HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket Plan Commission
..... ---
OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Informational Packet
Contents
I. Proposed Overlay Zone
II. Public Input Overview
A. Comment letters received
B. Summary of Task Force Actions &; Responses
III. Supporting Materials
A. Current v. Proposed Zoning Comparison
B. Buildable Area Comparison
C. Historic District Articles
Proposed
Overlay
Zone
1
Old Town District
Zoning Overlay District Ordinance Draft
October 15, 2001-FINAL
I. Purpose and Intent of Old Town Overlay District
It is the purpose of the Old Town District (referred to in this Section ##A as the "District ") to promote and
protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare by providing for consistent and
coordinated treatment of the properties in the designated Old Town District in Clay Township, Hamilton County,
Indiana. The Commission and Council, in establishing this overlay zone, are relying on IC 36-7-4-600 et seq.
and IC 36-7-4-1400 et seq.
Old Town is an important historical commercial and residential area to the City of Carmel and Clay Township.
In order to protect this important area, this Overlay Zone has been developed to provide for consistent and
coordinated treatment of the properties in Old Town by establishing basic standards for structures, landscaping
and other improvements.
Further, this Overlay Zone seeks to:
* Foster rehabilitation and development in Old Town
* Increase property values in Old Town
* Protect real estate investment in Old Town
* Retain Old Town neighborhood vitality
* Spur commercial activity in Old Town
* Attract new businesses to Old Town.
Within the Old Town District there are different parts and characteristics, therefore, the district is divided into
three Sub-Areas: a Character Sub-Area, a Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area, and Main Street Sub-Area.
Each Sub-Area will have separate guidelines that apply to it.
I. Old Town District Boundaries
The boundaries of the Old Town District. Beginning at the center line ofSmokey Row Road (136th
Street) at the intersection of the Monon Trail; east to the rear lot line of properties on the east side of 1 sl
Ave NE; south to 7th St. NE; east to the rear property line of properties on the east side of 2nd Ave NE;
south to 3rd St. NE; east to 3rd Ave NE; south to 1st St. NE, east to 4th Ave NE, south crossing over
Main Street to the rear lot line of properties on the north side of Carmel View Drive; west to the rear lot
line of properties on 1 sl Avenue SE, south to 4th Street SE, west to the alley between 1 sl Ave SE and
Range Line Road; north to 1 sl St. SE; west to 2nd Ave SW; south to 2nd St SW; west to
; north to the rear lot line of properties on the south side of Park Place; east to the
Monon Trail; and north to the beginning. Boundaries are further described by the map in Figure 1.
Within the District, land is further subdivided into Sub-Areas, which describe different land use and
design guidelines. The boundaries of the Sub-Areas are hereby established as shown on the Sub-Area
Map (Figure 2).
II. Application of Guidelines of the Overlay District
A. Buildings covered by the Guidelines
Any alteration, addition or new construction within the Old Town District that requires a
building permit must be reviewed for conformance with these guidelines. At the time of the
review by the Director, as the staff of the Plan Commission, in a public hearing, advanced
notification must be given to the current President of the Old Town Neighborhood
Association.
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15,2001
Scheer & Scheer, Inc
- - - ----__1-
2
B. Contributing buildings and Non-contributing buildings
1. Definition.
a) Contributing buildings are those that have certain characteristics that are in
keeping with historical construction in the Old Town District.
b) Non-contributing buildings, usually built later, do not have many of these
characteristics. The aim of the guidelines is to preserve or create contributing
characteristics where it is possible to do so.
2. Application of guidelines. Some of the guidelines are directed only at contributing
buildings and are not applicable to non-contributing buildings. Figure 3 designates the
contributing and non-contributing buildings. Such designation may be reviewed and
revised at any time by the Director, using the criteria established in Ill.C.
3. New construction. New buildings must be built with the characteristics of
contributing buildings.
4. Reconstruction. Redevelopment or reconstruction of a property where the existing
building has been demolished will be considered new construction, regardless of the
classification of buildings previously existing on that site, except as provided in
III.B.s.
5. Where a building has been demolished due to fire or other accident or disaster that is
customarily covered by insurance, the owner may reconstruct the property in
accordance with these guidelines, or, in substantially the same design as existed prior
to the accident.
C. Characteristics of contributing buildings
Buildings shall be considered "contributing", regardless of age, if they were originally built
with all of the following characteristics, or if they have been altered to conform with these
characteristics:
1. The following are characteristic of contributing buildings in the Character Sub-Area
and the Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area:
a) Small lots and small size houses, compared to Carmel's later subdivisions.
b) Narrow house fronts compared to length.
c) Hip or gabled roofs.
d) Wood clapboard materials and wood or brick details.
e) Narrow, rectangular wood windows.
t) Detached garages in the rear of the property.
g) Consistent setbacks from the street and narrow side yards.
h) Front porches (optional).
2. The following are characteristic elements of buildings in the Main Street Sub-Area:
a) Retail uses on the ground floor.
b) Transparent storefront glass for most of the length of the frontage.
c) Little or no setback from the sidewalk or ROW line.
d) Orientation and front door opens toward Main Street.
e) Parking in the rear or sides of building, not in the front.
t) Pedestrian scale details and variety in the signs, awnings, and storefronts.
g) Buildings at least two stories tall.
h) Walls faced in brick or wood, not concrete block or metal.
III. Guidelines
A. Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area
The Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area encompasses the houses and businesses north of
Main Street along Range Line Road. These buildings are generally larger than the others in the
Old Town area and are more architecturally distinctive. In addition, their high visibilitytcontributes greatly to the sense of Old Town as an historic area. Under these circumstances
more strict protection of these buildings is being called for, with demolition strongly
discouraged.
Draft 3.610ctober 15,2001
Scheer & Scheer, Inc
- - - - - -____1___
3
1. Renovations and Additions to All Existing Buildings
The following guidelines shall be applicable to all exterior renovations and additions
to existing buildings in the Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area, regardless of
whether the building is contributing or non-contributing.
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15,2001
- - ------_1.
a)
Lot dimensions and coverage
i) Existing lot dimensions as originally platted shall be acceptable.
ii) Minimum lot width shall be 50 feet for single family and 60 feet for
all other uses.
iii) The maximum lot coverage shall be 45% of the area of the lot for
single family uses and 70% of the area of the lot for all other uses.
iv) No lot may be created by subdivision or by joining which is greater
than 90 feet in width.
b)
Setbacks
i) Additions, except for open-air porches, may not be added to the
front of the building except where the building is set back more
than 20 feet from the setback line of its nearest two neighbors.
ii) A comer lot for a residential use is presumed to have a front yard
setback on both streets that it faces. For a non-residential use, the
front yard shall be Range Line Road (if the property is located on
Range Line Road) or the street with the greatest traffic.
iii) Side and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 5' from the
property line.
c)
Materials. Additions and alterations to the exterior will use materials
consistent with those found on the building when it was originally built.
d)
Roof. Alterations that reduce the roof pitch of an existing building are not
allowed. Additions may have a shed, gable, or hip roof.
e)
Garages.
i) Attached garages may not be added to an existing building. All new
garage buildings must be detached and sited at least five (5) feet
behind the main building.
ii) New detached garages and other accessory buildings should use
exterior materials similar to the main building.
iii) Covered walkways attaching the garage to the main building are
allowed.
t)
Landscape and Lighting.
i) A paved walkway from the porch or front door to the front sidewalk
is required.
ii) The remaining front yard of all buildings will be maintained with a
groomed landscape of low shrubs, ground cover, trees, flowers
and/or grass.
iii) Exterior lighting is restricted to lamps mounted on the building,
seven-foot maximum-height pole-mounted decorative lights, and
low-wattage landscape lighting.
iv) Fences greater than 36" tall are not allowed in the front yard of the
property .
v) Chain link material is not allowed in the front yard.
vi) Dumpsters must be screened from view, where possible.
Scheer & Scheer, Inc
4
g) Signs. Signage, where allowed, shall abide by the City of Carmel and Clay
Township Zoning Ordinance specified in Section 25.7.02-13.
h) Parking and driveways
i) Parking is not allowed in the front yard of any property, except on a
driveway leading to the garage.
ii) Driveways leading to the detached garage may not be wider than 12
feet, except within 30 feet of the front of the garage, where the
driveway may be up to 24 feet wide.
Hi) Parking spaces required to be provided under the zoning ordinance
may be reduced by up to 50% in order to accommodate difficult site
conditions such as limited access, small lots, and/or existing mature
trees.
iv) New curb cuts on Range Line Road will not be permitted unless
there is no alternative access from a side street.
2. Additional Guidelines for Alterations & Additions to Contributing Buildings in
the Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area
Alterations and additions to existing, contributing buildings in the Historic Range
Line Road Sub-Area shall be guided by the following:
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15,2001
-- -- ---____J
a)
Demolition. No contributing building, or any part of it, may be demolished
in this district without the consent of the Director. The Director shall only
consider the following when determining whether a building or any part of it
may be demolished:
i) Structural conditions pose an imminent safety hazard.
ii) An advanced state of dilapidation or fire damage would make it
unfeasible to repair the building for any reasonable economic use.
Hi) The particular financial situation of the current owner or the current
owner's desired use for the property shall not be considered as
factors in determining consent for demolition.
b)
Building Use. Notwithstanding uses otherwise allowed by zoning, uses that
require substantial alteration or additions to the exterior of a contributing
building in order to accoriunodate the functional requirements will not be
allowed.
c)
Materials
i) Details such as porch railings, trim boards, fascia boards, and
cornices may not be removed from the building.
ii) Original materials of the building will be repaired rather than
replaced, when possible.
Hi) Wood siding, when it cannot be repaired, may only be replaced with
wood siding of a similar dimension to the original.
iv) Windows must be replaced with wood or vinyl-clad wood of similar
dimensions and detailing to the original.
d)
Alterations
i) Alterations to the interior of the historic building are allowed if the
exterior of the building is not changed.
ii) No alterations are allowed that permanently change the massing,
character, window placement or details of the exterior of the
original building.
Hi) Previous additions or alterations to the building that detract from or
conceal the character of the building may be removed and the
Scheer & Scheer, roc
5
building restored to a previous condition. In this process, no
attempt should be made to add "historic" features (e.g., bay
windows or gingerbread trim) not actually a part of the original
building.
e) Additions
i) Additions are allowed only in the rear of the building.
ii) Additions may not be taller or wider than the existing building.
iii) Additions must be designed to complement, but not mimic, the
historic architecture.
iv) Additions must be built in such a way that they can be removed in
the future without damage to the original building.
3. New Construction
The following guidelines apply to all new buildings built within the boundaries of the
Historic Range Line Road.
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15,2001
a)
Building Mass.
i) Buildings are to be oriented parallel and perpendicular to the street.
ii) Buildings will generally be longer than they are wide, with the
narrow dimension facing the street. Building widths may not exceed
45 feet, except where the lot is greater than 80 feet in width, in
which case the building may be up to 55 feet wide.
b)
Setbacks
i) New buildings must follow the dominant or average front yard set-
back dimension of existing buildings on the same block and on the
same side of the street, with a variation of up to three feet allowed.
c)
Materials.
i) All sides of the main and accessory buildings must be clad in wood,
brick, stone, or high-quality vinyl siding. The same material must
be used on all sides of the building.
ii) New detached garages and other accessory buildings should use
exterior materials similar to the main building.
iii) Windows and trim must be framed in wood or vinyl-clad wood.
iv) Visible aluminum storm windows or doors are not allowed.
v) Chimneys are to be brick.
vi) Exterior guardrails, handrails and other stair details may be wood or
wrought iron.
vii) Roofs are to be asphalt, wood or slate shingles.
viii) Foundations must be split-face block, stone veneer or poured in
place concrete.
d)
Windows, Doors.
i) Vertical, rectangular double-hung or casement windows are
required. These may be used in multiple sets to create larger
expanses of window area.
ii) Plate-glass picture windows, strip windows and arched windows are
not allowed on the front facade.
iii) Special windows are allowed (ovals, hexagon, etc.) as accents.
Scheer & Scheer, Inc
__ - ___1_____ ____
6
e)
Roof
i)
The roof of the main building and accessory buildings shall be
gabled, multi-gabled, or hipped, with a minimum pitch of 8: 12.
A roof over a porch or bay window may be flat or pitched.
ii)
f) Porches.
i) Covered porches facing the street on the first or upper floor of the
structure are strongly encouraged but not required.
ii) Uncovered decks are not allowed in the front yard.
g) Building Height.
i) Minimum: 13 feet to the midpoint of the cornice and the ridgeline.
ii) Maximum: 30 feet to the midpoint of the cornice and the ridge line,
except as provided in 7(c).
Hi) Buildings may not exceed the height of the tallest dimension of the
nearest two contributing buildings by more than 7 feet.
B. Main Street District
Main Street west of Range Line Road is a relatively intact example of street front retail. The
emphasis is on encouraging new construction and renovations that conform to the desired
character and prohibiting changes that do not conform to the existing character.
Draft 3. 6/0ctober 15. 2001
This Sub-Area will be focal point of pedestrian commercial activity in the Old Town District.
All new construction, and alterations and additions to new buildings, will follow these
guidelines:
1.
Use. The underlying zoning in this district will prevail regarding permitted land uses,
with the following exceptions:
a) Only those uses allowed in B-1 zoning districts will be allowed on the
ground floor in areas that are designated as 1-1 zones;
b) No drive-through or drive-up facilities are allowed for any use, including
automotive, banking, or food sales.
c) Multi-family residential uses will be specifically allowed and encouraged on
the upper floors of all buildings.
2.
Building mass.
a) New buildings and renovations shall follow the general massing of a "Main
Street" commercial block, Le., a rectangular building with a flat or slightly
sloped roof, oriented perpendicular to the street.
b) Building height is limited to three floors.
c) The first floor and all other floors will have a coordinated composition,
which will usually be indicated by the alignment of upper floor windows and
other features with openings and features of the first floor.
3.
Materials
a) The first floor and upper floors may be composed of different materials. The
fa<;:ade of the upper floors on any building that faces a public street may be
Scheer & Scheer, Inc
7
constructed of wood siding, brick, stucco, or other masonry units, and
trimmed in stone, contrasting brick, wood, or precast concrete.
b) The first floor of a new or renovated building must be composed of
storefronts, which may be inserted into a masonry, wood, stone or concrete
panel frame which is coordinated with the upper floor. Storefronts will be a
lightweight material such as aluminum, glass, wood, tile, and panelized
composites.
c) The materials in the rear of the building must be coordinated with the front
fa9ade, although they may be different.
d) On the front fa9ade, at least 60% of the total area of the fIrst floor (up to the
line of the second floor) must be transparent vision glass.
e) Front and side fa9ades of buildings located on comer lots shall be of the
same materials and similarly detailed.
t) Exterior walks, steps, ramps and paving must be masonry or stone pavers, or
poured or precast concrete.
4. Windows, Doors.
a) A separate entrance facing a public street shall be provided to the upper
floors ofa building if the use differs from the one on the ground floor.
b) Each floor shall have windows.
5. Roof. Roofs must have a pitch ofless than 3/12 and will not be a substantially visible
part of the building.
6. Alterations and additions. Existing buildings may be substantially modifIed to
conform to these guidelines, except for designated historic structures.
7.
Details.
a)
b)
Cornices and other details of existing buildings may not be removed.
The fa9ade should have a flat front, with relief provided by windows and
surrounds, storefronts, doors, and features such as special brick coursing,
pilasters and lintels.
All new buildings will have an articulated cornice at the top of the fa9ade
wall.
c)
8.
Setbacks.
a) Front setback. The buildings must sit on the front property line except for
minor recesses for entrances and outdoor seating/dining.
b) Side setback. There are no minimum side setbacks; however, mid-block
pedestrian access to rear parking must be a minimum of six (6) feet wide.
9.
Entrances.
a) The principal entrance to all retail areas must face the public street.
b) Additional entrances may face the side of the building.
c) No rear entrances are allowed except for residential or office uses,
emergency exits, employees, loading and trash removal.
10.
Storefronts shall be internally illuminated with spots or other incandescent lighting, so
as to prominently, and attractively display the business or its products. Exterior
lighting may be affixed to the building.
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15,2001
Scheer & Scheer, Inc
- __~___.L_______
8
11. Permanents signs and awnings.
a) Maximum sign area: First floor occupants are allowed a total of one and a
half(l.5) square feet of sign for each linear foot of street frontage, except
that no single sign may exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area.
b) Freestanding permanent signs are not allowed.
c) Building signs must fit within the horizontal and vertical elements ofthe
building and may not obscure details ofthe building.
d) Signs may be perpendicular or flat-mounted, including separately mounted
letters. Perpendicular signs may not extend more than five feet from the face
of the building.
e) No sign may extend above the cornice line of the building.
t) Allowable signs may also be painted in graphics in storefront or upper floor
windows. Signs may also be imprinted on awnings. All such signs will be
included in the calculations for maximum sign area.
g) Retractable or fixed fabric awnings are allowed, but these must fit within the
storefront glass area and may not obscure details of the building. Awnings
may only be supported with building-mounted hardware.
h) Individual tenants should strive for a unique graphic image, rather than be
required to conform to a single graphic style for the whole building.
12. Parking and Loading Requirements.
a) Parking lots may be located in the rear of the building only.
b) Parking shall be provided at the ratio of one space for every 1200 square feet
of gross area in the building. Where the total lot area is less than 3000 square
feet, the owner shall be exempt from parking requirements.
c) On street parking may not be used to fulfill parking requirements, however, a
reasonable share of a public lot may be assumed to fulfill these requirements.
d) Parking may be provided on-site or in a convenient remote lot not more than
400 feet from the property.
e) Parking requirements may be reduced if businesses with substantially
different peak hour requirements agree to share parking.
t) No new curb cuts are allowed on Main Street, and no parking lots or loading
areas may front on Main Street.
g) Screened loading and trash areas shall be provided for all businesses at the
rear of the building.
C. Character Sub-Area
Character Sub-Areas consist of the bulk of the residential areas in the Old Town district both
east and west of Range Line Road, and both residential and commercial properties facing
Range Line Road in the north end of the District There are many different styles of
architecture in this area; however, the consistency and character of the neighborhood is worth
protecting. The intent of these guidelines is to preserve the character of the neighborhood by
preserving certain building and siting characteristics, without requiring that specific buildings
or building elements be preserved.
1.
Renovations and Additions to Existing Buildings
The following guidelines shall be applicable to all exterior renovations and additions
to existing buildings in the Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area, regardless of
whether the building is contributing or non-contributing.
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15,2001
Scheer & Scheer, toc
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15,2001
a)
b)
- ----------------___1
9
Lot dimensions and coverages
i) Existing lot dimensions as originally platted shall be acceptable.
H) Minimum lot width shall be 50 feet for single family and 60 feet for
all other uses.
iii) The maximum lot coverage shall be 45% of the area of the lot for
single family uses and 70% of the area of the lot for all other uses.
iv) No lot may be created by subdivision or by joining which is greater
than 90 feet in width.
Setbacks
i) Additions, except for open-air porches, may not be added to the
front of the building except where the building is set back more
than 20 feet from the setback line of its nearest two neighbors.
H) A comer lot for a residential use is presumed to have a front yard
setback on both streets that it faces. For a non-residential use, the
front yard shall be Range Line Road (if the property is located on
Range Line Road) or the street with the greatest traffic.
iii) Side and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 5' from the
property line.
c)
Materials. Additions and alterations to the exterior must be clad in wood or
high quality vinyl siding.
d)
Roof. Alterations that reduce the roof pitch of an existing building are not
allowed. Additions may have a shed, gable, or hip roof.
e)
Garages.
i) Attached garages may not be added to an existing building. All new
garage buildings must be detached and sited at least five (5) feet
behind the main building.
H) New detached garages and other accessory buildings should use
exterior materials similar to the main building.
iii) Covered walkways attaching the garage to the main building are
allowed.
f)
Landscape and Lighting.
i) A paved walkway from the porch or front door to the front sidewalk
is required.
H) The remaining front yard of all buildings will be maintained with a
groomed landscape of low shrubs, ground cover, trees, flowers
and/or grass.
Hi) Exterior lighting is restricted to lamps mounted on the building,
seven-foot maximum-height pole-mounted decorative lights, and
low-wattage landscape lighting.
iv) Fences greater than 36" tall are not allowed in the front yard of the
property .
v) Chain link material is not allowed in the front yard.
vi) Dumpsters must be screened from view, where possible.
g)
Signs. Signage, where allowed, shall abide by the City of Carmel and Clay
Township Zoning Ordinance specified in Section 25.7.02-13.
Scheer & Scheer, Inc
10
h) Parking and driveways
i) Parking is not allowed in the front yard of any property, except on a
driveway leading to the garage.
ii) Driveways leading to the detached garage may not be wider than 12
feet, except within 30 feet of the front of the garage, where the
driveway may be up to 24 feet wide.
iii) Parking spaces required to be provided under the zoning ordinance
may be reduced by up to 50% in order to accommodate difficult site
conditions such as limited access, small lots and/or existing mature
trees.
iv) New curb cuts on Range Line Road will not be permitted unless
there is no alternative access from a side street.
2. Additional Guidelines for Alterations & Additions to Contributing Buildings in
Character Sub-Area.
Alterations or additions to existing, contributing buildings in the Character Sub-Area
shall be guided by the following guidelines. Nothing in these guidelines shall require
a change to a part of the building that is not otherwise affected by the proposed
alteration or addition.
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15,2001
a)
Materials.
i) All sides of the main and accessory buildings must be clad in wood,
or high-quality vinyl siding.
ii) Windows and trim must be framed in wood or vinyl-clad wood.
iii) Visible aluminum storm windows or doors are not allowed.
iv) Chimneys are to be brick.
v) Exterior guardrails, handrails and other stair details may be wood or
wrought iron.
vi) Roofs are to be asphalt, wood or slate shingles.
vii) Foundations must be split-face block, stone veneer or poured in
place concrete.
b)
Where previous alterations have introduced inconsistent materials (simulated
stone, brick, metal, etc.) to a wood-clapboard house, a new addition or
alteration that affects this part of the structure will require removal of the
inconsistent material.
c)
Windows, Doors.
i) Vertical, rectangular double-hung or casement windows are
required. These may be used in multiple sets to create larger
expanses of window area.
ii) Plate-glass picture windows, strip windows and arched windows are
not allowed on the front facade.
iii) Special windows are allowed (ovals, hexagon, etc.) as accents.
iv) Existing windows may be moved or replaced with windows that are
similar to the original building windows.
v) If a window is covered over or removed, the material on the exterior
must match the pre-existing siding.
Scheer & Scheer, Ioc
11
d) Roof. Roofs shall be gabled, multi-gabled, or hipped, with a minimum pitch
of 8: 12. Porch roofs may be flat or pitched.
e) Porches.
i) Removal of existing porches is strongly discouraged.
ii) Covered porches on the ground floor and second floor facing the
street are strongly encouraged but not required.
iii) Existing porches may only be enclosed with transparent glass
windows.
iv) Uncovered decks are not allowed in the front yard.
f) Building Height. Additions to the existing building may not exceed the
height of the tallest dimension of the nearest contributing buildings by more
than 7 feet.
3. New Construction
The following guidelines apply to all new buildings built within the boundaries of the
Character Sub-Area.
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15, 2001
a)
Building Mass.
i) Buildings are to be oriented parallel and perpendicular to the street.
ii) Buildings will generally be longer than they are wide, with the
narrow dimension facing the street. Building widths may not exceed
45 feet, except where the lot is greater than 80 feet in width, in
which case the building may be up to 55 feet wide.
b)
Setbacks
i) New buildings must follow the dominant or average front yard set-
back dimension of existing buildings on the same block and on the
same side of the street, with a variation of up to three feet allowed.
c)
Materials.
i) All sides of the main and accessory buildings must be clad in wood,
brick, stone, or high-quality vinyl siding. The same material must
be used on all sides of the building.
ii) New detached garages and other accessory buildings should use
exterior materials similar to the main building.
iii) Windows and trim must be framed in wood or vinyl-clad wood.
iv) Visible aluminum storm windows or doors are not allowed.
v) Chimneys are to be brick.
vi) Exterior guardrails, handrails and other stair details may be wood or
wrought iron.
vii) Roofs are to be asphalt, wood or slate shingles.
viii) Foundations must be split-face block, stone veneer or poured in
place concrete.
d)
Windows, Doors.
i) Vertical, rectangular double-hung or casement windows are
required. These may be used in multiple sets to create larger
expanses of window area.
ii) Plate-glass picture windows, strip windows and arched windows are
not allowed on the front facade.
iii) Special windows are allowed (ovals, hexagon, etc.) as accents.
Scheer & Scheer, Inc
12
e)
Roof
i)
The roof of the main building and accessory buildings shall be
gabled, multi-gabled, or hipped, with a minimum pitch of 8: 12.
A roof over a porch or bay window may be flat or pitched.
ii)
f) Porches
i) Covered porches facing the street on the first or upper floor of the
structure are strongly encouraged but not required.
ii) Uncovered decks are not allowed in the front yard.
g) Building Height
i) Minimum: 13 feet to the midpoint of the cornice and the ridgeline.
ii) Maximum: 30 feet to the midpoint of the cornice and the ridgeline,
except as provided in 7(c).
iii) Buildings may not exceed the height of the tallest dimension of the
nearest two contributing buildings by more than 7 feet.
IV Submittal Process/Application Procedure
A. Consultation with Director and Application.
Applicants shall meet with the Director to review the zoning classification of their site, review
the regulatory ordinances and materials, review the procedures and examine the proposed use
and development ofthe property. The Director shall aid and advise the applicant in preparing
his application and supporting documents as necessary.
I. The applicant shall submit:
a) two (2) copies of the written Site Plan and Design Review application form,
b) two (2) copies of the Existing Features & Site Analysis Plan including
adjacent zoning and land use,
c) two (2) copies of the proposed site plan and drainage plan, and/or
d) two (2) copies of the required information on architectural design,
landscaping, parking, signage, lighting and access, as well as
e) all necessary supporting documents and materials.
B. Review.
Review of the Application and Supporting Documents and Materials by the Director;
Following the receipt of the written application and required supporting information by the
Director, the Director shall review the materials for the sole purpose of determining whether
the application is complete and in technical compliance with all applicable ordinances, laws
and regulations.
If the materials submitted by the applicant are not complete or do not comply with the
necessary legal requirements, the Director shall inform the applicant of the deficiencies in said
materials.
I. Unless and until the Director formally accepts the application as complete and in legal
compliance, it shall not be considered as formally filed for the purpose of proceeding
to succeeding steps toward approval as hereinafter set forth.
2. Within ten (10) days of the formal acceptance of the application by the Director, he
shall formally approve, deny, or request additional information about the petition.
C. Approval or Denial of the Application by the Commission.
I. An approved Site Plan and Design Review petition shall be valid for two (2) years
from the date of approval. If construction of the building(s) has (have) not started at
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15, 2001
Scheer & Scheer, Inc
2.
3.
4.
Draft 3.6/0ctober 15,2001
13
the end of the two (2) year period, the Site Plan and Design Review request must be
re-submitted to the Director.
If an approved Site Plan and Design Review petition is (are) substantially altered, re-
submittal to the Director for approval is required.
If the petition is denied by the Director, the Director shall provide the applicant with a
copy of said reasons, if requested.
The applicant may appeal the decision of the Director, as specified in Chapter 30.0.
Scheer & Scheer, loc
Figure _
Figure _
[ I!.J._~_.~ L
,..-.------ .-1-....
I ..I'Iiifiim . I I
II. ~Il
I I I
. I
I I
!
! I I
f...._._.___.__._ '1
I r...-l I
Ir) .....-i I
~. I'I~ I
. "I 1/11'
Ne~ construction" 1~__._.__.__L.J
ilIf.---=n
~
r
Dominant front yard
setback
N~igh~or'~. front setback.
Addition not permitted
"' r-
I.~
I Greater than 20 feet
I
I
I
i
i
r-
i
i
III
1-'--'--
j
i I
! ~.__._._._.___.~J Addition permitted
"\ r-
I
I
!
/
I
0'
LI
--==- '
~
\ )
I~ ~~ (I~
I ~ti]~~ %- rt 0 .c;] ~ :3 0..
. fJ c.. a t::J
I ~ c ~- t:1 oc ~ J-, G
(;:3 L I c!::l Un _ t:::I q ~1:j ::.e-
n ~~f-&... ,~.~DQ[]Po -. -- I~ ;, (3c
U -cr-cr Q b "'11' "U tIT:. roo
~t ~c.-a ~ J CJ 1];~ r i~lD
/ [] C1 ... \.:J CJ Cl I-r-_-.:::l'"n
. U 'J' 0 .. n d It+. IL
"--- ,~ L-I CjJ 0-.0- r r-' ~ 0 I 'B
'~D O[]CJ~ A I DCt) ~_ ~;; ~:g ~ a~
c:::::::I DO C:I bI. eD[;:J IJ.I
~ )A 0 DC ~ I .. g I~~)~ i p 0 ~1~ ~. CJ ~ CJc d ~
{y'}') t:=::I C -=- I ..C: -u -, IU D Il... U'" a I
rlf((<J ~ '~i ~ri.u,-, .~ ~ "~l 1 ~ ,~. ~ -". ~fjJ Z
CJ 1.i~"""'1 to 0 0 0 ~ 0 .::"] -~ uiJ C J L.-J ~IO C:::;,
~ c::
( .. [;:J
III I.Xll-
t:j:;-cr L-J , ......
~E:EJII~: l~ 0 rij Ig~tb m~~ p
:::II::J 0:. . CO..... EEfl r-.3
7i JII'-1;1 P a ca. c.J c:::::I i- 1 LJ IU- ...= ~ :11.,..': 0 [ J
~ 1J I 0 r'r'1 10 II] c:::::;1 I;) CJ ~ :1" A w c::J1t-J
~ I _~ - ,.., ~"IfT7"l., 0 .0 0 OC!:l[:- ~CJ]
~~ L? ~ D6~ C ql~ =o.iJU ~ ~I~G~ OOG ~
:-: c::J j? Ci 00 IIloP I~ la=: d~ if . 111 '~ 'bU PI c~ ~ D -nJl'
co 'Y _FL ~lIlfi1c . I CJ c:1 [~ g lb
8 c3 ~~ uotrb O~"--.JV ~ ~HA A_
Jl ~ Sb. c 9 CJ 2 ~ 0 l:i.:i\P .:::.... 00 01 u :0 U lit' j.g E*,
~,.J! f- J ~ V~I 1 c::I L..:J I '..EW
_~ ~ u ~w nUI,,- E,- 0 ~~t'~~.,t-~~~~
_ [} . l) 1 '0' P:: 0 (j b :-r 0 L"......J CJ,,1;l [p"~..J-""r' - r ~~
'J, 0" Jill 1 "':":J pes "0 ~ ~ ~
~~ ~"""" 0 ,..., 0 - lulA G .....-. O!::f J: U ~t In -, 4
0\ -g fl r C1 f.J CJ r- rc-CJ L..I' L ~ ~
I \ t) Q~P UfJ L-,;I-IL J ~c un .0'" ,,-! 1 I ~~
D ,.- Q 0 1 .~ . I~ ~ ~~~ I-~~
Jl · ::JU Ut~ I~-~ l[]l~ r-
.. a D U IidJ i ot.J ~ ~ ~ >\
a -"" II T'I 0 ~ ~L'r=:=n iI7...
I I, ,11 Uti, "llmaL -L 0 .cd. no 11:;"" ;tG,o,o1 ~~.
"'0
~ -
\>
C:J
r::P
"
c:J~
~~
r--- __
iJ {J
o
bD G
<Po
~.
r
l
--=
,
.l----
r
~
p
~
o~
-%JI
CARMEL OLD TOWN
SUB-AREA BOUNDARIES
CARMEL, INDIANA
Iii ~__..:___._:---..._____:.Iiili_~~ -~._..
._.&.......,.I...~r.. ......
REVISED AUG 200f
lLClD D :lLcD
Public
Input
Overview
A. Comment letters received
B. Summary of Task Force Actions &:: Responses
.':1
i ~
PAR Enterprises
Pat Robinson
751 N. Rangeline Rd. Suite #5
Carmel, IN 46032
~~~
~,~
tt)~
Kelli Habn
Department of Commnnity Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Reference: Old Town Task Force - Coordinator ofIental property owners, Pat Robinson,
for the landlords
This letter is written as a general snmmary of comments representing 33
properties in Carmel, IN. I have personally contacted these landlords, which also include .
a few homeowners and a few business owners as well. There were some who fell into
two or three categories.
Specifically, "all" comments from the landlords (owners of rental properties) who
understand the issues are strongly opposed to the proposal in general.
The comments are listed as a 811mmary and are in order of the frequency in which
they were mentioned:
. We already have enough restrictions.
- The more restrictions we have, the less we like it.
. Drop the proposal.
. The residential properties are more run down than the rental properties and
are already pulling real estate values down.
. We need to only enforce the cmrent rules.
. Zoning is already different on N. Rangeline Rd. - it was changed in the
1970's.
_ The character is already different on 1st St. N.E. and N. W. than it is on N.
Rangeline Rd.
. C1 on Page 2 of the proposal: I own a building that does not meet with their
approval (noncontributing). If I, or a future owner, want to make any changes
whatsoever, they must conform to a narrow guideline which does not
necessarily look like my building does now. This translates into lower sales
price when I want to sell, which in reality is lower property values today. The
current building codes already protect me and my neighbors from outlandish
projects.
- Generally: This overlay proposal is aimed at homeowners who occupy their
homes. Those ofus who own business or rental property will be forced to
work within a code that is completely detrimental to our needs and business
intetests.
_on ------__________ ____________.1
, ~
~-
- Parking is always an issue. Any new restraints on parking in this area will be
another reason to call the city of Carmel anti-business.
- In a recent conversation with a City Councilor, he told me the play is to make
Old Town Carmel look like Zionsville. If that is the case, most businesses
now residing along RangeIine Rd. will be forced out so they can be replaced
with curtsey little shops.
- The Mayor ofCarme1 is always tRlking about his vision of what Carmel
should look like. In this case, one mans vision will adversely affect hundreds
of properties and almost as many people. This area, never in its history,
looked like the Village of Zionsville. . Why should hundreds of people be
. caused pain and suffering, financial and otherwise, because of this one man's
vision?
Our Recommendations are (in order of priority):
1. Send the proposal to the Planning Commission recommending the
proposal be dropped.
2. . Send the proposal to the Planning Commission with no recommendations.
3. Send the proposal to the Planning Commission as it is, exempting N.
Rangeline Rd. from Main Street to 8th Street and the area west of the
Mo~nTma .
The general theme from our group is that the only people that want this are a very
small group of residential homeowners and a few city officials. Commercial and rental
property people are already moving out of Carmel because of unreasonable restrictions
being placed on them at this time. This proposal would only exacerbate them.
~
Pat Robinson
Coordinator for the Rental Property Landlords
September 5, 2001
Kelli Hahn ~
Department of Community ,Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re: C2/0ld Town District '.'
.. ,
This letter is 'being provided at the request of current
"active" members of the old town design committee. I will
briefly outline the general concerns of a majority of contacted
commercial property owners, in the North Rangeline Road area
regarding this plan. ~
*Decreased commercial 'property values
*Deterred commercial growth
*Destroy the neighborhood diversity
*Unreasonable parking 'restrictions
The purpose and intent of the old town overlay district as
proposed in part intends to increase property values, spur
commercial activity and attract new businesses, old town
Carmel architecturally as it currently exists, bein~ developed
over the past 100 years is substantially in it's purest form.
The "coordinated treatment" attitude. as represented would not
"preserxe" the neighborhood but destroy the diversity of building
that has naturally developed and been previously approved by city
government over the past 75 years. Such action would
.specifically discriminate against and discourage if not prohibit
any business expansion in this neighborhood. By a vast majority
the. properties located in the business district of North
Rangeline Road, have been restored by the investment of local
business owner's rather than existing homeowner's. The
fact that the West and East sides of North Rangeline Road are
zoned differently than the surrounding "neighborhood" area's,
creates at best a flawed thought process in trying to incorporate
one general plan for both area's. The formation of the old town
design committee, ,with it's obvious lack of representation of
commercial property owner's in the affected area, has resulted in
a current proposal which does not fairly or proportionately
represent the high number of existing businesses which have
invested in this area.
At this time our recommendations in proceeding are as
follows:
1.) Send the existing proposal to the planning commission
recommending the proposal be dropped.
PAGE 1 OF 2
Kelli Hahn
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re: C2/0ld Town District
2.) Send the existing proposal to the planning commission
with no recommendations.
3.) Send the existing proposal to the planning commission,
exempting North Rangeline Road business district from
Main Street to 8th Street. .,
Sincerely,
. -
Charles N. Hook II
TTT, LLP
750 N. Rangeline Road
Carmel, Indiana 46032
...
Hahn. Kelli A
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Ikhartin@iupui.edu
Friday, September 07,200110:11 AM
KHahn@ci.carmel.in.us
Re: home owner comments
Kelli Hahn
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel. In 46032
In response to the request of the Old Town Task Force the following
summary of comments was prepared. This summary represents the input of
over 60 interested residents of Old To'WD..
While many residents had not read the proposal, and many who had were
misinformed of its pmpose and specifics, the majority of residents still
saw a need to protect the unique character of the Old Town area.
Once the actual details were explained to these residents they were in
almost unAnimous support for it. This despite the large amount of
misinformation that had been sent around the neighborhood.
The list below addresses the most frequent comments of home owners and
residents.
~ Something must be done to protect property values;
~ Too many owner occupied properties are becoming rental.
_ Too many single family homes are being split into multi-family rentals.
~ The character of the area is slowly being eroded.
_ The current zoning does not fit the needs of the Old Town Axea.
~ A variance is necessary for almost any project due to the mismatched
zoning.
~ The historic structures in the area are being tom down or severely
damaged by unguided development.
Some residents had some reservations about a few specifics of the proposal
such as limitations on fencing and other minor points. But almost all
agreed that something should be done to protect the area from degradation
and economic exploitation.
These citizens were also in agreement that it was crucial to guide the
development of the Rangeline Road subdistrict in a way that will
encourage active and vital businesses and an environment consistent with
the character of the Old Town area.
It is the opinion of the great majority of Old Town residents and home
owners that this proposal be sent to the Planning Commission with full
recommendation.
1
OLD TOWN TASK FORCE
Summary of Public Comments and Task Force Actions
Following is a list of issues raised by the public regarding the Old Town Task
Force and the proposed Old Town District Overlay Zone. The Task Force action
taken is shown as well.
Issue 1: Lack of Public Input
A public hearing was held in February, with 30-40 people in attendance. Another
public hearing was held in June with about 100 people in attendance. Those
present commented that they were unaware of the meeting and did not have a
chance to participate.
Task Force Response: The Task Force held 3 additional public meetings to
allow the public to comment. These meetings were held specifically to address
public questions and concerns. The Task Force discussed all comments
received at these meetings.
Issue 2: Concern about Accidental Loss (Le. fire. tornado)
The public was concerned that they would be forced to build an entirely different
building that would not be covered by insurance if an accident were to happen.
Task Force Response: The Task Force added the following section:
II/.B.5 Where a building has been demolished due to fire or other accident or
disaster that is customarily covered by insurance, the owner may reconstruct the
properly in accordance with these guidelines, or, in substantially the same design
as existed prior to the accident.
Issue 3: Parkina Restrictions
The public was concerned that restricting parking from the front yard would result
in harm to their businesses as many Range Line Road businesses are on corner
lots and therefore currently would have multiple front yards.
Task Force Response: The Task Force redefined the front yard as:
IV.A.2 .. .For a non-residential use, the front yard shall be Range Line Road (if
the properly is located on Range Line Road) or the street with the greatest traffic.
It should be noted that the proposed Overlay District provides other allowances
to enhance the parking options of businesses located on Range Line Road. For
example, Section IV.A.8.c provides for the following:
Parking spaces required to be provided under the zoning ordinance may be
reduced by up to 50% in order to accommodate difficult site conditions such as
limited access and small/ots.
This provision allows some leniency in determining the required parking while the
current ordinance requires a definite number of spaces and is often difficult to
accommodate on many of the Old Town lots.
Issue 4: Too Much Reaulation
The public has complained that there are "enough rules" already.
Task Force Response: While the Task Force understands that this does add
greater regulation to the area, the proposed Overlay District provides, in many
cases, greater flexibility than the current zoning. The proposal will eliminate the
need for the many variances almost required under current zoning provisions. It
puts in place standards that take into account the unique configuration of lots and
siting of buildings.
Issue 5: Decrease in Property Value
The public has commented that the proposed Overlay District will decrease the
value of their property because of the additional regulations.
Task Force Reponse: The Task Force fully beli_eves the proposed Overlay
District is needed to protect property values in Old Town. They have gathered
information about this topic from other communities in support of this viewpoint.
Issue 6: Commercial and Residential Properties are Included in the Same Sub-
District
The public has commented that commercial properties should not be included in
the same sub-district as residential properties.
Task Force Response: The Task Force acknowledges that the Character Sub-
District includes both residential and commercial property but contends that the
guidelines of that district are applicable regardless of the use because they are
general and address such things as building mass, setbacks, and building
materials which are applicable to both uses. The Task Force asked the public
repeatedly what provisions of the Character District would not work for
commercial properties. Those present had no answer to this question.
Therefore, the Task Force could not find any rationale for creating another district
for those businesses within the Character District.
Supporting
Materials
A. Current v. Proposed Zoning Comparison
B. Buildable Area Comparison
C. Historic District Articles
OLD TOWN ZONING COMPARISON
15B
5 feet min. for all uses
15 feet min; for alluses .
20 feetmin. for all residential uses .
15 feet.min. for all office uses
35% for single and two family.
dwelling ... ..... .
40% formulti-family.
75% for all other uSes'
80 feet for single-family d.welling
100 feet for all other uses' ,
35 feet tnaX. for resideIltial uses
45 feet max.for office Uses'
Per Parking Regs.
I per2.5 seats plus 1 per employee
for largest shift for restaurants
1 per 300 sq. ft. floor area for most
retail uses
1">;"1 CURRENT ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
5 feet min.
15 feet min.
60 feet .
25 feet max. .
Per Parking Regs. ...... .....
I per 2.5 seats plus l' per employee ..'
for largest shift for restaurants .; ......
1 per 300 sq. ft. floor area for niost ."
retaii uses .
Existing Lot Dimensions as
originally platted are acceptable
New buildings must follow the
dominant or average setback of
existing buildings on the same
block and on the same side of the
street, with a variation of 3 feet
allowed.
5 feet
No minimum aggregate
45% for single family uses
70% for all other uses
50 feet for single family
60 feet for all other uses
For contributing buildings-
additions to the existing building
may not exceed the height of the
tallest dimension of the nearest
contributing buildings by more than
7 feet.
For new buildings-I 3 feet
minimum and 30 feet maximum
height
Per Parking Regs.
May be reduced up to 50% to
accommodate difficult site
conditions such as limited access
. .
and small lots.
. :'.
.' 5 feetmin. forreside~tia1 use .
"5 feet min. for businesliuse 'on' .. {. .
comer lot or adjacent to residential :;:
o feet for other businesses '..
If 5 feet side yard required then 10. ;;
feet;,.,:\
All other usCS-:--none .
20 feet min.for resid,entialuses
'15 feet min. for all other uses' ..
35% for single and two family
dwelling' '" . .....
40% for iriulti~fainily .
90010 for all other uses
50 feet
45 feet max.
Existing Lot Dimensions as
originally platted are acceptable
New buildings must follow the
dominant or average setback of
existing buildings on the same
block and on the same side of the
street, with a variation 00 feet
allowed.
5 feet
No minimum aggregate
5 feet
45% for single family uses
70% for all other uses
50 feet for single family
60 feet for all other uses
For contributing buildings-
additions may not be taller than the
existing building.
For new buildings-13 feet
minimum and 30 feet maximum
height.
Per Parking Regs.
May be reduced up to 50% to
accommodate difficult site
conditions such as limited access
and small lots.
The buildings must sit on the front
property line except for minor
recesses for entrances and outdoor
seating/dining
No minimum side setbacks
None
None
None
None
Max. of3 stories
Ratio of 1 space per 1200 sq. ft. of
gross building area.
If total lot area is less than 3000 sq.
ft., the owner is exempt from
parking requirements.
Per Parking Regs.
.1 per 2.5 seats plus I per employee..
for largest shift for restaurants...
I per 300 sq. ft. floor area for most.
retail uses '.
--
~
\\
~
~
"
~5"/
(;5"/
~
-...:..
~
~~
'T\: ':.\
~ ~
\\~ ~ \ ~
'\: ~~ ~~.
~ ~~ ~
~;t~ ~ ~
~~\~~ t:,
~ ~ ~
~..~. ~ ~
~~. ~ ~
'3" \ \
~\
Jl
l~ "-
~ l~
'\-..'\..
I~
If
~/ l7ar- sd~,e4:-
-- - -~
I
~
i~
~~
I ~ G\."-!
I ~ ~,-I
~ ~ ~
I ~ ~"I I
1'1
lI\'~
~I \ ~~ i
;~ " ~~~I,
j ~I ~ ~,I~'l~
\ ~I .~ ~ I~l '
; ~ .. ~' ~, 1~11
;" '-I~
. ~ \l-, \?-'i~i
I J 1~ I
I ~ ~
I ~ ~
: ~~
I ~~
J ~I
L~__- --~
! /;> / IrtJlI1' !'t-rbl!!J~i
I (AJ,r,e~/klr,d
I
I
b--~-
~.:S'
'. ~
.
I J"" " \') ~
I~ ~ 1>>. ~ "'i ::
I ~ ~ ~ ~~.! ~.
~ ., ~'-.A (\
I ~~ ~
~~ """ ~ I~l'
~ ~ ~ ~ I~l~
~ ~ ~ l~
~I ~ I' ~l ,
~I~ t;n. ~,~ "I~I
~J . ~ ~ "~~l.
f I\",,,~I
"'~~" ~ I
I ~~!
I I )
I I
I 1
~,. i j
I " i
l-- - - --.,.- - - --,- -- -":1
1 /6 / .,4~i" ~~/bt:le,L ~
I
I
, j
..11.-_______.
"-
~
\\
~
, '
~1/
p/f',c~re:ll<<t i/; 19f.ultta61e. Ar~4 .:::. ! 2 StJ.. 7~1) : / Z':JO <stfll...
ad~ h/ftfa--'1 .tudh
h~tU OItINtt/htf'S'
~c7
- - ------------ ---_ -_-_1______-----
~
( ~.
.t
It
i-.
I~
,~
~
~
j:
..ff~~~ .!.fbp tit..
~
~ I
~ 1 "'i
~ ~:)
~.~
~ ~,,~
~ ~ ~
~
t-~'JI
~ i,I~1
Af - J~l
~~ ~ 'i~J
~~ l
~ \
><' ~ l~~
~ tt~f;
~, ~j
\t' ~,;*'l
~ \'J:)> " I
~ ~'I ~.
\\ ~. ~ I
1 ~ "t"il I
I' ~",I
I~. ~!
._1 I
I - . I
II "h-*;".;. .!<f6 --J
CM1r ;ee1J//;'c!'~~/:. r
L ~ I
I
~ .
.
,
. -1.
..........
,
\,'
~
'\.
~tJ "
i
~
J
- ~~g~~ I
: ~~-~
1"-. "-. ~ "1 I
I~ '" 13
I . ~~
VI ~~,1
~... .~-. '1~
~ ~ "jl::i
:-... ... I ~. '" 'll;,\'
~ ~I b ',-.l~
~ I ~ "I~
!\ '" " ... ~
~J~)( ~,.1~
I ~ '" ,"'-
I I ' "J
I 1\
I I (Jj" I
. I"'..." ~,~
l-~~ ~ "-l
I ? ,,/j ..~J
. ~ t?;?"f- ~LL -
I (V,uk
I
I
,
I
I
n'I
~
S\"
~
. '"
~ ~
~ 1\
~ ~
~ :j-..
~ ~.
~. ......
~I~
~
~
t
1\S
\\
~
~
,
~
~
~
\\
,
~~
~")
\l}
t\~~
~~
~
~~
~1
~~
S?;/
1_-
Historic Districts
Background
The first historic district in the United States was established in Charleston. South
Carolina in 1931, and was encouraged by Frederick Law Olmsted, the well-known park
and landscape planner. To establish the initial district, much work was put into .
. documenting a large nuniber of older structures in ChaIleston. Although the group of
buildings initially surveyed was much larger, the final proposal, which took many years
and was :finally completed in 1944, included 572 historic buildings. The second historic
district in the U.S. was established in 1936 in the Vieux Carre (Old French quarter)
section of New Orleans, Louisiana. In both instances, early preservation efforts helped
keep those areas intact.
Nevertheless, the regulatory powers available to an agency administering a historic
district were quite limited in that early period. Controls could not be put on properties on
the basis only of aesthetics; to keep the historic appearance of the district was desirable,.
but not legally enforceable. Any controls had to rely on the concept of "aesthetics plus,:"
or the concept that there must be an additional reason beyond historic character
(aesthetics) to justify regulatory control (e.g., building codes). .
In 1954 the Supreme Court changed this in its Berman v. Parker decision, which
established the right of local government to "tear down an old building to improve a
neighborhood." The original purpose of this ruling, ironically, was to allow for the
demolition of older housing for urban renewal. The initial application of this ruling led to
the excesses of urban renewal in the 1950s and '60s, with city planners arguing that the
demolition of older, run-down neighborhoods improved the appearance of the city.
However, this ruling established the concept that aesthetics was enough of a reason by
itself. Preservationists reinterpreted this ruling to their own cause, stating that historic
district ordinances could be established to protect older neighborhoods based solely on
the area's visual importance to the historic fabric of the city. This became the more
persuasive and pervasive argument, and the aesthetic importance of historic structures
was established by the courts.
Lower Pontalba Building: New Orleans, Louisiana, ]850-51
Vieux Carre historic district
First buildings to incorporate cast iron galleries
Reasons to Establish a Historic District
u _.I
Communities establish historic districts for a variety of reasons. Some create them simply
as a way to protect significant historic properties. Some establish historic districts as a
way to protect against a specific threat of development, while others use them to
encourage development in an older area. Some communities use historic districts as a tool
for maintaining property values, and some see historic districts as contributing to an
improved image of their community at large. The following case studies describe each of
these motives in presenting why different communities established historic districts.
Protection of Historic Properties:
Charleston, South Carolina
As described previously, Charleston, South Carolina designated the first historic district
in the United States. Its purpose was to protect a substantial section of the historic area
from further demolition. It was a very successful effort, and as a result Charleston has
one of the most beautiful historic districts in any American city.
Control New Development:
Pioneer Square: Seattle, Washington
The Pioneer Square area of Seattle, Washington was the original "Skid Row," given its
name for the inclined street where logs were skidded down to the waterside for transport
to other parts of the U.S. By the 1950s and '60s the area had become a transient
neighborhood, full of pawn shops and single room occupancy hotels. As a result of
concemover the problems of this depressed area, in 1963 the city supported a plan to
revitalize the area through the construction of new office buildings and parking
structures, and demolishing most of the older buildings in the Square.
Some citizens, however, saw beyond the deterioration of the existing buildings and
recognized the historic integrity inherent in this district. They began an effort to save the
structures by establishing a recognized historic district. They were successful both in
preventing demolition and in establishing a historic district, but they also expressed
concern about preserving this as an area of the city that would continue to service the
needs of the city's transient population. In a most unusual coalition, the city responded by
developing provisions in the city codes to encourage the single room occupancy usage to
be retained, and also in establishing social service agency offices in the area.
Pioneer Square in Seattle
Meanwhile, a few entrepreneurs purchased and began improving the deteriorating
buildings, and this spurred other development through preservation in the area. The older
buildings became desireable properties, and as a result the building valuations in the
Pioneer Square area increased 600% in less than a decade. The district has become a very
successful example of urban mixed used development.
Serve As a Development Incentive:
Manchester neighborhood: Pittsburgh, Pa.
In the 1960s the Manchester neighborhood in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
exhibited many of the signs of a dying residential area Most of the housing had
deteriorated, many homes were abandoned, and the area was slated for demolition under
the guise of urban renewal. Beneath the deterioration and neglect, however, was a
neighborhood with a good stock of well-built structures, many with distinctive design
features, in an area of the city that could be a prime residential area due to its proximity
to the downtown.
Manchester neighborhood: Pittsburgh
Arthur Ziegler, an English teacher, and James Van Trump, a local architectUral historian,
recognized Manchester's potential and decided to take action to save it. In 1964 they
established the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation to encourage others to
participate in their efforts. Through the Foundation an innovative program was
established for the Manchester neighborhood to encourage its preservation and
rehabilitation. Through discussions with the city the Foundation convinced the city's
Urban Renewal agency to become a partner in the effort, rather than an opponent.Thus
able to tap the city's resources, a program was established to sell abandoned houses to
qualified buyers for $100 to $9,000. The program established the following conditions for
their purchase.
. The city would restore the facade if the owner agreed to maintain the
restored facade for twenty years. The owner could also claim an easement
valued at 10% of the appraised value of the restored house.
. The city offered free plans and specifications for the rehabilitation
work, as well as assistance with bidding and construction supervision.
. The city made available 3% loans to owners. If the ownerOs income
was low enough, the city offered an outright grant for the rehabilitation
work.
The Foundation had convinced the City of the need for strong financial support, but the
city's unusual commitment to the neighborhood through this program was surprising.
Also surprising was the immediate success of the program. Fifty houses were sold in
three days. In the next few years, the city invested just under $500,000 in the program,
out of which more than $3 million was generated in private rehabilitation funds. But
perhaps most impressive of all was the amazing change in the appearance and vitality of
[ _ _ ----
the neighborhood that resulted. While keeping its share of rehabilitated housing available
for low income families, the neighborhood also attracted substantial numbers of more
affluent residents who appreciated the historic character of the buildings and the intown
location which made it possible for them to walk to work.
Station Square: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Under Arthur ZieglerOs continued leadership, in the mid-1970s the Pittsburgh History
and Landmarks Foundation tackled a much bigger project; Station Square. The 1901
Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad had an unused station building with an intact, lavishly
ornamented Edwardian interior surrounded by forty acres of underutilized commercial
bUildings. The complex was across the river from downtown, and although it was a short
walk most investors saw the area as having little potential. But Ziegler envisioned the
adaptive reuse of the structures into an upscale shopping area, with shops and restaurants
which traded on the historic theIIl.e and the marvelous interior spaces. He noted that
"Pittsburgh's nearest fashionable shopping district was in Manhattan, and Pittsburgh's last
tourist came in 1946.11
Station Square development (foreground): Pittsburgh
Although scoffed at by leery potential investors, the development known as Station
Square moved ahead with a $S million grant from the Allegheny Foundation and $2
million from Chuck Muer, a restauranteur who established a 500 seat restaurant in the
station's grand concourse. The project's success was immediate. Although the II experts II
had projected a maximum gross of $300,000 per year, the project instead earned $3
million in the first year, and became a very successful draw for both tourists and
Pittsburgh residents.
How has this preservation/development project benefited the community? Station Square
has turned into a genuinely reinvigorating project for Pittsburgh and an important catalyst
for similar rejuvenation schemes. As sole developer, PHLF will convert the profits into
an endowment for its revolving fund to underwrite local housing restoration for low and
moderate income families, educational programs and other preservation projects. Station
Square, furthermore, although developed by a not-for-profit organization, is paying full
taxes.
Stabilize Property Values:
Washington, D.C.
Does the establishment of a historic district inflate property values and taxes, based on
the added prestige of such designation? Or do property values drop, under the threat of
increased regulations and a loss of property rights? A number of research studies have
looked at the impact of historic districts on property values. Most of these studies have
found that the primary impact has been neither a rapid increase in property values nor a
decline. Rather, such districts have tended to stabilize property values. Dennis Gale, a
professor of urban and regional planning, looked more deeply at the question of whether
historic district status tended to price moderate income owners out of neighborhoods, and
found "little support for the argument that official recognition of the historic and
architectural merits of residential neighborhoods leads to accelerating property values."
Three historic districts in Washington, D.C. were studied, comparing tax assessments
hefo-Fe and after designation. Gale found the growth rates in tax assessments were
actually less after designation. He surmised this may have occurred because" ...fear of
limits on property use, property changes and demolition permissions may have shifted
investment activity to other neighborhoods..." A leader of the neighborhood association
feels there are benefits, however, with historic designation, such as the right to oppose
demolitions and protect an area against unwarranted and unnecessary clearance activities.
Public Relations and Promotion:
Lowell, Massachusetts
In the 19th century Lowell, Massachusetts was one of a number of cities that formed the
focus of New EnglandOs textile industry. When the textile industry moved to the lower-
costing, nonunion South in the 1920s, these cities became largely abandoned. Large,
well-built mill buildings remained, but most were vacant, and they lined the rivers as
ghosts of former times. Lowell was one of the largest of the textile towns, and as such
was hard hit by the changed economy.
Lowell, Massachusetts
Recently, preservation has been used as a tool for renewal, and Lowell now represents an
important success story. In 1978 the city's town center was designated as a 137 acre
preservation district under a National Historical Parks program. Since then, many of the
textile buildings have been restored as apartments for the elderly, a museum and tourist
center were added in an old mill building, and Lowell has traded on the history of the
textile industry as its primary historical and tourist attraction. Its historic district is not so
much an attempt to preserve a grouping of buildings as it is an attempt to preserve the
elements of an earlier local industry of tremendous national significance. As a spin-off
from this base, Lowell's downtown has been revitalized, with many new shops and
continuing renovation. The unemployment rate, which had been 13% in 1975, is now
down to a low 4%. As a result of these changes, a new industrial base has been attracted
to the city, boosting the local economy.
Much of the information available here comes from the book, Issues of Historic
Preservation, by Norman Tyler, published by Grevden Press.
Another good source of information is PreservelNet.
J ____________
The Impacts
of Historic
District
.. .
DesIgnatIon
Planning and Policy
Implications
Dennis E. Gale
The designation of historic districts in residential
neighborhoods has grown in popularity in the
United States over the past two decades. Many
planners have embraced designation policies as
tools in the management of neighborhood pres-
ervation and revitalization. However, opposition
has arisen in some cases based on the assertion
that official. designation could accelerate prop- .
etty values~ thus increasing tax liabilities and
rents and leading to rising displacement of low-
income and elderly households. Existing research
provides only a few insights into this issue. An
analysis of residential historic district designa-
tion in Washington, DC. finds little support for
the displacement threat. Further research is nec-
essary on the timing of designation and the in-
tervening effects of the federal historic preser-
vation tax credit.
Gale is professor of public policy and management at
the Edmund S. Muskie Institute of Public Affairs of the
University of Southern Maine. From 1975 to 1989 he
was a member of the urban and regional planning faculty
at George Washington Universi.ty. where he was director
of the Center for Washington Area Studies. He is the
author of Neighborhood Rel'italizatio;, and the Postindus-
trial City (Lexington Books. 1984) and Washington, D.C.:
Inner City Revitalization and Minority Suburbanization
(Temple University Press. 1987).
Journal of the American Plannin[! Association. Vol. 51. No.
3, Summer 1991. " American Planning Association,
Chicago, It.
Ever since pioneel'ing legislation was passed in
Charleston. South Carolina, in 1931 and New Orleans.
Louisiana. in 1937 the historic district technique has been
employed as a device to protect neighborhoods and areas
of historic and architectural importance. While only a
handful of communities adopted historic district ordi- .
nances in the 1940s and 1950s (Reed 1969), today there
are more than 1,200 historic districts scattered across
the United States. Furthennore. encouraging historic
districts has become a matter of national policy. The Na-
tional Historic Preservation Act of 1966 empowered the
National Park Service to create the National Register of
Historic Places. a listing oflandmarks and historic districts
considered to be of significance beyond merely local or
regional levels (Public Law 89-665).
Of course, historic district statutes vary from com-
munity to community and state to state in the stringency
of their provisions. But typically th~y. establish official
boundaries around a historic area and provide for the
creation of a commission to rule on individual applica-
tions to demolish or alter a property or to build a new
structure in the area. The commission is usually made
up of from three to ten volunteers selected by the local
government for their expertise or experience in matters
related to preservation. An appeals process is provided
for affected property owners who disagree with a com-
mission decision (Reed 1969).
The proliferation of historic districts nationwide in the
past 20 years testifies to their popularity amon,gpreser-
vationists. Historic districts vary, however, in their ef-
fectiveness at protecting historic buildings and spaces.
depending on the strength of their legislation and the
level of political support for their ideals (A Guide to De.
lineating the Edges of Historic Districts. 1976). Many
property owners and businesspersons resist passage of
such ordinances. fearing that they will be unduly re- "
stricted in using real estate located inside a district. They
worrv that thev will not be able to make desired exterior
alterations to a building or yard. that they will be pro-
hibited from demolishing a structure and replacing it with
a new one. or that they may not be allowed to change
the use of the building. as . for example. from residential
to business premises. At bottom is their concern for the
economic effects of designation (Listokin 1985).
Another concern is gennane both to property owners
and to renters. Both groups may oppose designation of
a historic district. fearing that property values will innate "
and cause municipal tax assessments to rise. Some prop-
erty owners argue that they will be burdened by steep
increases in property tax liabilities. Disabled or retired
homeowners on fixed incomes feel especially vulnerable.
Renters, fearing the indirect effects of rising assessments.
"may worry that landlords will boost rents substantially
to meet the increased costs of property taxes. In short.
the issues for these people are involuntary displacement
and excessive economic burdens.
The purpose of the present sludy is to shed light on
the effects of designation on property values in residential
neighborhoods. Not infrequ~ntly. planners. preserva.
I' . .
, ....
APA IOtJR:"AL 325 Sl:~I~IER 1991
- .- --- ~ __ _ _ J
DENNIS E, GALE
tionists, and community officials are accused of catalyzing
the displacement of low- an~ moderate-income rentel's
and homeowners and of sma~l businesses when they'sup-
port the historic designation of older neighborhoods. The
" validity of these claims isundel' scrutiny here, First, lit-
erature on property values in histol'ic districts is ciis-
cussed. Second. research on the relationship' between
historic district designation and growth in propel1y values
in Boston. New York Citv, and Chica~o is described.
Third, a case study of recent research ~in \\'ashington.
DC. is presented. Finally. the issue is discussed in light
of these findings. and their implications for planning
practice are explored,
Property Values in Historic Districts
Several authors have offered evidence to show that
property tax assessments 01' real estate sales pl'ices in
, historic districts were greater than. or accelerated more
rapidly than, those in other parts of the communit~. orin
the community at large. Most of these observations arose
in the 19605 and 197 Os. at a time when fewer residential
neighborhood historic districts existed in the nation.
Generally. these authors sought to address opposition to
designation proposals from businesspersons who made
their living from real estate or from property owners and
merchants located in neighborhoods being consigered
for such sanctions, Naturally, opponents feared that des-
ignation would hurt property values and limit their free,
dom to realize maximum return on their investments.
Preservationists often argued for the desirability of his-
toric districts by citing the alleged increases in property
values occurring in designated neighborhoods. Most of
these areas had experienced declining or stagnant values
in the post-World War II era due to disinvestment. hous-
ing abandonment. high crime rates. or other pel'llicious
influences. Therefore. price inflation in these areas.
whatever the causes, was viewed as desirable by many
observers.
Early evidence on the economic impacts of historic
district designation came from Richmond and Alexandria,
Virginia (Montague and Wrenn 1'964; Scribner 1976),
but these observations were flawed by sampling prob-
lems, such as small size and nonrandom selection, A more
systematic analysis was carried out by the District of Co-
lumbia government in the city's first residential historic
district, Georgetown. This area first began to experience
restoration and reinvestment in the 1920s (Gale 1987),
but it was not until 1950 that Georgetown was designa~ed
a local district by Congress. Only in 1967 was it listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The study
found that, between 1958 and 1967. Georgetown had
the highest rate of average annual increase in property
values, 7,15 percent. in the city (Rackham 1977).
Other case studies have examined historic districts in
Galveston and Chicago. Beaseley (1976) found ,that
property sales prices in the East End Historic Distl'ict of
Galveston were increasing at an annual average of 15'
percent (1972-76): meanwhile. pi'ices in ,a comparable
non-historic distl'icl. the South Broadwav area. rose b\'
10 percent in the same period. and those in' the city overail
by 4 percent in the shol"tcr period 1973-75. Thc Chicago
research compared changes in the median value of
ownel'-occupied housing in six historic districts fl'om
1950 to 1970 (Cohen 1983). II found that the growth l'alC
for Chicago's ownel'.occupied housing values was 58
pel'cent in this period. while live of the six histol'ic db-
u'icts expel'ienceu gl'catcl' gn1wth rate!>. The Ridge hi:..-
toric district's median values I'ose by 52 percent. and
therefore were only slightly below those of the city: the
remaining live districts ranged from 81 to 330 percent
in the rate of growth of theil' housing values. A parallel
analysis of median I'ents in the same al'eas found almost
identical patterns. Growth rates in rents werc greater
than the city's (130 pel'cent) in all historic districts except
the Ridge (117 perccntl. and I'anged from 158 to 317
percent. . " . ,
Both the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission and
'the C.S. Advisor\" Council on Historic PI'escl"\'alion ha\'c
produced reports with a bl'oader geographical sampling.
The commission found that average annual increases in
historic district propel1y values ranged from 20 percent
in Richmond's Shockoe Slip area to 104 percent in
Lynchburg's Federal Hill neighborhood (Virginia Historic
Landmarks Commission 1982). Data for nondesignated
sections of these communities were not Pl'esented. how-
ever. The advisorv council's study examined, the historic
districts in Savan~ah. Georgia. the Old Town of Alex-
andria. Virginia. and lhe Strand in Galveston. (Data from
the fourth distt'ict. Pioneer Square in Seattle. did not allow
comparisons.) The Savannah historic district experienced
an increase of 275 percent in the appraised value of se-
lected blocks in the veal's 19&5-77, In the county in which
Savannah is located. the increase was 184 percent in the
same period. Property values in the Alexandria historic
district rose almost 32 pel'cent annually from 1970 to
1977. while the citywide rate rose about 15 percent per
year. Selected blocks in Galveston's Strand historic dis"
trict. however, experienced an annual growth rate of only
about II percent from 1974 to 1977. although city values
overall rose by 28 percent per year.
These observations succeed in demonstrating that
property values in many historic districts wel'e higher 01'
rose more rapidly than those in other sections of the
communitv or in the communitv overall, And indeed.
they have 'probably been persuas"ive in allaying the fears
of many property owners and businesspersons about his-
toric district designation. However. they do not show
that the official designation itself was associated with
these disparities, Doubtless. in many di'stricts other forces
were operating in or near the designated areas; they might
include speculation in real estate. rehabilitation of hous-
ing and commercial properties, infill new construclion,
public infrastructure impl'ovements, and enhanced city
service delivery. These forces might very well have ceen
in existence befol'e designation, 'occuJ.'Ted. In short. we
cannot conclude from these data that histol'ic district
designation. per se, is I'dated,to incl'eases'in prop'ert\'
. , .
APA JOURNAL 326 SUMMER 19111
HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGl" " _ _ Iv,.
controls or the dampening of property values. Therefore.
they argue more or less the converse of property owners:
th:1t property values will rise in response to designation.
causing rent increases and hikes in real estate tax'liabil~
ities.
As this newer form of opposition has become mOl"e
intense in communities with previously designated dis-
tricts. preservationists have found themselves in the po-
sition of arguing that. while appreciation in property val-
ues occurs in historic districts. it is not due to designation.
but rather. to the effects of other economic forces. One
result is that more careful analyses have begun to emerge_
An example is a study prepared for .the Boston Rede-
velopment Authority (Engle and A vault 1973). The au-
thors examined residential property tax assessment data
for several Boston neighborhoods. The adjoining Beacon
Hill and Back Bay neighborhoods were analyzed as a
single study area. Designated a hist<?ri~ district in 1955.
Beacon Hill exerted so little innuence on the study area's
rate of growth in assessments that it was not until 1962
In recent years; as more communities have gained' ex- that assessments began to rise significantly beyond those
perience with designated residential historic districts. at- of the city overall. But designation of Back Bay in 1966
titudes among property owners and businesspersons. paralleled a sharp rise in study area assessments. Yet.
while still cautious. seem to have softened somewhat. while assessments in the study area were' higher than in
Historic districts in Boston. San Francisco. Seattle. New the city overall. the rate of growth in assessments in the
Orleans. and Charleston have demonstrated their appeal study area from 19bb to 1972 (136 percent) did not sub-
to tourists, real estate investors, preservationists. and stantially diverge from that of the city overall. .
o.tliers_R.eihvestment, property appreciation. and busi- . As for the Beacon Hill Back Bay area's relative growth
ness success have resulted. in many communities. The in assessments (383 percent) for the full .study period
rise of private reinvestment and gentrification in older (1946-72), it was exceeded by rates in Charlestown (619
inner city neighborhoods during the late 1960s and 1970s percent). the Central/North End neighborhoods (531
contributed substantially to local government designation percent). the South End (41 5 percent), and the FenwaYI
of more historic districts. But gentrification also alerted Kenmore area (458 percent). None of these neighbor-
many low- and moderate-income households. especially hoods had been designated a historic district by 1972.
minorities, to the disruptive effects that these dynamics although all had vintage building stocks. (Both Charles-
could have on their lives. Recalling the widespread op- town and the South End were designated in 1973. but
position to federa1.urban renewal clearance and reloca- data for the post-designation period were not provided
tion programs in the 1950s and 1960s. campaigns among in the study.) Therefore, although the Boston study pro-
social activists and community organizers in the 1970s vides mixed evidence of the impact of historic district
and 1980s to limit the impacts of private reinvestment designation on property values; it does not demonstrate
sought out convenient. highly visible. unitary targets at that growth rates were out of proportion to other rein-
which to direct protest efforts. Because gentrification vestment areas where no designations had occurred.
rarely proceeds by central direction, but rather. through Further insights on the historic district designation is-
the individual investment decisions of hundreds or thou- sue are available from a consultant's study of a neigh-
sands of people, identifying a protest target is usually borhood in Brooklyn (New York Landmarks Conservancy
difficult. Not surprisingly. then. historic district desig- 1977). The authors examined three sections of the Park
nation, always an action of the public sector. offered Slope district. each with differing social. economic. and
govemment as the pressure point. Thus, in some com- architectural properties. These sections were compared
munities historic district commissions. local preservation to three study areas from the adjoining nondesignated
offices, planning commissions. and other units of local portion of the Park Slope neighborhood. The authors
government have become the'targets of mobilized citi- found that. in most of the study areas. "the greatest prop-
zens' groups. erty value increases occurred prior to designation." After
Over the past decade. as historic district designations designation. "market val ues in the comparable areas. . .
have proliferated in many communities. opposition increased at roughly the same rates as those within the
among low- and moderate-income persons and small districts" (New York Landmarks Conservancy 1977). The
businesses has also mounted. Because fewer of these authors also conducted a survev of residents in the Park
people are property owners. their fears are more likely Slope historic district and found. tbat "only 15 to 25 per-
to be based on the alleged displacement effects of des- . cent of the respondents mentioned the designation as one
ignation, rather than on the rt;stric~iveness of propel.ty of the reasons for moviny ',i!1to, Park Slope..... although
values. We can conclude only that forces are at work in
many historic districts that do indeed accelerate the value
of real estate (Kupiec 1985). For example. in Alexandria's
historic district the sharpest increase in the growth rate
of property tax revenues fl'om I 949 to 1977 occurred in
197 O. when commercial revitalization began in the
downtown. This was 21 vears aftel' the district was first
established. The factors accounting for displ'oportionat~
rises in property values may 01' may not have something
to do with the official sanctioning of historic status
through the designation process (C.S. Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation 1979).
The next section presents results from a second set of
studies that share a more sophisticated approach than
those described above. Together. they provide a some-
what less elusive picture of some of the economic effects
of historic district designation.
, Designation and Property Values
. .. .'
APA IOt.:R!':AL 327 SUM~IER 1991
'.
J __
DENNIS E. GALE
many cited the appeal of the al-chitecture (~ew YOI'"
Landmarks Conservancy 1977). The study concluded that
"increases in market vaiues have resulted from a numbel'
of factors in which designation did not playa major role.
Market values cannot be directly linked to designalion
in Park Slope" (?\iew York Landmarks Consel"vancy
1977), Unfortunately. the authors' reseal"Ch methodology.
data sources. and results were not full\" descl'ibed in the
study. and thus. conclusions must I'em'ain [e~tative.
A third source of intelligence on this issue al'ises fl'om
research in Chicago (Schaeffer and Ahem 1988). One
residential neighborhood listed on the ~ational Registel'
of Historic Places and t"';o designated as local districts
wel'e examined. Housing sales data. secured fl'om the
files of a local real estate company. were used to measure
property values. Sales o\'er the period 1900 to 198b (~
= 255) were studied. (It is not clear how the sample was
selected. but it appears that it was limited to single family
housing.) Schaeffel' and Ahern found a statistically sig-
nificant increase in the rate of housing sales in the national
district. but not in the local districts. aftel" theil' I'ellpective
designation dates, To the extent that I'ising tumover in
ownership contributes to enhanced sales pl'ices.one
would expect that property values would accelel'ate after
designation. .
Pursuing this issue. the authors found that. indeed,
price increases in the national dis~l"ict were statistically
significant after designation. while those in the local dis-
tricts were not. The authors speculate that the difference
might be due to the more stringent controls imposed on
property use in the two local districts. These controls,
they reason. could have the effect of discouraging pl'Op-
erty owners and would-be buyers from investing in
housing. The National Register disu'ict. on th~ other
hand. offers buyers the prestige of property ownership
in a nationally recognized neighborhood. with few. if any.
controls influencing use and enjoyment of property.
It is not surprising that public debate over the impacts
of historic district designation in residential neighbol"
hoods has often proceeded in a cloud of confusion. The
preceding examples demonstrate that the optimistic
claims of those people sympathetic to historic designation
belie the uncertainties voiced by many low. and mod-
erate-income people and by those more concerned with
social justice, By the same token. evidence from more
objective sources is not yet sufficiently developed to sus-
tain confidence. Indeed, while research on the economic
impacts of historic district designation has taken a more
sophisticated methodological route in recent years. we
are still left with a fragmentary and inconclusive picture.
The next section attempts to contribute to a furthel'
clarification of the designation'issue by drawing on recent
research in neighborhoods in Wasl\ington. DC. In par.
ticular. the research will examine two hypotheses: that
property values in historic districts rise more rapidly aftel'
designation than befol'e and that property values rise
faster after designation in historic districts than in similar
nondesignated neighborhoods, Following this discussion.
we will reconsider the Boston. Ne,w York. and Chicago'
findings. as well as th~ \\ u!.hington studies. in :1n attempt
to synthesize a c1eal"er undcl'standing of this important
local public pulh:~ b:-uc. \q,i1c lincJings from indh'iduul
communities du nm ulillw us to generalize aCl'oss the
nation, the contrihutiun uf !'c\'cl'al studiC!i gi\'e~ us u
Hrmel' foundation fllr makin~ initial judgments about the
impact of designation;
Designation in Washington, DC
In Washington. DC, controversy has ul'isen with in-
creasing frequency u!- oldel' neighborhoods explore the
merits of histol'ic cJi~trict designation. Georgetown, the
oldest community \\ ithin Ihe capital city. was designated
in 1950. the rirstl'esic.lcntial neighbOl'hood in the capital
to be so named. .-\t Ihatlimc. however. only congressionul
approval was required, anu thel'e was little resistance to
the nct, Likewisl.', \Irr\l~iti\1I1 w~s l!1inimal to the desig-
nation of the J'csidcnli'al areas Logan Circle (] 972).
. LeDroit Pal'k (I Q74I. :II1J Capitol Hill (1976). Ry the
1970s. however. rcquil'cJ federal review by the Joint
Committee on Landmarks brought a more I'igorous pl.t)-
cess to the dcsi~nati\ln "i ncighhlwhoods, A pal'allel dc-
velopment. the pri\'atc mur'ket l'evitalization of oIdel'
neighborhoodll. a nation:.d phenomenon. had taken I'oot
in sevel'al parts of \\ ashingllln by the end of the decade.
The displacement issue rusc in salience and. with it.
questions were posed ahout the I'ole played by historic
diSU"ict designation. .\leanwhile. neighborhood gl'oups.
anxious about the sPI'cading of commercial and high
density residential development in older neighbol'hoods.
sought hisloric district stalus as a way to pl'otect the
character of theil' c(lmmunilies. It is not surprising, then,
that petitions requcslll1~ c.bignation by the lJistrict of
Columbia's Histl.lric Preservation Review Boal'd have in-
creased in the I c)80~,
The first study of the de~ignation issue in Washington
examined annual change~ in average residential sales
prices fOl' the period I 971 to 1978 in each of five resi-
dential historic districts (Samuels 1981). The districts
were Logan Circle. LeDroit Park. Capitol Hill. Anacostia.
and Dupont Circle, Samuels performed identical analysis
on five undesignated neighborhoods with otherwise
compal'able characteristicll, (fhe undesignated neigh-
borhoods-Adams Morgan. Mount Pleasant, Brookland.
Kalorama. and Takoma Park-had experienced gentri-
fication. had structures built in the nineteenth century,
and were located in the older sections of the city.) Sam-
uels found that in none of the five historic districts was
there a statistically significant difference in the growth
rate of propeny value!. relative to the non-historic dis-
tricts, Rather. she argued. it was more likely that growth
rates in property values wel'e related to the "stage" of
revitalization reached in each neighborhood, Whel'e re-
vitalization was mor'c advanced. Samuels noted. rates of
growth in value~ WCl'e lll!'{l highel'.
The Samuels slUdy rai!le~ dqubts about the assertion
that property value acceleration in historic distl'icts is
greater than that in cClmrarable. but u~c:lesignated,
I'
, \
APA IOl!RNAi 328 Sl,;~I!\lER 1991
"
HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
neighborhoods. However. it is impo,.tant to remember
that two of the live historic distl"icts in her sample were
designated in 1978. the final year of her analytical period.
Moreover. a third neighborhood ;,vas designated in 197 6~
Consequently. little time would have passed in these three
areas to allow for post-designation effects to show up in
property value growth rates. Also. it should be "emem-
bered that it is property tax assessment rates. not sales
prices. that determine property tax burdens. and the"e~
fore, the relative displacement impact of designation.
Samuels wisely chose to employ sales price data for her
study because assessment data were considered unreli-
able by most observers, As in many cities. the District
of Columbia did not undertake timely and systematic
reassessment until the mid-1970s. Thus, assessment data
throughout much of that decade were often considerably
out of date and were poor indicators of property values.
Nevertheless, Samuels's sales ptice data were less closely
tied to tax-induced displacement p"~ssures than accurate
tax assessment data would have been. hud thev been
- available, Finally. because the Samuels study. whi"ch \ya$
completed in 1981. explol'es the pre\-ious decade. an
analysis of a more recent period would complement her
results and place them in a contempol'al'Y context,
New Research on Washington:
A Case Study.
With these concerns in mind. the author examined
trends in Washington over the pel'iod I eH; to 1987. The
study compares property assessm~nt!l in three histol'ic
districts before designation with those after designation.
In addition, it compares post-designatiun trends in prop-
erty assessments in these three dislricts lO those in tl3l'ee
The Dupont Circle Historic District is characterized
by brick or stone Victorian townhouses in a panoply 0/
styles. A Metro Rail station and a popular commercial
district make the neighborhood a desirable olle lor
childless households.
Takoma Park Historic District is made up almost en-
tirely 01 single-family detached houses, -mostly of frame
construction. With a nearby Metro Rail station. this
district offers an easy commute to Washington's down-
town.
,'evitalizing neighborhoods where designation had not
taken place.
The study builds on previous research by focusing on
the issue of property values and histol'ic districts. How-
. ever. it seeks to isolate the central issue-whether the
act of designation itself affects properly values. By com-
paring post-designation values to pre-designation values
it provides c1ea,'er evidence than previous ,'esearch (with
the exception of the Schaeffer-Ahe,'n study of Chicago
::md the Samuels study of Washington) of designation's
property value impacts. Moreover. it relies on property
tax assessment data. ,'ather than sales pl"ices. as a measure
of the effect of designation on property values: as dis-
cussed above. these data provide:1 mOI'e explicit indicator
of the potentilll displacement impact of property tax li-
abilities thlln do sales prices. I
. Thus. the present study enhances llnd complements
the Schaeffer-Ahem and Samuels research by offering
insights f,"om a dirTerent data soul'ce. In addition. it pro-
vides evidence from two sets of comparisons (i.e., pl'e-
versus post-designation, and designated versus nondes-
ignated) rather than one. Finally. it gives a more recent
assessment of the designation issue in Washington than
the Samuels study: together the two studies yield a
bl'oader longitudinal perspective of the issue than either
one by itself.
The Selection of Study Neighborhoods
Thel'e were 31 histol'ic districts in the city of Wash-
ington at the time .the study was unde,.taken. Of these.
several were historic sites whollv owned bv the federal
government or were specialized "areas. such as embassy
enclaves 01' downtown commel'cial centers. Three pre-
dominantly I'esidential neighbor~o~ds-Mount Pleasant.
. KaIOl'ama. and Cleveland Po.rk-wel'e designo.ted too "e-
. .. .'
W-\ 10LR:'\:\l: 329 'SUI~IER Iqq\
! :
J _ . _ _ _ __
'\
DENNIS E. GALE
cently (1986) for post-designation analysis to be possible,
The Georgetown. Capitol Hill. LeDroit Park, and Logan
Circle districts had been designated at a time when "city
tax assessment practices were inconsistent. and data
consequently were unreliable. Among the pl"edomimintly
residential neighborhoods that remained were two des-
ignated in 1978 (Anacostia and Dupont Circle) and one
designated in 1983 (Takoma Park), These three were
chosen as the study areas. All three provided pl'opel1y
tax assessment data that benefited (I'om a reform program
in the District of Columbia after home rule took effect
in 1975 (DC Real Property Tax Revision Act 1974). un-
der reform. all properties were to be reassessed annually
and all were to be assessed at 100 percent of market
value, These policies yielded the most accurate and re-
liable measures of property assessments heretofore
available in the District of Columbia. The three neigh-
borhoods were located in geographically diverse sections
of the city (Figure 1),
Anacoslia. The home l)f lien' abolitionist. Frederick
Douglass. is a :\ational Historic'Landmark and is owned
bv the ~ational Park Sel'vice. Located in Anacostia, it
lends a powerful symhol of AfJ'o-American pride to the
area. which is generally acknowledged as the heart of
the black community of Washington, Originally settled
bv freed slaves aftet' the Ci,'il Wal'. the communit" is
home to the Anacostia !\ieighborhood Museum, a branch
of the Smithsonian Institution. Anacostia suffers from
high poverty. crime. and drug use rates and a high in-
cidence of births to unwed teenage mothers, :"onetheless.
the historic district has attracted both black and white
middle-class residents and considerable housing reno-
vation and restoration have taken place.
Dupolll Circle. Located in c1ose.~t I?roximily to down-
~.
.. ... . U.DOG'
I-
FIGURE 1: The study
areas' in Washington,
!pC; ..
APA JOURNAL 330 SUMMER 1991
"
Ii
I
I
I
HISTORIC DISTRICT; DESIGNATION
. The Adams Morgan neighborhood has residents from
several South American and African nations. as well
as black and white native-born Americans. EClectic
early twentieth-century architectural styles predominate
in townhouses and apartment structures.
,
!
town Washington. this al'ea is bisected by a populnr retail
corridor, with several restnu\'ants. pubs. nnd cafes. It is
among...the oldest and most expensive gentrified neigh-
borhuocisinWashington: nearby. many national nonprofit
organizations. embassies. chanceries, and institutional
organizations are hendquanered. The spread of office.
commercial, and institutional development into residen.
tial sections has been n major policy issue to residents.
Takoma Park. This neighborhood first developed 8S
a stop on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad line and larer
became a streetcar suburb connected to Washington's
downtown. Large single family houses. interspersed with
bungalows, characterize most of the area. Ten years ago
a relatively large black population lived here. but gen-
trification has brought a slow in-migration of white mid-
dle-class families in the years since.
Similarly, three older predominantly residential neigh-
borhoods expeJ'iencing gentrification. private reinvest-
ment, and historic preservation, but not designated his-
toric districts (at the time period covered by the study).
were also selected as control study areas. These were
the Adams Morgan. Mount Pleasant. and Brookland sec-
tions of Washington.
Adams Morgan. This enclave. dubbed the "Latin
Quarter" by some observers. is Washington's symbolic
home to thousands of Hispapic residents in the metro-
politan area. Smaller numbers of Ethiopians and Niger-
ians moved in or opened restaurants during the 1980s.
It has recently become a popular nightclub and disco
center, and draws many patrons from throughout the city
and the suburbs. a~ well as tourists. Gentrification began
in the late 1960s. when the al'ea was a center of 'Iocal
and national antiwar and social protest activity. Com-
mercial expansion is a persistent .issue. -
Mount Pleasant. Another streetcar sU9urb. this com-
The M ouirt Pleasant neighborhoOd was once a'streetcar
suburb of Washington, Both amateur and professional
renovators have transformed ilS housing slock. This
, Colonial Revival mansion, with modern addition, was
subdivided into condominiums,
munity was originlllly settled after the Civil \\.'nr by !'iew
, Englanders. mllny of whom worked for the Federal gov-
ernment as clerks. A mixture of single.family detached
and row dwellings make up most of its housiQ,g stock.
Gentrification begnn in the early 1970s and anunu-sual
coalition of middle-clnss whites and blacks labored to .
maintain a mixed rncial neighborhood throughout much
of the 19705. Hispanic households make up a small but
significant share of the population.
Brook/alld. This community is located on the same
Houses such as this Queen Anne-style Victorian are
scattered about the Brookland neighborhood and in-
termingle with brick row dwellings and small apartment
'buildings. Black moderate- anJ:1 middle-income families
and younger white professional households make up
the majority of Brookla"d's residents,
. \
"
"
~~~----------___I
APA JOUR~AL 331 SUM~IER 1991
DENNIS E. GALE
railroad line as Takoma Park and came into heing under . pl'operty value increases in the historic districts after
similal' circumstances, It is home to Catholic lJniversit\. designation woulu ~lI'cnE!then the argument thaI desig-
of America. the 1'ational Shrine of the Immaculate Cori- nation per se (anu not l-ome othel' factor) had been the
ception. the Frllnc~.sc~n !\:lonastery: and other Cath.!lli~ predo":linantjnlluence. Similarly. a consistent finding that . '.j,
organizations...Brookland is c;omposed' mostly of'.single- these increases were-significantly greater in the historic'
family frame dwellings. with scattered row and apal1ment districts, when compared to the non-historic districts.
structures, Its population is composed predominantly of would undergird the charge that designation was the pd-
blacks. but white professionals have slowly increased mary variable affecting property values,
their numbers evel' since the :Vletro Rail station opened. It should be acknowledged that the study al'eas were
Table I compal'es the three historic districts and the not randomlv selected, The reason for this is that so few
thl'ee non-historic areas. It shows that there was consid- designated a~d nondesignated revitalizing neighborhoods
erable population diversity in size. Pl'oportion of blacks, exist in Washington that the universe is simply too small
income. and educational attainment, Similarly. the hou~- for sophisticated sampling techniques. Moreover. our re-
ing stock shows substantial variety in age and" percentage suits are intended to shed light on the designation issue
of single family units, A District of Columbia govel1lment in Washington: they do not allow unqualified general-
measure of the status of displacement in 1979 indicates izations about neighhorhoods in other communities.
that the dislocation of households primarily by the forces Nevertheless. the weight of our results and those of other
of revitalization had advanced in some neighbol'hoods studies discusseu arc inlended to cltuif" some of the issue~
and was negligible in othel's. ~Ietro Rail rapid transit concerning the impacllo of historic district designation
stations exist in some neighborhaod~ and are absent in and to oITer hyplllhc...c\ Jor fUI'trrer'l"esearch. Given the
others, As Table 1 indicates. there was variety both within tentative state of policy research on this issue' at present.
historic districts and between districts and nondesignated . we feellhat OUI' I'el>ults are instructh'e fOl,the planning.
neighborhoods. The only characteristics the neighbor- design. and pl'eser'valil,n fields.
hoods shared wel'e that they wel'e all in Washington, all
primarily oldet". residential sections. and all experiencing Other Methodological Concerns
varying degrees of private mat'ket I'evitalization. Given Data on asscsl-CU valualions were acquired from the
this diversity. a consistent finding of significantly greater District or Columbia gll\'el11ment's ~Iunicipal Automateu
TABLE 1: Characteristics of the study areas
"ia With 4
or more
Median HH years 01 0001
Metro rail income as college nouSlng 0'0 single
station. %of (people structures faMily
Year Citywide age 25 built units of Status of
Study opened Population ~\, black median or older' before all units displacement
areas 1975-87 1980 1980 1979 1980 1940 (0'0) 1980 1979
Historic
districts
Anacostla No 6.394 95 78 7 19 24 Underway
Dupont Circle 1977 3.974 14 90 56 66 7 Near
complete
Takoma Parkb 1978 6.042 79 123 23 46 57 Not significant
Non-historic
Districts
Adams No 15.352 43 84 46 59 7 Near
MorganU 90 complete
(three census 105
tracts)
Mount Pleasanf No 10.012 49 87 39 45 24 Near
(two census 89 complete
tracts) 8.958
Brooklandb 1978 70 111 26 57 56 Not significant
(three census 119
tracts) 89
Citywide N.A. 638.333 70 ($16.211) 21 39 35 N.A.
a. Study area was Slightly smaller than census tract area.
b, Some data available only by census tracl
..-\p.-\ JOURNAL 3~2 SUM~IER ,l9Ql .1 '
. 1
, . '.
HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
I
I
I
/
I
r
I
I
I
I
Geographic Information System (~IAGIS). a geocoded
data file. MAGIS provided duta by,city square (i.e.. gen-
erally comparable to city blocks). and it was decided to
employ median assessed valuation as the smal1est unit
of analysis in order to maintain computing capacity within
affordable range. Furthermore. we restricted our data to
single-familYd residential properties: we reasoned that
apartment buildings and commercial and inqustrial
properties are general1y assessed by the income method.
while single family housing is assessed by the comparable
sales method. Therefore. we would not expect the former
to be as responsive as the latter to the act of designation..
Furthermore. apartment and commercial properties are
much more likely to undergo appeals under assessment
adjudication procedures. with the result that property
assessment figures for recent years in the ~tAGIS system
might subsequently be lowered. Our data item. then. was
the median assessed valuation for single-familv residential
property per city square. "" '.
The three historic district study areas were defined as
all the city squares that were 50 . percent 01' more "inside
the officially designated historic boundaries. The three
non-historic district study areas wel'e defined as al1 city
squares at least 50 percent within those census tracts
composing the three revitalizing neighborhoods. We de-
cided to examine a three-year period before designation
and a three-year period afterward for each of the des-
ignated-and undesignated neighborhoods. We wanted to
. avoid short-term variations in housing market trends that
might yield a distorted or incomplete picture. Moreover,
we wanted to allow for the possibility that designation's
effects might unfold slowly over a few years' time. rather
than immediately after historic district status had been
conferred. Thus. we rejected shorter analytical periods.
These factors. and the selection of two areas designated
in 1978 and one in 1983 determined. in turn. the total
time period over which our observations l'eached
(1975-87~ "
We computed the change in median assessed valuation
per city square before and after the designation dates for
each of the six study areas. The means of these data were
calcl,llated per study al"ea and converted to percentages.
The result was a measure of the pre- and post-designation
growth rate for each area. as well as for the city overall.
We decided to test two hypotheses to illuminate the
impact issue, The first assumes that the growth rate in
property assessments after designation in each historic
district is greater than the rate before designation. A con-
sistent pattern of higher rates of appreciation would sup-
port the charge that designation is associated with higher
property tax liabilities anetherefore with higher rents,
Alternatively, if there is no appal'ent pattern of higher
rates of appreciation af~e.r..designation. we could not con-
clude that designation had any appreciable effect on tax
burdens and therefore on tux-induced evictions or rent
increases. "
The second hypothesis assumes that post-designation
rates of appreciation in property values in historic distrlcts
are greater than those in non-historic areas. .-\ consistent
pattern of higher rates of 'gain" among historic district~"
than among the control gl'oup neighborhoods would lend
support to the argument that designation by itself. rather
than other factors associated with gentrifying areas.
is the most critical factol' in bringing about such
displacement-related events as rapidly rising rents and
property taxes. On the other hand. a consistent pattern
of more sluggish rates of gain among historic districts
than among non-historic districts-or a mixed plcture-
would tend to support an alternative hypothesis. We
would then' have to conclude that there was no evidence
that historic district designation by itself contributes sig-
nificantly to rising property values.2
Comparing the Study Areas
Figure 2 provides data on growth rates for the two
districts designated in 1978. [mmediately apparent is the
fact that there were no increases in the rate of growth
of assessments. In fact. growth !:at~s dropped by approx-
imately one-half in both districts after designation. Thus.
the experiences in Anacostia and Dupont Circle ran
counter to the predicted path. Furthermore, Figure 2
demonstrates that the rate of growth in both districts did
not sharply diverge from that in the city overall, both
before and after 1978. Anacostia's residential assessments
rose at about the same rate as those of the city before
1978. and Dupont Circle's assessments almost matched
those of the city in the post-1978 period.
Figure 3 shows data from the third historic district.
Takoma Park. which was designatedin-l~a3.-11lisex-
ample provides evidence from a more recent time period
that further enriches our conclusions. Again, the pattern
of growth rates in residential propel"ty assessments does
not correspond to the hypothesis. Rather than increasing
after designation. the growth rate declined more than 50
percent. Moreover. the trajectories of these rates compare
closely with those in the city ovel'all. Once more, thel'e
is nothing in the data to suggest that designation had any
effect on residential pl'opert)' values.
A complementary perspective is offered by comparing
the three historic districts to the three non-historic dis-
tricts. Figure 4- compares the Anacostia and Dupont Cir-
cle historic districts to the Adams Morgan and Mount
Pleasant non-historic districts. It shows that growth rates
in the non-historic districts declined. rather than in-
creased. in the post-1978 period. This pattern conforms
to those in the historic districts and in the city at large.
Figure 4 also demonstrates that there were only modest
variations in post-1978 growth rates among the four
areas. ~one diverged substantially from the correspond-
ing citywide post-1978 rate.
Figure 4 supplies us with another interesting insight.
Gl'owth rates in both of the non-historic districts before
1978 were substantially grea.ter tha~ th~s~ in the historic
districts or the city. The factors accounting for this. are
unknown. However. one speculation is that word of the
impending designations in the Anacostia and Dupont
Circle neighborhoods may haye had a dampening effect
on property values. Fear of limits on property use. prop-
erty changes, and demplition permissio.ns ma:t have
shifted investment acdvity to other neighborhoods. such
APA IOUR;-';AL 333 St.:~IMER \99\
200
180
160
140
120
% Change in
Mean Ass. Val. 100
80
60
40
20
0
DENNIS E. GALE
Anacostia
Dupont Circle
, Citywide
as Mount Pleasant and Adams Morgan, where no des-
ignations had been proposed or planned. Of course, this
argument runs counter to the entire thrust of the present
research-that designation accelerates property values.
But it also highlights the possibility that forces other than
designation, by itself, are the prime influences on rising
property values. We shall return to this issue further on.
It remains for us to compare Takoma Park, designated
in 1983, to a similar, non-historic district-in thi:s case,
the Brookland neighborhood. Figure 5 demonstrates that
% Change in
Mean Ass.
Val.
. Before
Designation
III Aller Designation
" ,
FIGURE 2: Growth rate
in assessed values in two
historic districts and city-
~de,1975-78,1978-81.
the pattern of lower. rather than higher. growth rates
after designation persisted in both areas. While growth
rates in property values throughout the city had slowed
considerably from the late 1970s to the early 19805, they
had slipped to even more modest proportions by the mid-
1980s. Nevertheless, Figure 5 makes clear that the post-
designation growth rate in the historic district did not
depart meaningfully from that in the non-historic district.
Notice, however. that the 1970s pattern of a higher pre-
"designation" growth rate in the non-historic district
~
.,
~
,l
~
~
30
25
,20
15
10
5
o
. Takoma Park
Citywide
"
APA JOURNAL 334 SUMMER 199]
fr
~
'.'
l
~
::-
"
.1
'J
. ill
,~
.;
J
~
,..
'.
~
~,
. Before Designation
III Alter Designation
FIGURE 3: Growth rate
in assessed values in his-
toric districts and city-
wide', 1981-84, 1984-
;87~
':
.Ii
.f
'P.
f:/,
~
I'
HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
250
..... ..f..- '.. "'200
0;.,
Change
in Mean 150
Ass. Val.
100
50
o
246.01
Anaeostia HD Dupont Adams Mount Citywide
CIrCle HD Morgan NHD Pleasant NHD
persisted in the 1980s. While the dilTerence in these
growth rates is very modest. the consistency of the pattern
among the six neighborhoods raises questions about the
source of economic forces anticipated by opponents of
historic district designation. In the present case. at least.
the more ex.treme shifts in property values were occuning
in the non-designated neighborhoods. In any event. fig-
ure 5 shows patterns quite consistent with those in Fig-
ure.4.
A paired comparisons t-test was pel.formed for each
of the six studv areas to determine whether decreases in
growth rates' after the designation dates. I'elative ~ to
growth rates before designation. were of a magnitude to
40
32.94
30
Mean %
Change
20
10
o
Takoma Park
1-0
Brookland . Citywide
N-O
II Before ....i:.:.. :.i.:.......;.!. . ': ,,',
Designation Date
.. After
Designation Date
FIGURE 4: Growth rate
in assessed values in his-
toric (HD) and non-
historic (NHD) districts
and citywide, 1975-78.
1978-81.
be considered statistically significant. In all three historic
districts and the three non-historic districts the declines
were found to be significant at the 0.01 level, indicating
that there was an extremely low probability that th.e de-
clines were due to chance.
. Figure 6 provides Curther insights into the differences
between the three historic and the three non~historic
areas. It graphs the decline (in percentage point"5) in the
rate of growth in property values of each area and of the
city Cor each of the two observation periods. It is apparent
tha.t two of the three historic districts, Anacostia and
Takoma Park. ex.perienced decline~ that were less drastic
than the corresponding citywide rlltes. Conversely, all
o
.
:\PA JOURNAL 135 Si..:~I~IER 1991
. Before
Designation
Date
1m After
Designation
Date
FIGURE 5: Changes in
assessed valuation in
historic (HD) and non-
historic districts (NHD)
and citywide, 1981-84,
.\1 ~84-87.
"
DENNIS E. GALE
. '. .: .~~:~'~f:
160
'140.
120
100
80
60
40
20
o
. -1 (3.503
-109.18
_75.4
%
Decline
in Mean
Ass. Val.
.15.72,
Anacostia Oupont TaI<oma Adams
HO' Circle HO' Park HO" . Morgan
NHO'
-157.89
....~<~~ji;;. '
..~. .
.... ."
. " ~~::. --
.80.46
-26,82
-18.46
Mount Brookland Citywide' Citywide"
Pleasant NHO"
NHO'
.' .
FIGURE 6: Decline in growth rate of ass'essed values in historic (HD) and non-historic (NHD)
districts and citywide, 1975-78, 1978-81 e); 1981-84. 1984-87 r.).
'~..:Io .
three of the non-historic districts suffered declines that
were greater than the counterpart citywide rates. These
data provide some support for the idea that the true in-
fluence of historic district designation may be to insulate
property values from the cyclical peaks and valleys more
common in other parts of residential Washington. In
short, it may be that historic districts are more likely to
experience a certain degree of indemnification from ex-
tremely modulating property values~ perhaps because of
a higher degree of investor confidence in these officially
recognized and protected areas. As Schaeffer and Ahem
have observed, "Historic district designation may serve
a function similar to that of a designer label; it guarantees
the quality of the merchandise, reducing the uncertainty
facing the buyer regarding the future value of the pur-
chase" (1988). "
Whatever the case. this analysis of the residential his-
toric district experience in Washington found no evidence
that historic district designation. per se, was associated
with increases in property values out of proportion to
the effects of generally prevailing economic conditions
in the city as a whole. Comparisons of pre. and post-
designation growth rates in historic districts, as well as
comparisons of these data in historic and non-historic
districts, provide no support for the argument that official
recognition of the historic and architectural merits of
residential neighborhoods leads to accelerating property
values. The fact that rates of appredation in values de-
clined in all six of the study areas at the time that they
were declining citywide demonstrates that overall eco-
nomic trends had a much more influential effect on the
areas than did designation. It is probable that the ~on-
sistent pattern of decline was related to higher mo'rtgage
interest rates and weakening consumer demand over the.
period covered by the study.3,
The Findings in the Context of t.he
Literature
A<<
'.Ii'
~~.
~
~
,
,}
~.
"
Studies in Boston, New York, and Washington, DC.
concur in their findings that no association can be iden-
tified between historic district designation and rising
property values. These studies employed pre- and post-
designation comparisons and/or comparisons between
historic and non.historic districts. However. in a study
of Chicago by Schaeffer and Ahem, one historic district.
listed on the National Register in 1977. did indeed ex-
perience statistically significant gains in housing sales
rates and sales prices after designation (1988). The two
locally designated (t 982) historic districts did not show
such pattems, though. and instead experienced statisti-
cally significant declines after designation; this finding
led the authors to speculate that the more stringent con-
trols over property usage therein dampened investor
confidence, Perhaps this is true. But an alternative ex-
planation would raise queries about the timing of the
historic designation in both of the local districts and the
national district (Samuels 1981).
Leaving aside differences in' methodological ap-
proaches among the studies cited above. the Schaeffer
and Ahern study may have produced disparate results in
the National Register-listed district if designation took
place before the area had experienced significant reha.
bilitation and restoration activity. Alternatively. if local
designation occurred in the'Two remaining ChIcago""; :;,. ....
neighborhoods substantially after renovation efforts had
commenced, prices might already have spiraled consid-
erably. At issue here is whether designation, per set con-
tributes to price/value increases 'or whether the process
of accelerated improvements in 'property-irrespective
of designation-is the primary causal factor. As most
, \
APA JOURNAL ~36 SUMMER 1991
"
HISTORIC DISTRICT QESIGNA TION
observers of historic preservation activity will agree. his-
toric district designation of a neighborho'od usually fol-
lows. rather than precedes. the point at which substantial-
growth in renova,tion occurs, If designation has any im-
" '~;':', "':';..e8:.c,~ on. property' value~ at all. th~ ~uc:stion raised here
, "IS. how far must the property rehabilItatIon cycle progress
before the effect is neutralized?
If designation occurred relatively early in the 'reno-
vation cycles of the Chicago ='iational Register district.
and in the study neighborhoods in the New '( ol'k and
two Washington studies. but relatively late in the cycles
of the Chicago locally designated districts. it is plausible
that there are no inconsistencies between the seemingly
quarrelsome results. The mere presence of this uncel'-
tainty nevertheless points the way to future research on
the property value impncts and dislocative effects of his.
toric district designation in residential neighborhoods.
While this variable is not an easy one to control. efTol'ls
~hould be made to analyze a sample of historic districts
experiencing designation at difTerent points in the prop-'
erty rehabilitation cycle. It will probably be necessary to
first conduct research on building permit issuances in
each sample neighborhood so as to establish mutually
comparable time lines around the designation date.
Regression techniques might then be employed to cor-
relate price/value growth to the stage of advancement
of renovation activit\'.
If we set aside the timing-of-designation issue. how-
ever;- there-is-little support here for the belief that des-
ignation. per se, significantly affects the economic value
of real estate. Yet, there is concurrence that the intricate
processes of rapid property turnover. speculation. al'bi-
trage, rehabilitation. and reinvestment associated wi,th
revitalizing neighborhoods and historic preservation
movements do indeed innate property values, Attempts
to direct public policy toward fostering racially. ethni-
cally. or socioeconomically mixed neighborhoods. com-
bining middle-class reinvestment with incumbent up-
grading. will have to address the more complicated nature
of property value appreciation. whether in historic dis-
tricts or nondesignated areas.
Planning Policy and the Management
of Change
The designation of historic districts in older residential
neighborhoods has proliferated throughout many parts
of the United States over the past 20 years. Indeed. the
issue highlights the "uneasy alliance" that has existed
between planners and preservationists for many years
(Birch and Roby 1984), The technique is almost univer-
sally embraced by historic preservationists. while com-
munity.pJpnners are not as uniformly: enthus!,astic. This
is because planners are' often in the position of balancing
preservation goals with competing interests and with
other economic and social objectives. Nonetheless. his-.
toric districts are viewed by many planners not only as
a device for encouraging respect for the architectural
and historic attributes of a neighborho,od. but also as a
means to stimulate property rehabilitation and commu-
nity reinvestmenl in infrasu'ucture. Raising pride in
neighborhood histol'y allJ the built environmenl often
improves resident confidence in the future of the area.
,In some, states.'rtiOde-i;i amounts of lo~i.1I, 6~'s.ral'e' f~ndim!
. .' . ~'- ~
are available to support I'ellovation and improvement
programs in historic districts. Some 10calesofTer properlY
tax incentives to encourage reinvestment in these al'eas
(Listokin 1982: Reilleluth. Reinhal'd. and Kleinhaum
1983). Furthermore. 'historic districts can inel'ease tOUI"
ism in a community. contributing to business develop-
ment. employment. income. and community reVenuel>.
In short. there is much to recommend in neighborhood
historic district designation as a policy in the management
of preservation or revitalization, While myriad testaments
to the property tax benefitll of historic districts have fueled
planner interest. the reservations of propel1y owners and
businesspersons about further J'estric"tions on pl'opel'ty
usage may raise caution, But it is sometimes possible to
ameliorate these concerns by imposing only modest hi~.
toric district controls ovel' demolition. new construction.
and exterior nlreralions. ~lol'e dilTicult to address is I'e-
sistance to presumed tax increases (and'therefore. to rent
increases) from low- and modcrate-inc<'lme homeowner~
and renters. ~lany socially conscious planners have been
loath to undertake any programs fOI' communilY im-
provement that thl'caten, the alr-eady tenuouS sultusof
these groups.
Although research on the property taximplic-atiGns-of
historic district designation leaves many quesiions un-
answered. it is fair to state that most of the results to date
do not support the view that designation is associated
with accelerated gl'owth in pl'operty assessments 01' sales
prices, On the other hand. thel'e is modest evidence that
historic districts arc more I'esistant than essentiallv iden-
tical but undesignatcd neighhorhoods to price volatility
assoCiated with "hClom and husl" cycles in real estate
market trends. This tendency. howevel'. mav be due en-
tirely to the less advanced stage of I'ehabilillition activity
reached in neighborhoods that have not yet been des-
ignated, In these nreas. it is probable that speculation
contributes to uncel'tainty about prices: in designated
neighborhoods. on the other hand. where renovation is
more likely to have progl'essed further. neaJ'-Stability in
the rate of growth in property values would lead to less
extreme swings in sales prices and therefore in property
assessments.
In managing neighbol'hood revitalization. planners
should probably view histoJ'ic districts less with caution
about designation. per se. and more with concern over
the timing of designation, The possible physicalllnd eco-
nomic benefits of histol'ic districts are abundantlv clear.
But thel'e are nagging doubts nbout whether the aQ.! of
designation should lead 01' follow reinvestmenttrend5 in
older neighborhoods possessing historic attributes, There
is great appeal to many in n policy of initiatin~ eal'ly
designation as a means to "jump 5tl1l1" pl'jvate reinvest-
menl in deteriol'uting OJ'cas. Presel'vntionists view early
designation as a way to protecrt.hi5toric chal'acter'before"
. \
.APA IOt)R~AL 337 SLi!\t!\IER I gg I
"
DENNIS ~. GALE
it is irrevocably compromised by the unsympathetic ac-
tions of property owners and ,municipal agencies. None-
theless. if timing is as critical, as suggested. planflers
. '_. would bt: w'ell a.dvised to preface designation,with alt.el"- ..
, . nativi"measures of protection. such as neighbOl'hood
plans. zoning amendments. and enhanced code enforce-
ment. Programs to enhance participation in, existing
communitywide circuit-breaker tax relief and rent relief
mechanisms might be targeted to impending historic dis-
tricts through community promotion efForts:~ Earmarking
of a portion of rising property tax revenues in designated
areas under a tax increment financing program would
raise funding to subsidize low- and moderate-income
housing resulting from revitalization-induced shortages.
Programs such as the federal Neighborhood Housing
Services provide incentives and guidance to code-
enforcement and modest property improvements without
requiring rigorous. historically accurate restoration.
There is no doubt that some of the appeal of the historic
district technique to many neighborhood and community
groups is as a surrogate for neighborhood planning. Cities
and towns that have failed to create or enforce neigh-
borhood preservation policies through carefully drawn
master plans and urban design controls have nevertheless
too quickly embraced historic districts. The controls im-
posed by historic district commissions on property altel'-
at ions. additions, and demolition provide neighborhood
groups with some of the police power authority over the
aesthetics of neighborhood environmental design usually
lacking in comprehensive community plans. zoning reg-
ulations, and subdivision and site review procedures;
Community governments, fearing judicial challenges
based on the taking issue. are often reluctant to enact
master plans with policies regulating private property on
matters of taste and design judgment. State legislators
worry that enabling legislation to give more regulato!")'
authority to such plans will challenge traditional notions
about private property rights.
Historic district regulation. on the other hand. has al-
most 60 years of legislative and judicial evolution on
which to base controls over the exterior appearance of
real property. While not invulnerable to successful legal
challenge, historic districts are based on a much more
narrowly circumscribed set of public purposes than most
local master plans. Consequently, judges and legislators
are generally less uncomfortable supporting local historic
district regulation. Politicians have frequently recognized
that historic district policies involve a more limited range
of neighborhood issues than the spectrum of concerns
raised by municipal comprehensive or neighborhood de-
velopment plans. This means that neighborhood political
consensus-or at least strong support from resident
elites-is'e'a'sier to achieve around historic disiri'ct pro-
grams. As a result, plannel"s may view historic district
designation as the only viable way to impose aesthetic
controls-thereby enhancing neighborhood I"einves,tment .
-over private propel'ty.
Finally, the timing issue has been further complicated"
by the federal historic pl'eservation tax c~edit pl"ogram .
(Andrews 1981: Oldham and JandI1983). Originally en-
acted in 1976. the law provided those who renovate eli-
gible older commel'cial propel1ies with a credit against
thei.r. f~c:I.eral inco~ 'tax, liability. This inv~'i'se. subSidy
offered terms that we~c~ liberalized in 198 i :{profferring'
even greater financial benefits. The credit was calculated
as a percentage of allowable renovation expenses for a
given project. It could be syndicated to allow several
investors to shure in the risks and tax benefits of pres.
ervation. Most importantly for our purposes. the law re-
quired that eligible pl'uperties be located in a historic
district listed on the :\ational Register of Historic Places
or eligible for such listing. This requirement enhanced
the appeal and prestige of historic district status and
spurred many communities. developers. and citizen
groups to seek designation to realize the financial. as
well as the preservation. benefits. In some communities.
it seems. the tax credit tail has cori:le 'to wag the historic
designation dog.
. Doubtless. in some cases. planners. architects, pres-
ervationists. and other community boosters. seeking tax
credit tools to spur" neighborhood revitalization, have too
eagerly pursued historic district designations. In the face
of federal budget reductions in housing. neighborhood.
community deveJopment.and historic preservation grant
programs. they have undcl"standably turned with in-
creased enthusiasm to the tax credit incentive and there~
fore the designation of eligible areas. It is riot surprising
that public controversy has heightened over the property
tax impacts of historic districts dUl"ing the t 980s. We do
not know what effect the presence of tax-credit-eligible
properties in newly designated areas has had on local
sales prices and property assessments. But it is not difficult
to imagine that in some places they have contributed to
the acceleration of property values. confusing in the
minds of I"esidems the effects of designation with the ef-
fects of the tax credit.
More recently. the passage of the 1986 federal Tax
Reform Act cooled the ardor of investors somewhat for
the tax credit program. It reduced the percentage of al-
lowable rehabilitation expenses to be credited toward
the investor's tax liability. It also lengthened the period
over which depreciation deductions must be amortized
for investment properties. thus undermining the appeal
of real estate investment in general. Finally, the law nar-
rowed the federal definition under which real estate fi-
nanciallosses could be used to reduce tax liabilities. Thus.
in the fiscal years 1983-86 about 3.000 buildings per
year had been rehabilitated under the tax credit program:
in the fiscal year ending September 30, \988. though.
slightly fewer than 1.\ 00 buildings were rehabilitated
(Downey 1988).
It may be that any distortions imposed on neighborhOOd
historic district designations by the tax credit program
are now history. especially in the shadow of federal
budget deficit l"eductions under the Bush adminisu'ation.
Altel'natively. there is always tl1e possibility that tax in-
centives for historic renovation could be increased. if not
restol'ed to earlier levels. giv'en their enormous popular-
I
APA /OUR:-':AL 338 SLJM!\-IER 1991
'.
HISTORIC DISTRICT pESIGNA TION
ity. Whatever the case. the tax credit program persists.
thus leaving the door open to u!lcertainties about its in-
fluence on the designation pt'ocess, ~lore importantly.
we .kno~ too little about the, combined effects of. early
.. designation and the presence:of tax credit properties on
pr.operty values in historic neighborhoods, These issues.
coupled with- the ,substitution of historic distri~ts fot'
neighborhood plans. are cause for concet'tl among prac-
ticing community planners, Although plannet's should
probably continue to selectively employ histor.ic desig-
nations. they should also be \'IUI1' of the blithe acceptancc
of designation without careful analyses of possible con-
sequences. The "uneasy alliance" between planners and
preservationists (Birch and Roby 1984) should persist in
being an uncomfortable one. if the broadest public in-
terests are to be served by the planning profession.
AUTHOR'S NOTE
I am indebted to the Journal's co-editol's and three anon-
ymous referees and to colleagues at the Centcl' fOt, Wash-
ington Area Studies of George \Vashington L,;niversity.
each of whom offered valuable insights on eadiet' ver-
sions of this article. Research for the article was carl'ied
out under a grant from the univet'sity's Facilitating Fund
in 1987 and 1988 and from furthel"Suppol't through the
center. I deeply appreciate the assistance 1 received, '
NOTES
I. It should be recognized that the use of property. as.
sessment and tax data bears cet'lain cautions, For'ex-
ample, in neighbot'hoods where properties change
hands only infrequently. assessors have less evidence
on which to base estimates of current values, Con-
sequently, even though demand for property may be
rising or falling, little direct measurement of sales
prices is possible and. necessarily. assessments are
more judgmentally based. Another issue is the lag
rate between sales pt'ices and assessments, In areas
with rapidly escalating or declining prices. assess-
ments may not reflect current values because valua-
tions are not conducted frequently enough. As a result.
assessments in areas with rapidly rising prices tend
to undervalue. and those in declining neighborhoods
often overvalue. real property. This second issue is
partially ameliorated by the fact that property assess-
ments-have been conducted on an annual basis in
Washington since the mid-1970s. Hence. even with'
rapidly changing price dynamics. assessments are not
as likely to lag as drastically behind cun'ent prices as
was the case when municipal I'eassessment proce-
dures in Washington (and many othel' major cities)
were less frequently carried out. FOI' a discussiol1 of
problems in the use of property assessments fot' anal.
ysis of neighbot'hood change. see Schill and Nathan
1983.38-41. A related'soul'ce'by List~kin (1982)
, ...
covers the mechanics of property tax policy in land-
, mark districts.
2. Conventional microeconomics often approaches this
type of meth~dological problem from t~e direction of
hedonil; price' theory. In such cases. the independent.
effects of several variables. including.historic desig-
nation. on prices (e.g,. property values) would be
tested. controlling fot' other variables. This approach
was rejected in the present study on pragmatic
grounds related primarily to the fact that data on other
variables were not available at the areal unit of the
city block or the unit encompassed by the historic
district boundol'ie!\. Rathel' than employ faulty mea-
surements of other variables in a quest for multivariate
,comprehensiveness. we opted for a more modest goal.
FOt' this I'eason. we are not able to dismiss the pos-
sibility that other factors. independent of designation
or intercorrel:1ted with <.Iesignaticln. 'may help to ex-
plain changes in property values. Instead, our objec-
:tive is simply to explore the relationship between the
. official act of designation and changes in property
values. Given the paucity of empirical studies on the
issue-and rising public suspicions about designa-
tions-we felt that this upproach represented a worthy
step forward, FOI' examples of alternative methodol-
ogies in analysi.s of neighborhood change see. for ex-
ample. Galster 1997. 172-224. 269-72. and Varady
1986.71-92,
3. Horne mortgage interest rates in Washington over the
study period generally renected national trends; While
annual rates rose gradually over the late 1970s, a
. modest dip in rates occurred in 1980 and 1981. During
the national rece:ssion of 1982-83, interest rates
soat'ed as high as 1 b percent in the Washington area.
A recovery. of sorts. occurred in the housing market.
beginning in 1986. by which time interest rates were
hovering between 10 and 11 percent.
4. Circuit bi'eaker programs exist in more than 35 states.
Their provisions vary from state to state, but most
provide homeowners with incomes below prescribed
limits a rebate of a portion of their annual property
tax payments, ~loreover. renters are eligible in several
states; a percentage of their rental payments is con-
,sidered part of the landlord's property tax liability and
is refunded annuallv. Thus. both low income hom"
eowners and renters may benefit from circuit breaker
programs, 1-'01' example~ in Washington, DC. elderly
low-income owners and renters are eligible. While
participation there has increased during the 1980s,
many qualiCied households are not aware of the pro-
gram and others choose not to apply.
, ~r
REFERENCES
Andrews. Gregol'Y F... ed, 1981, Tax Incentives for His,
toric Prcsen,'atiol1. \\'ashington~ DC: The Preservation
. Press, National Tl'ust for Historic Preservation.
Beaseley. Ellen. 1976, Hist9dc Districts and Neighbol'-
, ,
,.1,PA IOt.:RSAL 339 St.:\I!\IER 19q I
"
DENNIS E. GALE
hood Conservation. Galveston. Texas: 29. 88 (fable
3). 89 (fables 5 and 6).
Birch. Eugenie L.. and Douglass Roby. 1984. The Pla,nner
and the PFeservationist: An Unf;!!l,sy Alliance. Journal' .
oitheAmerican PlanningAssocialioll 50. 2: 1.94-207....0
Cohen. Michael. 1983. Historic Preservation and Public .
, Policy: The Case of Chicago. In Housing Rehabilita-
tion, edited by David Listokin. New Brunswkk. ~J:
Center for Urban Policy Research. Rutgers Univel'sity.
District of Columbia Real Property Tax Revision Act.
1974. Title VI of Public Law 93-407. .
Downey, Kirstin. 1988. Historic Projects Off Two-Thirds.
Washington Post 24 :>'lay. E 1.E2.
Engle, Robert F.. and John A vault. ] 973. Residential
Property Market Values in Boston. Boston Redevel-
opment Authority. Research Department. Boston, MA.
Gale. Dennis E. 1987. Washington. D.C. : Inner City
Revitalization and Minority Suburbanizalion. Phila-
, delphia: Temple University Press: .
Galster. George C. ] 987. Homeowners and Nei8hb.or.
hood Reinveslmel1l. Durham. NC: Duke University
Press.
A Guide to Delineating the Edges of Historic Districts.
1976. Washington. DC: The Preservation Press.
Historic Preservation Law. ] 981. New York: Practicing
Law Institute.
Kupiec. Nancy. ] 985. Changing Trends in Neighborhood
Preservation: Two Perspectives. Intersections 10: 29.
Listokin, David. 1985. Living Cities. Report of the Twen-
tieth Century Fund Task Force on Urban Preservation
Policies. New York: Priority Press Publications.
. 1982. Landmarks Preservation and the Property
Tax. New Brunswick. NJ: Center for Urban Policy Re-
search. Rutgers University.
Montague. R., and T. Wrenn. 1964. Planning for Pres-
ervation. Chicago: American Society of Planning Of.
ficials.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Public Law
89-665.
New York Landmarks Conservancy. 1971. The Impacts
of Historic District Designation. New York Landmarks
Conservancy. New York.
Oldham. Sally G.. and H. Ward Jandl. 1983. Preservation
Tax Incentives: New Investment Opportunities Under
the Economic Recovery Tax Act. Housing Relzabili.
tation. New Brunswick. !'iJ: Center for Urban Policv
Research. Rutgers University. .
Rackham. John B. 1977. Values of Residential Properties
in, Urban Historic Districts: Georgetown. Washington. ,. . 0
D.C. and Other Selected Di'Strict's. National Trust for "
Historic Preservation. Washington. DC.
Reed. Thomas J. 1969. Land Use Controls in Historic
Areas. Notre Dame Lawyer 44, 3: 394.
Reigeluth. George A.. Ray ~1. Reinhard. and James
Kleinbaum. 1983. Property Tax Relieffor Housing Re-
habilitation: Introduction and Executive Summan"
Housing Rehabilitation. New Brunswick. NJ: Center
for L"rban Policy Research. Rutgers L.;niveJ'sity. .
Samuels. Marjorie R. 1981. The Effect of Historic District
Designation to the National Register of Historic Places
on Residential Property Values in the District of Co-
lumbia. Master's thesis. Department of Urban and Re-
gional Planning. George W8:~hi.ngton linivel'sity.
Washington. DC.' .
Schaeffer. Peter \'.. and Cecily P. Ahern. 1988. Historic
Preservation and Economic Value. CBES Working Paw
per I'o. 2 (August). Denver, CO: School of Architec-
ture and Planning. l niversity of Colorado.
Scribner. David. Jr. 1 "76. Historic Districts as an Eco-
nomic Asset to Cities. The Real Estate Appraiser (May.
June): 7-12
Schill. Michael H.. and Richard P. Nathan. 1983. Revi.
talizing America's Cities: Neighborhood Reinvestment
and Displacement. Albany. NY: State University of
New York Press.
U.S. Advisorv Council on Historic Preservation. 1979.
The Contrfbution of Historic Preservation to lJrban
Revitalization. Exhibit C-8, p. C-33: exhibit A-6, p. A-
27; p. B-29: p. A-28 ,
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census.
1983. Census of Population and Housing. Washingtoll.
D.C.-Marylalld. nrginia Standard Metropolitan Sta-
tistical Areas. Census Tracts. PHC80-2-365. Sections
1 and 2.
Varady. David. 198&. Neighborhood Upgrading: ARe.
alistic Assessment. Albany. NY: State University of
New York Press.
Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. 1981. Man-
aging a Resource. Virginia Historic Landmarks Com-
mission, Richmond. VA.
, .
. I
'0
APA IOliR1\:AL 340 SlJM~IER 1991
."
~.