historic preservation and urban revitalization in the twenty-first century

http://jpl.sagepub.com/Journal of Planning Literature

http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/29/2/119The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0885412213510524

2014 29: 119 originally published online 8 November 2013Journal of Planning LiteratureStephanie Ryberg-Webster and Kelly L. Kinahan

Historic Preservation and Urban Revitalization in the Twenty-first Century

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Planning LiteratureAdditional services and information for

http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/29/2/119.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 8, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 28, 2014Version of Record >>

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on October 19, 2014jpl.sagepub.comDownloaded from at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on October 19, 2014jpl.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/29/2/119http://www.sagepublications.comhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/29/2/119.refs.htmlhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/29/2/119.full.pdfhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/07/0885412213510524.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/

Article

Historic Preservation and UrbanRevitalization in the Twenty-first Century

Stephanie Ryberg-Webster1 and Kelly L. Kinahan1

AbstractHistoric preservation is largely an urban profession with strong ties to city planning and development. Advocates tout pre-servation as a key driver of urban revitalization, but there remains a dearth of empirical research that addresses this intersection.This article reviews the current state of affairs in preservation practice and scholarship and builds new connections with fourleading discourses in urban revitalization: the New American City, place matters, anchor institutions, and legacy cities. We call foran expansive research agenda to address preservations role in revitalization and to rethink preservation policy in the twenty-firstcentury.

Keywordscommunity development, economic development, historic preservation

Introduction

By the start of the twenty-first century, historic preservation

had evolved into an urban profession, but there remains a

dearth of research that sufficiently addresses the contemporary

intersection of historic preservation and urban revitalization.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), the

National Park Service (NPS), countless state and local preser-

vation groups, and preservation professionals lavishly praise

preservation as a key driver of revitalization (Ascroft 2002;

Gratz and Mintz 1998; Gratz 1989; Moe and Wilkie 1997;

NTHP 2002; Rypkema 1991; Rypkema 2005; NPS 2012b).

Existing research has documented that historic preservation

can serve as an agent of urban change (Birch and Roby 1984;

Silver and Crowley 1991; Mason 2009) and facilitate commu-

nity and economic development (Sohmer and Lang 1998;

Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr 1998). In other words, preserva-

tion is implicitly an urban-oriented policy because nearly all

of the USs historic building stock is located in cities, and,

moreover, older neighborhoods often are the parts of cities in

greatest need of external stimuli (Coulson and Lahr 2005,

487) and preservation of historic properties and historic

districts has become an important tool in efforts to preserve

central-city neighborhoods and to promote economic develop-

ment in blighted urban areas (Coulson and Leichenko 2004,

1587). But, as Mason (2005, 1) concluded, despite the grow-

ing number, range, and sophistication of studies . . . the field isnot thoroughly studied, nor is there much agreement on

answers to basic pragmatic and policy questions.

Historic buildings and neighborhoods are massive existing

investmentsthey are part of the existing infrastructure of

citiesand understanding how these resources relate to con-

temporary urban revitalization is imperative. This literature

review provides an assessment of historic preservation and

urban revitalization by tracing recent trends in scholarship

and practice, building connections between the two fields, and

developing a research agenda focused on historic preserva-

tions role in the twenty-first-century transformation of US

cities. The review builds upon work conducted in the 1980s

(Rose 1981; Birch and Roby 1984) and the 1990s (Wonjo

1991; Silver and Crowley 1991; Sohmer and Lang 1998; Listo-

kin, Listokin, and Lahr 1998). Rose (1981) categorized the his-

toric preservation field as evolving through three phases,

focusing on patriotism in the nineteenth century, architectural

treasures in the early twentieth century, and environmentalism

in the late twentieth century. Birch and Roby (1984) outlined

evolving synergies and tensions between preservation and

urban planning through the early 1980s, concluding that the

fields had developed a symbiotic relationship (194) and

worked together to promote common goals (204). Silver and

Crowley (1991) focused on southern cities from the 1920s

through the 1970s, arguing that preservation was a method of

revitalization, but that preservationists acted in parallel, rather

than as an integral part of urban planning. One of the most

recent comprehensive discussions about urban preservation

was in a 1998 special issue of Housing Policy Debate, where

editors Sohmer and Lang (1998, 425) state that with the

1 Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH,

USA

Corresponding Author:

Stephanie Ryberg-Webster, Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State

University, 2121 Euclid Ave, UR 222, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Planning Literature2014, Vol. 29(2) 119-139 The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0885412213510524jpl.sagepub.com

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on October 19, 2014jpl.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jpl.sagepub.comhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/

growing use of historic preservation in heritage tourism,

neighborhood redevelopment, and downtown revitalization,

policy makers must better understand the practice. Listokin,

Listokin, and Lahr (1998, 432) traced the history of US urban

preservation activity and argued that historic preservation is a

key housing and economic development strategy. The authors

discussed the catalytic effect of preservation, the economic

impact of the rehabilitation sector, and the relationship between

preservation and housing production, heritage tourism, and

downtown revitalization. They also discussed critiques includ-

ing gentrification and displacement and the added regulatory

burden of historic designation. These existing reviews retain

relevance today, but in the face of changing urban paradigms,

it is time to reassess the state of the field, to reflect on recent

research trends, and to outline key directions for twenty-first-

century urban preservation.

The article is organized in three sections: (1) an overview of

preservation as an urban development strategy in the twentieth

century, (2) a review of recent existing research on urban pre-

servation, and (3) new literature connections and research

directions. First, we discuss the roots of urban preservation,

mid-century tensions with urban renewal and highway build-

ing, and the rise of preservation programs and policies along-

side late twentieth-century federal devolution. This history

also gives readers a brief overview of key preservation policies

and introduces contemporary trends in the field. Second, we

review research since the late 1990s because the last thorough

review of urban historic preservation occurred in 1998 (Listo-

kin, Listokin, and Lahr 1998; Sohmer and Lang 1998). Studies

about preservations economic impact dominate this body of

work, although we also review work that addresses the

meaning and place value of historic areas, preservations rela-

tionship to local power and politics, the Main Street program,

heritage tourism, the history of historic preservation, race and

class implications of preservation, the effect of disasters on his-

toric resources, and critiques of the field. Finally, we build new

connections to four leading urban revitalization discourses: (1)

the New American City, (2) place matters in economic and

community development, (3) anchor institutions, and (4)

legacy cities.

While there are certainly more areas of inquiry pertaining to

urban revitalization and development than the four noted

above, we believe these are dominant discourses with particu-

lar relevance to older central cities and neighborhoods. Two

notable topics that are not addressed here but would be

excellent future research endeavors are the connections to sus-

tainability and new urbanism. Preservation and sustainability

are intrinsically linked via the embodied energy of historic

buildings (Jackson 2005). While new urbanism, a movement

within physical planning and design, heavily draws upon

aspects of the historic built environment as a best practice for

new development (Deitrick and Ellis 2004; Elliott, Gotham,

and Milligan 2004). Finally, as the focus here is the existing

and burgeoning connections between preservation and urban

revitalization, it is beyond the scope of this article to evaluate

the literature that addresses the sociology and psychology of

place and its relationship with historic preservation (see, e.g.,

Castello 2010; Jewell and Crotts 2002; Milligan 2007; Wells

and Baldwin 2012).

This three-part state of affairs illustrates that preservation

has a long-standing history of contributing to urban revitalization

that, in all likelihood, will continue in the twenty-first century,

but that research on the subject is only in its nascent stages.

Additionally, there is a vast literature on contemporary urban

revitalization that offers interesting yet largely unexplored links

to historic preservation. We conclude that while there are many

practical synergies between the fields, preservation research and

advocacy largely exist in a silo that is disconnected from the

dominant urban policy making discourses of the early twenty-

first century. For preservation to retain its relevance as an urban

strategy, scholars and practitioners must understand how current

preservation practice is (or is not) advancing urban development,

where disconnects exist, and how preservation policy can adapt

to meet twenty-first-century needs.

Throughout the article, we interchange the terms historic

buildings and historic resources and use historic preserva-

tion to refer to the multitude of preservation activities in urban

areas, including places with local and/or national designation,

rehabilitation tax credit projects, Main Street areas, and the vast

array of older and historic buildings (many of which are unde-

signated) that exist in cities across the country (Rypkema

2002). We use this expansive definition of preservation, as our

purpose is to explore connections with urban revitalization and

to understand how historic resources are and could be used in

the transformation of cities. Second, we use urban revitaliza-

tion to capture the contemporary activity of planning for and

developing existing urban areas, and draw on economic and, to

a lesser extent, community development literature to discuss

current revitalization theory and practice.

There are three primary limitations to this review. First, we

focus on preservations role in urban revitalization and limit

our review of existing research to studies published in urban-

related venues, which allows us to target research that is cross-

ing disciplinary boundaries and breaking out of the traditional

historic preservation silo. Second, we primarily include

contemporary work to shed light on the direction of urban pre-

servation scholarship in the twenty-first century. Finally, we

confine our review to the United States because the structure

of historic preservation and planning policy is vastly different

in other countries and is thus beyond the scope of this article.

Preservation as Urban Developmentin the Twentieth Century

Preservation and urban planning have roots in the United States

dating back to the 1800s, when preservationists worked to save

prominent sites associated with the founding of the nation and

urban planners beautified and improved the living conditions in

industrializing cities (Birch and Roby 1984). The first major

coalescences of the fields occurred in the 1930s, when Charles-

ton, South Carolina, created a historic district using the newly

popular tool of zoning (Weyeneth 2000; Yuhl 2005) and the

120 Journal of Planning Literature 29(2)


http://jpl.sagepub.com/

State of Louisiana created the Vieux Carre Commission to

protect New Orleans historic French Quarter (Sauder and

Wilkinson 1989; Silver and Crowley 1991; Gotham 2005).

These landmark events signified a shift in preservation away

from saving individual landmarks and operating historic

house museums to playing an active role in shaping the land-

scape of cities (Birch and Roby 1984; Silver and Crowley

1991; Sohmer and Lang 1998; Page and Mason 2004; Mason

2009).

In the postWorld War II era, planners worked to ameliorate

urban overcrowding, solve the postwar housing shortage,

improve substandard living conditions, and modernize Ameri-

can cities (Teaford 1990, 2000) through demolition and redeve-

lopment, which created tensions with preservationists and

fueled the nations interest in protecting the historic built

environment. There were a few exceptions, as cities such as

Philadelphia and Providence experimented with using preser-

vation as a strategy to revitalize neighborhoods (Greenfield

2004; Ryberg 2013). Interstate highway construction, which

tore through urban neighborhoods, further compounded the

mid-century loss of historic buildings. During this same era, the

preservation profession expanded, particularly with the estab-

lishment of the quasi-governmental NTHP in 1949.

Urban preservation gained traction in reaction against urban

renewal, and in particular, the 1963 demolition of New York

Citys Penn Station was a catalytic moment for contemporary

preservation practice. Mounting critiques of urban renewal, the

destruction of traditional neighborhood fabric, and increasingly

limited federal funds drove changing attitudes about urban

policy and planning in the 1960s and 1970s (Gans 1959; Jacobs

1961; Anderson 1964). Capturing the growing sentiment

against demolition, the United States Conference of Mayors,

published With Heritage so Rich in 1965 outlining the scale

of demolition and associated negative outcomes and recom-

mending alternative federal policies. One year later, the federal

government passed the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA), which among other provisions, established the

National Register of Historic Places, intended as a comprehen-

sive listing of the nations historic resources. The NHPA placed

most responsibility for federal preservation activities within the

NPS (2001), called for the creation of standards to guide preser-

vation and rehabilitation work (known as the Secretary of the

Interiors Standards), established an Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation to counsel the President and Congress,

and required the establishment of State Historic Preservation

Offices. The NHPA had a transformational impact on the

historic preservation profession:

Before 1966, historic preservation was mainly understood in one-

dimensional terms: the proverbial historic shrine or Indian burial

mound secured by lock and keyusually in a national parkset

aside from modern life as an icon for study and appreciation.

NHPA largely changed that approach, signaling a much broader

sweep that has led to the breadth and scope of the vastly more com-

plex historic preservation mosaic we know today. (Advisory Coun-

cil on Historic Preservation [ACHP] 2002)

During the late 1960s and 1970s, federal policy continued to

move away from top-down, demolition-based redevelopment

toward locally controlled, conservation-oriented strategies

(Birch and Roby 1984; Filion et al. 2004). Section 4f of the

US Department of Transportation Act (1966) limited the

Federal Highway Administrations ability to demolish historic

properties. The National Environmental Policy Act (1970)

included effects on historic and cultural resources as environ-

mental impacts (Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr 1998). A string

of federal policies including Model Cities (1966), the Housing

and Community Development Act of 1974, and Urban Develop-

ment Action Grants (1978) transferred decision making about

revitalization to city and neighborhood leaders (Barnekov and

Hart 1993; Birch and Roby 1984; Filion et al. 2004). On one

hand, wariness about demolition, a growing concern about

environmental conservation and resource consumption, and

the fuel crisis and recession during the 1970s made rehabili-

tating historic buildings an attractive option (NTHP 1976;

Booz, Allen, and Hamilton [BAH] 1979; Wonjo 1991; Ryberg

2011b). On the other hand, many cities and neighborhoods

faced dire conditions of population loss, deterioration, and

rising social concerns, making historic preservation compete

for funds with other urgent demands such as police and fire

protection, street improvement, education, health care, and

tax reduction (Boasberg 1976).

Until the 1970s, the federal tax code made it more finan-

cially beneficial to demolish and build new. Congress amelio-

rated this situation in 1976 with the adoption of federal tax

incentives for historic preservation. Two years later, Congress

established an investment tax credit for rehabilitation and by

1986 the current structure of the historic tax credit had been

established: a 20 percent credit for qualified rehabilitation

expenditures on historic structures and a 10 percent credit for

non-historic buildings built before 1936 (NPS 2012a, 2012b;

NTHP 2013b). Rehabilitation tax credits (RTCs) have now

contributed to the preservation of more than 38,000 historic

buildingsmany of which exist in urban neighborhoods and

downtowns throughout the nation. To further incentivize pre-

servation, thirty-one states now offer a state-level tax credit,

which can typically be partnered with the federal credit

(Schwartz 2013), developers can pair the rehabilitation credit

with other federal programs including Low-Income Housing

Tax Credits, New Markets Tax Credits, and Community Devel-

opment Block Grants (Curran 1997; Internal Revenue Service

[IRS] 2002; Listokin, Lahr, and Heydt 2012), and many cities

and/or states offer property tax relief and low-interest loan pro-

grams for historic preservation projects. Federal RTCs cata-

pulted preservation and the adaptive reuse of industrial and

commercial buildings to the forefront of urban revitalization.

Some of the most recognized historic preservation projects are

former industrial districts or buildings that have undergone

wholesale transformation such as New York Citys SoHo,

Richmonds Tobacco Row and Shockoe Bottom, Clevelands

Warehouse District, St. Louis former garment district, and

Seattles Pioneer Square (Ford 1974; Zukin 1982; Birch and

Roby 1984; Silver 1984; Wonjo 1991; Listokin, Listokin, and

Ryberg-Webster and Kinahan 121



Lahr 1998; Stanziola 1998). Private-sector developers had

begun to envision the possibilities (and profits) of adaptively

reusing vacant and outmoded urban buildings as early as the

1960s. The 1964 conversion of San Franciscos Ghirardelli

Square to a retail and entertainment destination is generally

considered the first major adaptive reuse project (Wonjo

1991). Also indicative of early adaptive reuse was James

Rouses 1976 transformation of Bostons Quincy Market and

Faneuil Hall into a festival marketplace (Burke 1977; Saga-

lyn 1989).

During the 1970s, the National Trust also worked to address

the economic decline and associated threats to small, historic

downtowns and, in 1977, launched a demonstration Main

Street program in three Midwestern cities. Three years later,

NTHP created the Main Street program with a now-

trademarked four-point approach that includes organization,

promotion, design, and economic restructuring (Dane 1988;

Dane 1997; Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr 1998; Robertson

2004). In 1986, the NTHP expanded Main Street to urban

neighborhood business districts (Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr

1998), a program particularly embraced in Boston where, in

1995, Mayor Menino lobbied the Trust to create Boston

Main Streets, the first urban, multi-district Main Street pro-

gram in the United States and the city committed a significant

portion of its Community Development Block Grant funds to

its nineteen Main Street neighborhoods (City of Boston 2013).

The popularity of local historic districting also exploded in

the 1960s and 1970s, paralleling the rise of preservation-

conscious national policy. New York City established its

Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) in 1965, creating

one of the nations first local authorities with the power to

designate and regulate historic resources (Allison 1996). Local

historic designation provided the strongest protection for his-

toric resources and was validated via the 1978 landmark case,

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, when the

Supreme Court upheld the citys authority to restrict redevelop-

ment of designated properties. There were over 800 cities with

preservation commissions in 1981, more than 1,800 by 1992

and today there are over 2,300 cities with local preservation

ordinances (Hamer 1998; National Association of Preservation

Commission [NAPC] 2013; Cassity 2000).

At the turn of the twenty-first century, the historic preserva-

tion profession has established an agenda to strengthen its posi-

tion as a positive force in urban development and has generated

an abundance of advocacy literature to support this position.

The National Trust website states that preservation is crucial

to making our urban places greener, more livable, and heal-

thier (NTHP 2013d)core tenets of contemporary urban

planning ideologyand lists four priorities, two of which have

a decidedly urban bent: building sustainable communities

and promoting diversity and place (NTHP 2013a). Preserva-

tionists argue for a prominent place in community develop-

ment, affordable housing, and urban revitalization (Moe and

Wilkie 1997; NTHP 2002; Smith 2007; Nichols 2011) and that

preservation makes sense economically (Rypkema 1991, 2005;

Rypkema, Cheong, and Mason 2011). The field is also

addressing sustainability (Frey 2007; Nowakowski 2009;

Rypkema 2009; Wadhams 2009; Grimmer et al. 2011; Winter

2011), industrial heritage (Carlino 2011; Hay 2011), and

shrinking cities and the foreclosure crisis (Yeater 2009,

2011). In an effort to counter popular perceptions of preserva-

tion as an elitist activity, the profession has addressed issues of

affordability (Ceraso 1999; Listokin and Listokin 2001; Moe

2001; Rypkema 2002) and race and diversity (Lee 1992,

2003; Lee and Lyon 1992; Kaufman 2009) as well. To offer

more flexibility in preserving urban neighborhoods, preserva-

tionists have collaborated with urban planners in scattered cit-

ies around the country to develop neighborhood conservation

districts, which prioritize community character rather than

architectural conservation (Lubens and Miller 20022003;

Miller 20022003, 2004). Preservationists have also worked

to ensure that zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, design

review, and other planning efforts help retain historic character

(Morris 1992; Fine and Lindberg 2002).

While there is much positive activity occurring within the

preservation profession, the early twenty-first century has also

brought new opportunities and challenges. The current status of

federal and state rehabilitation tax credits offers a prime exam-

ple. On one hand, the bi-partisan Creating American Prosperity

through Preservation (CAPP) Act proposes increases in the

federal credit for small projects, changes to allow government

entities and nonprofits easier use of the credit, and additional

incentives for green historic rehabilitations. On the other hand,

current proposals to overhaul the federal tax code pose a direct

threat to the credit, spurring the National Trust to issue a policy

alert stating that deficit reduction measures are currently

being debated on Capitol Hill, and the federal historic tax credit

program is at risk (NTHP 2013c). Further complicating the

situation was the recent Commissioner of the Internal Revenue

v. Historic Boardwalk Hall decision, which called into question

the typical investment structure for historic tax credit projects

and generated uncertainty about how to structure tax credit

deals in the future (Edmondson and Leith-Tetrault 2012;

Leith-Tetrault 2012; Preservation Leadership Forum 2012).

At the state level, concerns about budget shortfalls have placed

historic tax credits in the crossfire. For instance, legislators in

Missouri, which has a nationally recognized state historic tax

credit, threatened drastic reductions in the annual cap to the

program, which was ultimately saved (Rubin Brown Gorn-

stein & Co. [RBGC] 2003; Listokin, Lahr, and Heydt 2012;

Collison 2013; Young 2013).

Scholarly Research on Urban Preservation

Scholarship addressing the relationship between preservation

and urban revitalization remains in a nascent stage. Evaluations

of the economic impact of historic designation on property

values and sales price dominate contemporary urban preserva-

tion research. While these provide a useful perspective on out-

comes from various preservation activities, they offer a fairly

limited portrait of urban preservation. A smattering of research

also exists on the meaning and place value of historic areas,




local power and politics, downtown revitalization, heritage

tourism, the history of historic preservation, race and class

implications, and post-disaster recovery processes. Scholars

have also critiqued preservation as spurring gentrification,

reducing affordability, halting urban progress, and producing

inequitable outcomes. In summary, it is clear that there are a

wide variety of subjects, methods, and frameworks through

which scholars study urban historic preservation. It is also evi-

dent that there is a dire need for more empirical studies on the

contemporary relationship between preservation and urban

revitalization and planning, so that the field of preservation can

move beyond advocacy arguments and gain scholarly stature

in urban public policy.

In response to the bottom-line orientation of todays public

policy climate, evaluations of the economic implications of

preservation have dominated recent research (Mason 2005).

Quantifying the economic value of historic resources is a rela-

tively new area of inquiry for preservationists, as the field had

traditionally heralded the pricelessness of heritage and

focused more on architectural and historical values (Mason

and Avrami 2002; Mason 2006b). Mason (2005) published a

review of the economics of historic preservation literature, out-

lining three dominant strands of research: (1) evaluations of

individual projects, (2) property value effects, and (3) local

and/or regional economic impact studies, and identifying the

typical methods used, including basic cost studies, economic

impact studies, regression analyses, stated-preference studies,

choice modeling, and case studies. Masons review provides

useful information for scholars interested in urban preserva-

tion, although much of the cited works are not in urban-

related journals and the vast majority are advocacy reports

published by preservation organizations (i.e., the NTHP),

pro-preservation policy studies, or publications outside of

urban planning or development forums.

Within the economics of preservation literature, evaluating

the impact of historic designation on property values and sales

prices has been the most frequent type of inquiry (Mason

2005), as scholars attempt to tease out the direct impact of

preservation on neighborhoods and the spillover effects to

surrounding areas. The vast majority of this research finds that

historic designation increases property values (Ford 1989;

Asabere and Huffman 1991, 1994; Haughey and Basolo

2000; Coulson and Leichenko 2001, 2004; Leichenko, Coul-

son, and Listokin 2001; Shipley 2001; Lynch 2004; Coulson

and Lahr 2005; Gilderbloom, Hanka, Ambrosius 2009; Ijla

et al. 2011; Shipley, Jonas, and Kovacs 2011; Thompson,

David, and Benjamin. 2011; Ahlfeldt and Mastro 2012;

Zahirovic-Herbert and Chatterjee 2012). These studies serve

as prima facie evidence of the positive price effects of historic

designation as well as the potential for catalytic spillover

effects that contribute to revitalization of adjacent properties.

Other studies, however, have found mixed or inconclusive

effects (Coffin 1989; Schaeffer and Millerick 1991; Clark and

Herrin 1997; Noonan 2007) or a negative effect of historic dis-

trict designation (Benson and Klein 1988; Asabere, Huffman,

and Mehdian 1994). In addition, two very recent studies have

employed advanced statistical methods and controls, finding

negative effects (between 11.6 and 15.5 percent) of historic

designation on homes in the Boston metropolitan area during

the 2000s (Heintzelman and Altieri 2013) and in Chicago dur-

ing the 1990s (Noonan and Krupka 2011).

Scholars have used a range of methodological approaches,

some stronger than others, as identifying appropriate control

neighborhoods is an ongoing challenge. Coulson and Lahr

(2005, 490) summarize the limitations of this research:

Almost any rationale used to select a comparison neighborhood

can also help to explain relatively higher property prices in the des-

ignated neighborhood. Hence, identifying higher property values

or appraisals in historically designated versus undesignated neigh-

borhoods, even using regression techniques, is at best weak proof

that designation yields higher property values.

Methodologically, the work of Thompson, David, and

Benjamin (2011) is one of the strongest, as they use sales prices

over assessed values, cross-sectional, time-series data, and a

pretest/posttest design. An additional limitation of these studies

is that they tend to evaluate one form of preservationdistrict

designationneglecting a multitude of other urban preserva-

tion strategies, policies, and programs. Scholars have also stud-

ied the direct and indirect multiplier effects stemming from

preservation, although most of the work in this area is

pro-preservation, policy/advocacy reports (Rypkema and

Wiehagen 1998; Listokin, Lahr, and Martin 2001; Cronyn and

Paull 2009; Great Lakes Environmental Finance Center

[GLEFC] 2011). Scholars at Rutgers Universitys Center for

Urban Policy Research have evaluated the national impact of

federal rehabilitation tax credits using the Preservation Eco-

nomic Impact Model (an inputoutput model) to assess

construction-stage direct and multiplier effects of rehabilitation

tax credits on jobs, income, wealth, output, and tax revenues

(Historic Tax Credit Coalition [HTTC] 2010; Listokin et al.

2011; Listokin, Lahr, and Heydt 2012). The researchers find that

the program has had a positive costbenefit outcome of US $4.8

billion over its lifetime and that, in terms of opportunity costs,

a $1 million investment in historic rehabilitation yields markedly

better effects on employment, income, Gross State Product

(GSP), and state and local taxes than an equal investment in new

construction (including highway construction, a stimulus favor-

ite), manufacturing (including machinery and automobiles), or

services (such as telecommunication). (Listokin, Lahr, and Heydt

2012, 7)

The authors conclude that the rehabilitation tax credit is

stimulus on steroids, delivers a commendably strong bang

for the buck, and is a good investment for local commu-

nities, individual states, and the nation (Listokin, Lahr, and

Heydt 2012, 6, 7, 8).

Other econometric studies of historic preservation include

Noonan and Krupkas (2010, 21) discrete choice model

for determining why certain properties were designated as




landmarks and others were not using data from Chicagos

Landmarks Program, which found [T]he designation of a

structure as a landmark is the result of an interplay among the

demands of neighbors, the resistance of owners, and the admin-

istrative behavior of the regulator. Assessing the factor asso-

ciated with National Register designation as a community

economic development strategy in West Virginia, Maskey,

Brown, and Lin (2009) concluded that the presence of service

industries, a rural location, existing historic buildings, historic

preservation organizations, and institutes of higher education

increased the rate of National Register listings, while higher

poverty levels and income inequality had a negative effect.

Kling, Revier, and Sable (2004, 2039) stated preference valua-

tion study on the public goods value of a local historic land-

mark found the importance of non-substitutability in

valuation of a unique, irreplaceable asset. Finally, Noonan

(2003, 172) reviews contingent valuation methodology (CVM)

in cultural economics using a meta-analytic approach noting

that while methodological flaws need to be overcome, CVM

findings in arts and culture . . . reveal patterns similar to otherapplications [of the method] and that this methodological

approach holds promise for future research.

Additional research linking preservation to contemporary

urban planning and revitalization focuses on the place value

of historic environments, downtown revitalization and heritage

tourism, local power and politics, the history of historic preser-

vation, race and class issues, tensions between preservation and

demolition, and preservations role in contemporary planning

theory.

Within the research thread evaluating the place value of

historic environments, Wells and Baldwin (2012) use an envi-

ronmental psychology approach to compare historic Charles-

ton, SC, to a nearby New Urbanist development, finding that

residents valued these places in similar ways, with historic

Charleston residents having a stronger sense of attachment to

their neighborhood. Pendola and Gen (2008) find that residents

of Main Street-style communities in San Francisco had a

greater sense of community than those living in higher- or

lower-density neighborhoods. Levi (2005) examines percep-

tions and attitudes toward fake and authentic historic architec-

ture, and Walker and Ryan (2006) investigate place attachment

in rural New England. Mason (2006a) and Spennemann and

Graham (2007, 993) discuss the meaning of historic places in

post-disaster situations, with the latter concluding that the

protection of key cultural heritage items should be regarded

as akin to the treatment of critical infrastructure.

Studies about downtown revitalization and heritage tourism

demonstrate that preservation is being used to support urban

economic and community development, while calling for more

conscious integration that considers issues of sustainability and

equity. For instance, Robertson (2004, 70) empirically analyzes

the NTHPs Main Street program, finding a strong faith and

confidence in the Main Street Approach as a downtown

development philosophy, while Cohen (1998) examines the

possibility of revitalizing communities through a combination

of preservation and mixed-income development. Recent work

by Phillips and Stein (2013) develops a conceptual framework

of four indicatorsgauging, protecting, enhancing, and inter-

facingas a guide for communities to integrate community

economic development, sustainability, and historic preserva-

tion. Nasser (2003) offers a literature review about the inter-

connections between tourism, heritage places, and historic

preservation, while preservation and heritage tourism have also

served as the basis for exploring neoliberal arguments about the

impacts of consumerism and urban redevelopment in Denver

(Jones and Faust 2008) and tourism gentrification in

New Orleans (Gotham 2005).

Contemporary and historical case studies provide a founda-

tion for research that links preservation to urban politics and

urban development. For instance, scholars have studied the

local politics of preservation as it relates to the unification of

progrowth coalitions (Reichl 1997), mediation, negotiation,

and consensus building (Elliott 1999; Saito 2009), the shifting

nature of urban regimes (Newman 2001), and aldermanic

power in Chicago historic district designation (Zhang 2011).

At the federal level, Kurtz (2006) evaluates changes in statu-

tory provisions of preservation policy. Page and Masons

(2004) edited volume about the history of preservation

provides a diverse collection of work about preservations long

and intertwined history with urban development, with other

scholars analyzing the implications of New York Citys land-

mark preservation legislation (Allison 1996), preservation

planning during urban renewal in Philadelphia (Ryberg 2013)

and Bethlehem, PA (Taft 2013), preservation as a community

development tool in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati (Ryberg

2011a), and Detroits loss of historic industrial sites (Ryan and

Campo 2013).

Underscoring the ongoing importance of deciphering the

racial and class implications of preservation and laying the

groundwork for future studies, scholars have examined

the architecture of segregation (Weyeneth 2005), conflicts sur-

rounding the Dupont Circle historic district in Washington, DC

(Logan 2012) and the siting of the Arthur Ashe statue along

Richmonds Monument Avenue (Hodder 1999). In recent

years, scholars have also provided a foundation for research

on the twenty-first-century debate between demolition and pre-

servation with Verderber (2009) studying the issue in relation

to post-disaster preservation planning and Mallach (2011)

focusing on shrinking cities. Scholars have also integrated pre-

servation into broader planning theory discourses in work on

the shortcomings of communicative planning theory (Foley and

Lauria 2000) and the multicultural nature of planning (Burayidi

2003).

Contemporary critiques of historic preservation emphasize

equity issues and draw on long-standing perceptions of the field

as an expensive, elitist practice. Critics argue that preservation

standards require large expenditures that the poor cannot bear

and that, property value increases will drive out low-income

homeowners and renters (Fein 1985; Sohmer and Lang 1998;

Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr 1998; Smith 1996; Werwath

1998; Lees, Wyly, and Slater 2007). Although surprisingly lit-

tle empirical research exists on the actual relationship between




preservation and gentrification (Allison 2005), the legacy of

the perception is a burden on the profession, particularly when

working in low-income communities (Listokin, Listokin, and

Lahr 1998, 465). In the few studies that empirically question

the relationship between preservation and gentrification, the

findings actually reveal minimal neighborhood change and/or

a more complex relationship. For instance, Coulson and

Leichenko (2004, 1598), in a study about historic designation

and neighborhood change, conclude that preservation does

not lead to gentrification, or any other kind of neighbourhood

turnover. The authors go on to explain that

. . . while there is some evidence that areas are chosen for preser-

vation efforts with neighbourhood revitalization in mind, the

decade or so following designation produced no significant change

in neighbourhood demographic composition. (Coulson and Lei-

chenko 2004, 1598)

In a study about historic preservation and gentrification in

New York City, Allison (2005, 183) concludes that the data

do not support the blanket statement that historic district desig-

nation causes gentrification and displacement, but preserva-

tion is often the most visible factor in the complex process

of gentrification, and other long term trends that predate des-

ignation may be less obvious. While these findings add to a

growing body of research that challenges traditional notions

of gentrification (also see Freeman and Braconi 2004; Freeman

2006), there is a clear need for more empirical research on the

relationship between preservation, neighborhood change, and

gentrification. A recent study by Zahirovic-Herbert and Chat-

terjee (2012) found that lower value properties gain the most

from historic district designation, which they argue increases

the possibility for displacement, but the study does not extend

to empirically connect historic district designation with displa-

cement of low-income residents.

Critics also claim that strict preservation standards and reg-

ulations restrict cities ability to evolve, which reduces overall

affordability (Sohmer and Lang 1998; Glaeser 2011). Using

New York City as an example, Glaeser (2011) finds that cities

need to better balance preservation with new development, that

local preservation commissions have grown too powerful and

unwieldy, and that too much preservation prohibits cities from

fulfilling the demand for urban housing, thus increasing prices

and reducing density. While Glaeser (2011, 136, 260261)

offers an insightful critique, New York City is an outlier in that

most US cities do not face nearly that level of housing demand

and his contention that preservation should focus on architec-

tural masterpieces has serious race and class implications and

could result in the complete erasure of historically important

sites, in addition to it being a directive that seems to move the

field backward toward its elitist past.

Other studies that address inequitable outcomes from

preservation suggest that research about who benefits from pre-

servation and how, who decides what to (or not to) preserve,

and how resources for preservation are distributed are all areas

ripe for further research. Domer (2009, 97) argues that

preservationists do not know how to balance the integrity of

the past with the utilitarian and aesthetic needs of the present

and future and that preservation standards result in the con-

struction of a preferred past that fits the values, aspirations,

and desired associations of white upper- and middle-class men

and women who own and invest in those projects and who are

strongly motivated by capitalistic goals (Domer 2009, 99).

Swaim (2003) analyzes distributive issues related to federal

rehabilitation tax credits, concluding that they are a powerful,

but understudied subsidy that confers benefits to wealthy inves-

tors and developers who possess the necessary financial and

political savvy to undertake often complex, risky, and expen-

sive projects. In other words, he finds that the credits are a

classic example of good politics but bad policy: easily enacted,

largely hidden from view, seldom cut back, transferring

billions of dollars to powerful but undeserving constituencies

(Swaim 2003, 38).

New Literature Connections and Research Directions

There is a vast body of literature on urban revitalization from

which we draw on four leading discourses: (1) the New Amer-

ican City, (2) place matters in economic and community

development, (3) anchor institutions, and (4) legacy cities.

These four areas of inquiry offer both explicit and implicit links

to historic preservation, but research on these connections

remains highly underdeveloped. To de-silo historic preserva-

tion and move beyond the fields advocacy arguments and to

bring preservation into contemporary urban revitalization pol-

icy and practice, we outline a robust research agenda related to

these four discourses that will establish a rigorous body of

empirical scholarship about urban preservation.

The New American City. In recent years, scholars have docu-mented and analyzed the transformation of US downtowns into

vibrant liveworkplay urban neighborhoods (Brookings 1998;

Sohmer and Lang 1999; Sohmer and Lang 2001; Birch 2002;

Birch 2005; Birch 2007; Vey 2007; Piiparinen 2013). Birch

(2005) provides quantitative evidence documenting this phe-

nomenon: between 1970 and 2000, downtowns benefited from

an 8 percent increase in households, a doubling of the homeow-

nership rate, increasing racial and ethnic diversity, and an

influx of young professionals and residents with high educa-

tional attainment. Additionally, downtown populations grew

by 10 percent in the 1990s for the first time in twenty years.

Birch (2009) declares that this New American City, a term

coined by the US Conference of Mayors (Coles 2001), reflects

a paradigm shift for downtowns.

US downtowns developed as centers of commerce and

industry and by the mid-twentieth century had scores of out-

moded buildings as changing industrial models and increasing

suburbanization drew businesses, retail, industry, and people

away from the urban core (Abbott 1993; Fogelson 2003;

Isenberg 2005; Birch 2005; Birch 2009). In contrast, the New

American City has a vibrant, dense, walkable downtown that

still accommodates a reduced version of formerly dominant




land uses and targets planning and revitalization efforts on

entertainment and leisure activities, amenities such as green

spaces and public squares, and creating housing (Robertson

1997; Strom 2008; Birch 2009). As Birch (2005, 2) notes:

Over the past few decades, public and private officials have tried to

re-invent their downtowns with a variety of tactics. One of the most

popularand arguably most successfulstrategies of recent years

has been downtown residential development.

Planners work to create dense, walkable, unique communities

with a strong sense of place by streetscaping, reclaiming brown-

fields, converting public housing to mixed-income communities,

investing in public green spaces, crafting more flexible zoning

ordinances, and protecting historic resources and architecturally

interesting buildings (Keating and Krumholz 1991; Robertson

1995; Leinberger 2005; Birch 2009). Additionally, these new

downtowns have more diverse businesses and industries, and

anchor institutions and real estate interests play a central role

in downtown development (Strom 2008; Birch 2009).

The New American City reflects a paradigm shift in the

structure and function of downtowns and preservationists must

reevaluate their practice to remain relevant in this fast-

changing urban development landscape. Research connecting

preservation to the New American City will advance knowl-

edge about twenty-first-century downtowns, with additional

applicability to discourses about publicprivate partnerships

and the rise of economic and real estate values in historic pre-

servation. Downtown is often one of the oldest areas in most

cities, and thus likely contains significant historic resources

upon which urban planners and policymakers can capitalize

(Leinberger 2005). Birch (2005, 2, 3) includes architecturally

interesting buildings, abundant supplies of sound but under-

utilized properties . . . and character as key downtown assetsand Filion et al. (2004, 332) argue that historical character is

imperative to small-metro downtown success. Mitchell (2001)

argues that contemporary downtown revitalization is self-

financed by local businesses, initiated by innovative public-

private partnerships, and typified by an attention to historic

preservation (115, emphasis added). Furthermore, one of the

New American Citys main amenitiesa vibrant arts and

culture sectoris linked to historic preservation in that city

officials have learned to value the historic communities that

their predecessors have been eager to raze [and] have dubbed

desolate, derelict warehouses arts districts (Strom 2002, 3).

Birch (2002 and 2005) argues that housing is a crucial com-

ponent of downtown revitalization and describes six methods

for injecting residential uses into the urban core including

using historic preservation to forge a special identity and

fostering adaptive reuse of office buildings, warehouses,

factories, and stores (Birch 2002, 10). Beauregard (2005)

analyzes the latter, finding that converting Class B and C

office space into housing is a fundamental revitalization strat-

egy. Ryberg-Webster (2013), in initial work on the subject,

found that federal RTCs underpinned a substantial percentage

of new downtown housing units, particularly in distressed

postindustrial cities such as Cleveland and that the down-

towns gained both market-rate and affordable housing via his-

toric tax credit investments.

The equity financing from rehabilitation tax credits is a

central tool in downtown revitalization (Birch and Roby

1984; Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr 1998; Birch 2002; Reynolds

2006; Ryberg-Webster 2013). There are misconceptions about

historic tax credits, though, with Birch (2002, 9) writing that

the Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated these [historic tax

credits] but created a low-income housing tax credit. In real-

ity, the federal government reduced the RTC from 25 percent to

20 percent in 1986 and this federal incentive continues to play

an important, but largely undocumented and unanalyzed role in

the New American City. Again, Ryberg-Webster (2013) has

completed early work in this area, studying tax credit projects

in nine cities and finding a concentration of more than $3.5

billion (2010 dollars) of investment in their downtowns from

2001 to 2010. In Cleveland, for example, 45 percent of all RTC

projects in the city occurred in the downtown planning area

during this decade (Ryberg-Webster 2013). Historic tax credits

are a unique urban development tool in that their utilization

involves the private sector and state and federal officials, with

local planners playing no role and, in general, they are an

extremely understudied policy, with only minimal documenta-

tion of their spatial distribution (Ryberg 2012), changes in use

over time (Ryberg 2012), barriers to use, developer and inves-

tor decision making, and local variations, which is partially due

to the lack of publicly available data.

The loss of prominent corporate enterprises in the New

American City has resulted in a broadened downtown growth

machine (Logan and Molotch 1987) that now includes a mix

of public, nonprofit and private-sector interests, particularly the

real estate industry (Filion et al. 2004; Leinberger 2005; Strom

2008). As the real estate sector, whether private or nonprofit,

gains power in downtown decision making, their views toward

historic preservation will shape not only the landscape of the

city but also the profession of historic preservation. Strom

(2008) argues that the rise of real estate interests weakens the

overall position of downtown in the region, as real estate

interests are (usually) not part of the economic base and thus

potentially lack the institutional and political clout of more

production-oriented industries. Future research should address

key questions such as how and why these new players support

or oppose preservation and if and why there are variations in

the politics of preservation between cities and the associated

outcomes from those differences.

There is very little research directly addressing the role of his-

toric preservation in the New American City, although the recent

work of Ryberg (2012) and Ryberg-Webster (2013) on historic

preservation in Richmond, Virginia, and downtown tax credit

investments provides a basis for further inquiry. For instance,

more in-depth analyses are necessary to untangle the connec-

tions between historic fabric, preservation interventions, sense

of place, walkability, and quality of life. Scholars might compare

the relative success of places with different levels of intactness in

the urban fabric, building styles, or development patterns (i.e.,




the presence or lack of a neighborhood commercial district).

The broad claim that historic environments support density

and/or walkability also requires significant reflection. Crit-

ics have already argued that preservation hinders high-

density development in some locations (Glaeser 2011) and

as more and more late twentieth-century places become eli-

gible for historic designation, preservationists and planners

must confront whether it is truly historic resources or devel-

opments of a particular era that provide a built environment

reflective of the contemporary urban planning ethos. Scho-

larship must rigorously question the costs and benefits of

historic designation in downtown districts across cities,

including economic and community benefits as well as con-

straints on development.

Place Matters in Economic and Community Development. Theconcept of place is central to contemporary economic and

community development discourses, which are fundamentally

place-based practices (Barca et al. 2012; Bolton 1992; Crane &

Manville 2008; Davidson 2009). Recent literature on building

local competitive advantage through unique built environments,

attracting the creative class through urban amenities, livable

neighborhoods and a strong sense of place, and capitalizing

on neighborhood assets to drive community development has

reinvigorated the idea that place matters. One common thread

in this body of work is the built environment, or the physical

structure of regions, cities, and neighborhoods, raising logical

questions about what role the historic built environment can

and should play in place-based urban revitalization.

Competitive advantage is a central concept driving con-

temporary economic development stemming from Porters

(1998) seminal work on clusters and competitive advantage.

Clusters, or geographic concentrations of interconnected

companies and institutions in a particular field, are critical

in helping places gain a competitive advantage (Porter

1998, 78). Scholars have integrated the concept of competi-

tive advantage into urban revitalization discourse, arguing

that developing assets will help cities attract both residents

and businesses (Blakely 2001; Filion et al. 2004; Boehlke

2012). Taking these concepts a step further and applying them

to the built environment frames historic districts as geo-

graphic concentrations of significant buildings, leading to

questions about what (if any) competitive advantage they

offer. Within the literature there are seeds of largely unex-

plored connections to preservation with Sohmer and Lang

(1998, 425) arguing: the authenticity historic buildings rep-

resent is marketable in an environment that all too often fea-

tures routinized and formulaic development and Listokin,

Listokin, and Lahr (1998, 468) stating:

[Older cities and communities] are searching for revitalization

vehicles in which they have some competitive advantage . . .The

historic legacy of these communities . . . as well as the preservation

activities that can capitalize on these resources . . . are yet further

distinctive resources on which the communities can draw to renew

themselves.

One of the leading threads in twenty-first-century-economic

development focuses on the creative class, and their

preference for urban amenities and livable, high quality of life

neighborhoods. Floridas (2002) canonical work, The Rise of

the Creative Class, argues that creative individuals and indus-

tries, as well as local cultures of openness and diversity, drive

regional economic success. He concludes that cities attract

creative individuals and industries through authenticity and

quality of place and clearly evokes an image of historic places

when he states: authenticity comes from several aspects of a

communityhistoric buildings, established neighbor-

hoods . . . It comes from the mixfrom urban grit alongsiderenovated buildings (Florida 2002, 228). Furthermore, the

creative class equates authentic with being real, as in a

place that has real buildings, real people, real history (Flor-

ida 2002, 228). While scholars debate the merits of creative

class theory (Peck 2005; Glaeser 2005; Markusen 2006),

research on the value of historic buildings and neighborhoods

as an attractive force in contemporary urban economies

remains thin, if not nonexistent. For example, the references

to historic environments in Floridas work are largely anecdo-

tal and no research to date has empirically studied if there are

connections between preservation and a citys ability to

attract the creative class.

Other scholars also cite amenities and livability as central

components of twenty-first-century-urban revitalization. Lead-

ing economic development scholar Ed Blakely argues that the

smart community will promote civic amenities as economic

development tools and that the real role for local governments

will be to increase the livability of communities as an attractor of

talent (Blakely 2001, 139). Again, work on urban amenities has

clear, but unexplored links to preservation, with existing

research including no more than a casual mention at best (Glae-

ser, Kolko, and Saiz 2001; Clark et al. 2002; Clark 2004; Silver,

Clark, and Yanez 2010). For instance, Blakely uses San Francis-

cos South of Market and New Yorks Greenwich Village as

exemplar cases where old department stores, warehouses, and

other underused spaces are being converted to both residential

and office uses for the new graphic arts and dot-com firms

(Blakely 2001, 137) and Silver, Clark, and Yanez (2010) suc-

cinctly state: Vibrant artistic communities, thriving music and

theater, lively restaurants, beautiful buildings, fine schools,

libraries and museums contribute to a better local quality of life

(2294, emphasis added). We recognize that historic fabric is one

among many urban amenities, but argue that research on how

historic resources function as an amenity is necessary. Compara-

tively, the body of literature about arts and culture in urban

development, which emanates from the amenities argument, is

significantly more developed and should serve as a model for

preservation-based research (Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris

2007; Stern and Seifert 2010; Markusen and Gadwa 2010). At

a fundamental level, beautiful old buildings exist in neighbor-

hoods of varying states of vibrancy or disrepair and, if these

structures are an amenity, knowledge about historic resources,

preservation policies, and decision making needs to be integrated

into economic development literature.




Embedded in the amenities literature are core concepts that

link to fundamental aspects of preservation. For instance, Clark

et al. (2002) define an amenity as a nonproduced public

good . . .with no explicit price (497, quoting Guourko andTracy [1991]) and argue that concern over the arts and other

aesthetic considerations is driving urban development (Clark

et al. 2002, 298). While most historic buildings are privately

owned, the legitimacy for historic regulation comes from an

accepted belief in their public value as architectural, historical,

cultural, or social goods (Clark 2002; Mason 2006b). The ame-

nities discourse has also spurred a surge in studies about the

value of arts and culture in urban development where culture

has become equated with artistic endeavors (Montgomery

2003; Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris 2007; Stern and Seifert

2010; Markusen and Gadwa 2010). But, culture is also a linch-

pin of preservation (Mason 2006b). The built environment is a

tangible cultural expression and its preservation is a strategy

for maintaining and remembering cultural heritage.

Within community development, literature on asset building

largely parallels the competitive advantage arguments in eco-

nomic development. In the asset-building model, which gained

traction in the first decade of the twenty-first century as an alter-

native to needs-based practices that focused on a neighborhoods

problems and devised programs to fill those gaps, community

developers work to improve the quality of residents lives by capi-

talizing on a range of assets including physical, human, social,

financial, environmental, cultural, and political capital (Green

and Haines 2007; Phillips and Pittman 2009; Boehlke 2012).

Haines (2009, 41) defines a physical asset, which has the most

clear connection to historic places, as an immobile resource

that endures over a long time period and is rooted in place.

Within community development research there is a severe dearth

of research on historic preservation, despite the fact that there is an

intuitive spatial overlap between older, inner-city neighborhoods

that likely contain historic buildings and the locus of community

development activity. The asset-building framework suggests the

need for grounded inquiries about the synergies and tensions

between preservation and community development, including if

and how community developers use historic resources (and why

or why not) and the relationship between building community

capacity and capitalizing on physical assets such as historic

structures. Future research should also expand the definition of

community assets to include less tangible elements of place such

as cultural heritage, tradition, and memory.

Work by Carr and Servon (2009) on vernacular culture as a

driver of neighborhood revitalization, Filion et al. (2004) on

small metro downtowns, and Ryberg (2010) on community

development corporations (CDCs) use of historic preservation

lays an initial foundation for more empirical research on historic

resources as an asset that offers a competitive advantage. Heri-

tage sites have been identified as locations that leverage the

historic attributes of an area and market these in a way that

attracts tourists and new residents and when successful bal-

ance preservation with dynamism that keeps communities

relevant (Carr and Servon 2009, 36). Neighborhoods with

strong vernacular culture facilitate small business development,

support cultural tourism, have a significantly undervalued

economic potential, and provide unique environments that can

result in important economic development agglomerations

(Carr and Servon 2009, 29). Filion et al. (2004, 331) identify

well-preserved neighborhoods, distinctive architecture,

and historical character as essential elements in successful

downtowns. Ryberg (2010) used four case studies to compare

how CDCs working in weak and strong market cities integrated

historic preservation into their neighborhood revitalization

efforts, finding that preservation provided community benefits

such as destigmatizing affordable housing and organizational

benefits of improved capacity and new partnerships.

The idea that the built environment can be a competitive

advantage, an amenity, or an asset provides a robust foundation

for building preservation into the community and economic

development literature. Studies about how economic and com-

munity developers value historic resources would add depth to

current discourses of value within the preservation field.

Cross-case comparisons about the complexity of using preserva-

tion as economic and community development in weak and

strong market cities (Katz 2006) will help tease out what benefits

or constraints historic preservation creates in different contexts.

Other comparative analyses should study architectural differ-

ences, historic districts of varying size, and the effect of different

local regulations and incentives. There is potential to link preser-

vation to twenty-first-century workforce development through

studies about the economic impact of high-skill, specialized

building conservation trades. From a theoretical perspective, it

is necessary to explore how traditional economic frameworks

(competitive advantage, physical capital) are influencing the

preservation profession. In other words, have historic resources

become pure commodities? do they retain their public value?

can and should more abstract constructs such as cultural heri-

tage, memory, character, and place identity become commodi-

fied? and how do preservationists gain a seat at the urban

revitalization table, while retaining their core imperative to pro-

tect a range of historical and cultural sites, whether or not they

are marketable, have universal aesthetic appeal, or have a

positive associated narrative? The preservation profession is

dedicated to identifying and preserving significant sites in the

United States, which includes everything from brutalist archi-

tecture of the 1970s, to narratives of slavery, Civil Rights

violations, and other historical events that do not necessarily

have the positive connotation of an urban amenity, although

they may have some tourism value. It remains an open question

about how preservationists should balance this core tenet of their

profession with a need and desire to be more central in urban pol-

icy making and revitalization discourse.

Anchor Institutions. In recent decades, anchor institutions, whichinclude universities, hospitals, community foundations, local

governments, key infrastructure services, and arts and cultural

institutions, have become a catalytic leader of placed-based,

urban revitalization (Rodin 2005; Birch et al. 2013; Institute for

a Competitive Inner City [ICIC] 2011). Anchor institutions are

large employers within the city and region that are important




job generators and are intrinsically tied to their communities

(Penn Institute for Urban Research [PIUR] 2009). The sticky

capital provided by anchor institutions has become increas-

ingly important, especially in cities dependent on property

taxes, [where] tensions are increasing over what tax-exempt

anchor institutions owe their communities (CEOs for Cit-

ies 2007, 34). Anchor institutions can improve local econo-

mies by creating shared value, defined as

policies and operating practices that enhance the competition of a

company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social

conditions in the communities in which it operates . . .Shared value

is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but

a new way to achieve economic success. (Michael Porter, as

quoted in ICIC 2011, 2)

Anchor institutions role as real estate developers offers

the most direct connection to preservation (ICIC 2011). Many

anchors have long-standing ties to the urban core with a phys-

ical infrastructure firmly rooted in place. There is a logical

overlap between the location of anchor institutions and

historic resources, setting up potential partnerships and/or

conflicts. In the anchor institutions literature, the relationship

with preservation is largely absent. Connections are implied,

though, through exemplar real estate projects involving his-

toric buildings. For instance, Clevelands District of Design

showcases world-class product and industrial design in two

historic neighborhoods (Playhouse Square and Gateway

district) (CEOs for Cities 2007); Cincinnatis Uptown Con-

sortium includes five of the citys largest employers and seven

historic neighborhoods (CEOs for Cities 2007); Syracuse

Universitys Connective Corridor included adaptive reuse

projects (Birch et al. 2013; ICIC 2011); Arizona State Univer-

sitys real estate development projects included preserving a

historic building as part of Civic Space Park (CEOs for Cities

2010); Chicagos Sinai Health System renovated the historic

Hollenback Sausage Factory (Dubb and Howard 2012); and

Gundersen-Lutheran, a Wisconsin-based health care system,

converted a historic brew-house into workforce housing

(Dubb and Howard 2012).

Placing preservation within the anchor institutions frame-

work is an area ripe for future research and fits Taylor and

Luters (2013, 17) argument that [T]he state of knowledge

on anchor institutions is growing rapidly. Yet, at the same time,

this knowledge base contains many gaps. Preservation should

be included in the conversation about anchor institutions

because their decision making often impacts historic resources.

We are not arguing that historic preservation can serve as an

antidote to the broad spectrum of issues facing cities across the

nation, or even that historic preservation should always be a

component of real estate projects undertaken by anchor institu-

tions. Rather, we are calling for an additional line of research

within the anchors institutions dialogue that addresses preser-

vation. Past practices of unfettered demolition, among other

actions, have often eroded trust between anchors and their

neighbors (Birch et al. 2013) and more sensitive development

strategies that include preservation may help rebuild these rela-

tionships. Future research in this area should analyze if and

how anchor institutions serve as stewards of historic resources.

Key questions include how do anchor institutions value (or

neglect) historic resources; if and why there are different

approaches to historic preservation among various anchor insti-

tutions (i.e., universities vs. hospitals vs. museums) or in

anchors located in different urban contexts; and anchor institu-

tions value as historic, cultural identifiers, in contrast to their

more obvious value as job creators and economic engines.

Legacy Cities. Rethinking shrinking, postindustrial cities is atopic that has moved to the forefront of economic development

research in recent years. The American Assembly and others

now use the term, legacy city, to describe places that, after

decades of industrial decline, are experiencing entrenched pop-

ulation loss, low residential demand, high abandonment, and

extreme poverty and unemployment (American Assembly

2011; Mallach 2012). As of 2000, legacy cities and their sur-

rounding metropolitan areas contained 15 percent of the

nations population. In addition to having a low-skill labor

force and declining incomes, property values, tax revenues, and

federal and state funding, these cities were hard-hit by the

Great Recession and subprime lending crisis (Vey 2008;

Mallach 2012). Legacy cities built environments include excess

housing, vacant land and abandoned and foreclosed properties,

and swaths of environmentally contaminated land, while also

retaining significant assets including rich resources of historic

buildings (American Assembly 2011, 5), vital downtown

areas (Mallach and Brachman 2013, 3), and stable and his-

toric neighborhoods (Mallach and Brachman 2013, 3).

The discourse about planning for legacy cities prioritizes

economic potential and sustainability arguments, while also

recognizing their significant heritage (American Assembly

2011). Scholars argue that legacy cities contain untapped

resources of human capital, and billions of dollars in sunken

infrastructure investment in roads, transit, sewer and water

facilities, parks, and other public facilities (Mallach 2012,

xvi). Pastor and Benner (2008, 91) argue that there is a sort

of spiritual imperative . . . these older industrial cities are animportant part of the fabric of American society in terms of our

history and architectural aesthetics and the American Assem-

bly (2011) reports:

Legacya word that invokes thoughts of both extraordinary

inheritances and obsolete relicsis a suitable descriptor for a

group of American cities that have rich histories and assets, and

yet have struggled to stay relevant in an ever-changing global

economy.

Despite the acknowledgment of legacy cities historic

significance and historic resources, preservation has received

minimal attention in this growing discourse (Bertron and

Rypkema 2012; Ryan and Campo 2013). Rather, the legacy cit-

ies planning paradigm confronts the reality of population loss

by offering a vision of a city that is a smaller but healthier




place (Mallach 2012, 17) and resulting strategies for the built

environments prioritize strategic demolition, vacant building

and land reuse, and land control/consolidation (Vey 2008; Mal-

lach 2010, 2011; Dewar and Thomas 2012), without concerted

attention to preservation. For instance, Mallachs (2010) book,

Bringing Buildings Back, with a title that would seemingly

have much to do with preservation, only marginally discusses

the subject with a recommendation to respect the past even

focusing mostly on contextual design and appropriate infill

(269270). Ryan (2012, 14) argues that demolition in shrinking

cities is creating new and exciting opportunities for designers.

The author notes that shrinkage and decline have long been

thought of as sad things . . . because shrinkage has caused thedestruction of much of the historic city (Ryan 2012, 216), but

then dismisses the value of preservation by arguing that the

historic fabric of most American cities is little more distinctive

than Los Angeless sea of single family dwellings (Ryan

2012, 217).

Critics decry the demolition in legacy cities as twenty-first-

century urban renewal (Gratz 2010; Gratz 2012; Florida 2011).

Urban critic Roberta Brandes Gratz (2010) questions the logic

of demolition, stating: now comes the theory that the salva-

tion of distressed cities is to once again shrink, as if shrinking

had been tried before and succeeded somewhere. She argues

that demolition is easier and more fundable, while preservation

comes with more complex regulatory and financing structures.

But, she concludes,

If one looks at the history of some of our cities most desirable

neighborhoods today and recognizes what a staggering number

of them were once miserable, deteriorated slums, then a truly crea-

tive path reveals itself. Clearance was never the key . . . . (Gratz

2010)

Florida (2011) reiterates this argument, noting that the

record of schemes to revive cities by assembling and remak-

ing neighborhoods is littered with disastrous unintended conse-

quences that includes neighborhoods destroyed, historic

structures leveled, and the community fabric of too many once

great cities ripped to shreds. Rather, Florida (2011) advocates

for organic, bottom-up, community-based efforts to

strengthen and build upon neighborhood assets.

There are existing studies that lay the foundation for future

research on preservation in legacy cities. Berton and Rypkema

(2012) explore the connections between historic preservation

and right-sizing by surveying city planners and preservationists

from twenty legacy cities, finding that preservation was, at

best, a small component in planning efforts, despite 70 percent

of the surveyed cities having certified local government status,

which affords cities access to technical and financial assistance

for preservation-related activities and tends to indicate strong

municipal commitment to historic preservation (Bertron and

Rypkema 2012). Mallach (2011, 380) argues for a balanced

approach wherein demolition and preservation can be consid-

ered parts of a framework through which neighborhood revita-

lization can be furthered in these cities, despite the fact that

economic conditions are likely to prevent the preservation

and reuse of a significant part of these cities housing stock.

He suggests the need for additional research in concluding that

the decisions on what to preserve and what to demolish must

flow from a deeper understanding of what best furthers the

vitality of the urban organism (Mallach 2011, 383) and the

preservation of buildings as artifacts offers too narrow a per-

spective to be a productive way of saving those parts of the

urban community in distressed older cities that can still poten-

tially be saved as living entities (Mallach 2011, 391). Ryan

and Campo (2013) explore Detroits rapidly disappearing auto-

mobile heritage, perhaps the most significant collection of

twentieth-century industrial structures in the United States,

finding that this landscape is now largely vacant lots, sur-

rounded by half-empty, impoverished neighborhoods (97).

The authors conclude that preservation was largely absent from

discussions about planning for the citys future and suggest

preservation-based alternatives to demolition that merit future

study, including nonprofit stewardship, adaptive reuse, and

more informal and unstructured approaches (Ryan and Campo

2013). Mallach and Brachman (2013, 2526) identify three

types of legacy city neighborhoods: (1) the core, which has

viable buildings and strong urban fabric, (2) intact neighbor-

hoods, and (3) disinvested areas where abandonment and

demolition are rampant. The authors imply a role for preserva-

tion as they use Clevelands Warehouse District and St. Louis

Washington Avenue, both historic areas, as examples of

core successes and recommend preserving intact neighbor-

hoods as viable communities (Mallach and Brachman 2013,

27), although they dismiss the potential for preservation in

disinvested areas and accept demolition as an unquestioned

necessity.

Addressing the challenges of legacy cities is a developing

conversation in urban policy making and the growing research

base on the subject suggests a need for future inquiries about

historic preservations role. It is imperative, particularly given

the urgency associated with demolition policies, to question

how we identify and leverage historic assets in these locations,

what benefits and impediments exist to integrating preservation

into community and economic development, how preservation

policies facilitate or deter neighborhood stabilization, and who

makes decisions about what we save and what we destroy.

Furthermore, future research must evaluate if preservation pol-

icies are effective in the context of legacy cities, offer a new

vision for a more responsive twenty-first-century preservation

profession, and unpack the race and class implications of wide-

spread demolition.

Discussion: Summary of Research Needs andImplications for Policy and Practice

Research on historic preservation as an urban revitalization

strategy is in its nascent stages, despite broad advocacy claims

by preservationists. We have identified a plethora of potential

inquiries that will advance knowledge about the role of preser-

vation in twenty-first-century cities, evaluate the effectiveness




and/or deficiencies in preservation policy, and bridge the

divide between preservation and contemporary urban policy.

Future research must continue to explore the economics of pre-

servation, the place value of historic resources, decision

making and power, and the race and class implications of

preservation and revitalization. Additionally, scholars should

evaluate preservation policy and practice to craft a profession

that remains true to its core values and retains its relevance

within the context of twenty-first-century cities.

While there is already a robust literature on preservations

impact on property values, a broader take on the economics

of historic preservation is ripe for future research. For example,

future studies should explore changes in valuation and revenue

generation resulting from adaptive reuse projects or in historic

commercial areas; the costs and benefits of preservation,

including how it constrains or supports revitalization and how

it compares with demolition; and the extent to which historic

environments serve as an attractive force for cities. In other

words, what are the urban impacts of historic preservation,

whether district designation, tax credit investments, Main

Street programs, heritage tourism, or other activities (i.e., local

revolving loan programs)? Scholars must also unpack the idea

that historic resources can offer a competitive advantage by

comparing different architectural styles, locations of historic

resources within cities, and concentrations of varying magni-

tudes (i.e., does a single historic landmark offer the same

competitive advantage as a thirty-block historic district?).

Existing literature indicates that historic neighborhoods con-

tribute to a citys sense of place, enhance quality of life, and offer

unique community character, yet little research exists to under-

pin these claims. Scholars should explore perceptions about his-

toric environments, attitudes toward various types of historic

resources, and place attachment in historic neighborhoods.

Future research should also empirically document and analyze

the relationship between various types of historic areas and

neighborhood characteristics such as

historic preservation and urban revitalization in the twenty-first century

Documents