The ongoing renovation of the Devon House courtyard has sparked a fiery backlash from

civil society and social media activists. Many posit that the modification of the courtyard has
demeaned the cultural and aesthetic value of this historic property, but beyond rhetorical flair
are such arguments sensible? Eminent architect Dr. Patricia Green in a series of articles
published in the Jamaica Gleaner has lambasted the Jamaica National Heritage Trust for
approving the project on the basis that it violates international best practices.
But a close examination of these columns indicates that Dr. Green is primarily rambling. In a
piece entitled “Devon House and destruction of Jamaica’s cultural landscape,” Dr. Green
marshalled a string of arguments indicting the JNHT for dereliction of duty. Her proposition
is that the JNHT lapsed in its mandate to preserve the historical integrity of Devon House by
approving the modification of the courtyard. Yet in a shocking twist, Green admits in the
same article that courtesy of the adaptive use standard, it is normal to preserve the value of
historical sites and repurpose them for current use. Green charges that this is exactly what
happened between 1967 and 1970, when architects Raymond McIntyre and Sarah Ann
Hodges remodelled the property:
As a part of the adaptive use of the property between 1967 and the ‘70s, these
architects followed some old foundations, measured and recorded the existing
structures to replicate additional out-buildings, then enclosed the area to create a
courtyard. They also reinstated pathways that respected the historic environment with
covered walkways amid a green environment.
So evidently, the article is charting the evolution of Devon House by showing readers that the
sacrosanct courtyard is a recent addition to the property. Probably, there are cogent
arguments against the modification of the courtyard, but this piece mounted an unsuccessful
prosecution. The article is riddled with too many irrelevant arguments, hence it’s hard to
parse out credible objections. Nevertheless, they will be highlighted for a fair hearing.
Dr. Green bemoans that the Devon House Mansion is closed to the public except for when
tours are conducted, yet this is not unusual since it’s the norm for historical sites to attract
fees. Furthermore, cost constraints could be limiting the accessibility of Devon House,
because increased manpower will be required to host a daily stream of visitors. Onlookers are
not privy to the plans of management, so we can’t say that policy won’t be adjusted in the
future.
Moreover, she laments the proliferation of multifamily dwellings on Barbican Road and other
places on the account of them deprecating Jamaica’s cultural and environmental landscape,
however she forgets that cultural spaces attract residential developments because they make
communities more livable. According to Sofia F. Franco and Jacob L Macdonald in a 2018
paper, people are motivated to build homes in culturally rich areas due to their aesthetic value
and positive impact on real estate prices. Heritage sites create an enriching experience for
communities; therefore, building homes near national monuments is a positive development.
In her second critique captioned “Disneyfication of Devon House compromises heritage,” Dr.
Green wants to be on firmer footing, although this article was published too late. Her main
contention is that renovating the courtyard has diluted the cultural significance of the
property’s backyard space. She contends that elevating the backyard space was orchestrated
by George Stiebel as an act of decolonization:
 Devon House ca.1881 designed and built by African-Jamaican George Stiebel, whose
mother was a housekeeper, has domestic buildings in high-styled architecture that still
exists today with its backyard, mirroring the extravagance and elegance of his two-
storey mansion. This was a radical architectural act of decolonisation by Stiebel to
upgrade this social space no doubt in respect of his mother. This backyard comprised
kitchen, pit latrines, servant quarters, laundry, stable, coach house, and kitchen
gardens.
Yet, Dr. Green’s observations are no longer applicable because the use of the backyard space
was modified years ago. The area in question has no currency as the property’s backyard in
contemporary Jamaica and is used as a dining area. So, it is a bit late for Dr.Green to be
complaining that the backyard space should be restored.
Moreover, Green draws on the research of esteemed anthropologist Sidney Mintz to conclude
that the Jamaican backyard is a vital cultural component of working-class life and reflects
Afro-Jamaican heritage. However, is this position relevant in the debate? There are several
spaces associated with the history of working-class Jamaicans and Devon House is not one
such place. The key historical attraction at Devon House is the mansion and undoubtedly the
history of working people who were employed by the Stiebels and other families is important
and can be incorporated into the broader story of Devon House. Though, the reality is that
Devon House was never declared due to its association with working-class Jamaicans and
slavery.
Likewise, the idea that cultural elements ought to be preserved because of their links to slaves
or poor Jamaicans ought to be jettisoned. The cultural issues that were relevant to slaves and
working Jamaicans in the nineteenth century are not as prominent in twenty-first century
Jamaica. Additionally, poverty does not warrant celebration, therefore if the backyard space
has some symbolic relevance for a poor Jamaican, if he gets rich, he might want a bigger
backyard, but that space could become less important for practical functions.
Critics have mesmerized the crowd with their overly emotional and sentimental rantings,
despite their failure to convict the JNHT for approving the renovations at Devon House. But
the popularity of such opinions is a perfect case study of the exceptional madness of crowds.
This experience teaches us that even experts and those endorsing them must be scrutinized
before we take their verdict as gospel.