Uncovering the Relationship Between Historic Districts and Same-Sex Households

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Despite established connections between the LGBTQ community and historic preservation, there is no analysis of unmarried partnered same-sex households (UPSSHs) and historic districts. Here we investigate the relationship between locally designated and National Register historic districts and demographic, socioeconomic, and housing changes—specifically, UPSSHs, racial and ethnic subgroups, and median household income—in 46 U.S. cities. Although the U.S. Census data capturing UPSSHs are time limited and only capture one segment of the broader LGBTQ community, they are the best available national data. We find significant growth in the share of male UPSSHs from 2000 to 2010 in census tracts where historic districts were established during the 1990s. Tracts with higher shares of male UPSSHs in 2000 are more likely to establish locally designated historic districts from 2000 to 2010. Finally, we also find evidence that historic districts are significantly related to later changes in race, ethnicity, and median household income.

Takeaway for practice: The results indicate that historic districts can help grow the presence of UPSSHs, one segment of the broader LGBTQ community. Planners concerned with protecting queer spaces should consider incorporating preservation-based approaches. The presence of male UPSSHs increases the likelihood of locally designated historic districts, and preservation planners should work to ensure LGBTQ social histories are included in new designations where appropriate. Our findings also suggest losses of racial and ethnic subgroups and increasing median household income after designation, indicating the need for proactive efforts from planners and preservations to help protect existing vulnerable residents. The timing of these changes is not the same for all variables; thus, planners should focus attention on both short- and long-term shifts in historic districts.

Keywords:

• historic districts
• neighborhood change
• same-sex households

View correction statement:

Correction

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1834799).

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Supplemental data for this article can be found on the publisher’s website.

Notes

1 NRHD estimate through April 2019, federal listings (NPS, 2019a).

2 For instance, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (NPS, 2019c). Less rigorous standards are usually applied for noncontributing buildings within historic districts.

3 For instance, in Los Angeles (CA), nominations for locally designated historic districts usually originate with residents working through their councilperson. Local officials can initiate the process, or community members can submit a formal application with signatures of 75% of owners/renters within the district (Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, 2019). Notably, the local designation process in Los Angeles differs from the NRHD process, which only considers property owners.

4 With different oppression and socialization processes, research shows that the spatial concentrations of lesbians differ from those of gay men (Adler & Brenner, 1992; Forsyth, 1997).

5 For instance, Hamer (1998) explains “[a] significant category of historic districts consist of 19th century suburbs that were developed for affluent residents” (p. 55).

6 The city fixed effect is operationalized as a dummy variable for each city, which equals 1 for tracts in that city and 0 for tracts not in that city, and effectively allows the regression line to have a different intercept term for each city.

7 The Great Recession started in Q4, 2007, and ended in Q2, 2009 (National Bureau of Economic Research, n.d.).

8 Results from this model are presented as odds ratios, which indicate how the odds of historic district creation change as the explanatory variables change.

9 Some observations might include missing values on one or more variables. These are excluded from the analysis.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kelly L. Kinahan

KELLY L. KINAHAN, AICP ([email protected]), and MATTHEW H. RUTHER ([email protected]) are faculty in the Department of Urban & Public Affairs at the University of Louisville.

Matthew H. Ruther

KELLY L. KINAHAN, AICP ([email protected]), and MATTHEW H. RUTHER ([email protected]) are faculty in the Department of Urban & Public Affairs at the University of Louisville.