were considered worthy of preservation and now most historic estates, such as Casa del Herrero, Miller House and Garden, and Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park, treat their gardens and landscapes with the same respect as the furniture and art works at their sites.

The National Trust’s rationale for their new approach is that, “conflicts between Continue reading →