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

media activists. Many posit that the modification of the courtyard has demeaned the cultural
and aesthetic value of the property, but beyond rhetorical flair are such arguments sensible?
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 best
practices.
But a close examination of these columns indicates that Dr. Green is primarily venting. 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
authorizing renovations. 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 the 1970s, when 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.
Evidently, the article is charting the evolution of Devon House by informing readers that the
sacrosanct courtyard is a recent feature of the property. Probably, there are cogent arguments
against the modification of the courtyard, but this piece mounted an unsuccessful prosecution.
The article contains 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 offer
commercial tours. 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 internal plans, so we can’t say that future policy won’t be
different.
Moreover, Green opines that the proliferation of multifamily dwellings on Barbican Road and
other places deprecates 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 another critique captioned “Disneyfication of Devon House compromises heritage,” Dr.
Green wants to be on firmer footing, although this article was published too late. Her
contention is that renovating the courtyard dilutes the cultural significance of the property’s
backyard space. She posits that George Stiebel elevated the backyard space 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 observation is inapplicable 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’s a bit late for Dr. Green to be
complaining that the backyard space should be restored.
Moreover, Green draws on the research of 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? Several spaces ARE
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 others is important and
can be incorporated into the broader story of Devon House. However, it was never declared
as a national monument due to its association with working people and slavery.
Likewise, the idea that cultural elements should be preserved because of links to slaves or
poor Jamaicans is inane. Cultural issues that were relevant to slaves and working Jamaicans
in the nineteenth-century are not as prominent in twenty-first century Jamaica. Poverty does
not warrant celebration, therefore if the backyard space has some symbolic relevance for poor
Jamaicans, if they get rich, they might want a bigger backyard, but that space could become
less important for practical functions.
Critics have mesmerized the crowd despite their failure to convict the JNHT for approving
the renovations at Devon House. But the popularity of these opinions is indicative of the
madness of crowds. This experience demonstrates that experts and their acolytes must be
scrutinized before we take their verdict as gospel.