Does Preservation Accelerate Neighborhood Change? Examining the Impact of Historic Preservation in New York City

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: A number of studies have examined the property value impacts of historic preservation, but few have considered how preservation shapes neighborhood composition. In this study, we ask whether the designation of historic districts contributes to changes in the racial composition and socioeconomic status of New York City neighborhoods. Bringing together data on historic districts with a panel of census tracts, we study how neighborhoods change after the designation of a historic district. We find little evidence of changes in the racial composition of a neighborhood, but report a significant increase in socioeconomic status following historic designation.

Takeaway for practice: Our research offers empirical evidence on changes in the racial composition and socioeconomic status of neighborhoods following the designation of a historic district. It suggests that historic preservation can contribute to economic revitalization in urban neighborhoods, but that these changes risk making neighborhoods less accessible to lower-income residents. Planners should consider ways that the city government can work to preserve the highly valued amenities of historic neighborhoods while mitigating the potential for residential displacement.

Keywords:

• historic preservation
• neighborhood change
• gentrification

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Gerard Torrats-Espinosa for his excellent research assistance with this article.

Notes

1 In an initial comparison of neighborhoods designated as historic districts to those not designated, we find stark differences in neighborhood characteristics. In 2010, the average census tract in a district was 80% White and 9.5% Black, but the average census tract not in a historic district was only 43% White and almost 30% Black. More than 90% of residents living in tracts located in historic districts hold a college degree in 2010, compared with only 33% in tracts outside historic districts. These comparisons are between tracts with at least 75% of the parcels located within a historic district, and those tracts that do not include any parcels in a designated historic district.

2 The administrative code associated with the landmarks preservation law mandates one of the key purposes of the legislation is to "…stabilize and improve property values in the district" (Title 25: Land Use, Chapter 3: Landmarks Preservation and Historic Districts, § 25-301).

3 For additional information on the restrictions imposed on property owners, see Been et al. (in press).

4 Again, in the justification to the law, the city identified one goal to "…protect and enhance the city's attractions to tourists and visitors" (Title 25: Land Use, Chapter 3: Landmarks Preservation and Historic Districts, § 25-301).

5 Coulson and Leichenko (2004) identify 1,338 residential properties designated by the National Register of Historic Places, the Texas Historical Commission, and local preservation boards.

6 Describing the transformation of downtown Brooklyn, Kasinitz (1988) tells the story of preservation efforts in Boerum Hill, a community in the heart of brownstone Brooklyn. As they moved into the neighborhood in the 1960s, newcomers touted the historic nature of their community as a tool for neighborhood preservation, hoping that the recognition of a historic community would save their neighborhood from the shovels of urban redevelopment. Savvy about their social and political connections, Kasinitz (1988) argues that residents used historic preservation as a tool to protect their neighborhood from exogenous forces of redevelopment, suggesting that demographic shifts predated historic district designation in Boerum Hill. These early activists helped to improve the public image of Boerum Hill through the preservation process, ultimately speeding the pace of neighborhood change as homeowners replaced renters.

7 The geography of census tracts is a common proxy for neighborhoods. While block groups could allow for a more fine-grained analysis of neighborhood-level change, the Neighborhood Change Database does not include a longitudinal panel of block groups.

8 New York City includes 59 community districts in total, but only 32 of those districts include tracts located within a historic district.

9 Seven tract-years are missing, leaving a total of 4,998 for most of our regressions. For median rent, we only have data for 1980 through 2010, so the sample size is smaller.

10 Rather than controlling for average differences between tracts with parcels in historic districts and those without, which we do with the HDEver variables in our first model, the second model controls for fixed attributes of the individual census tracts themselves.

11 At the suggestion of one reviewer, we also estimate models for the total population in a tract, the population living below the poverty line, and the share of households with children. These findings corroborate the story presented in this study. We find evidence of a decline in the total population and the number of people living below the poverty line. There is a positive impact of preservation on the share of families with children for tracts with 75% of parcels in a historic district.

12 We reestimate the full set of models for the tracts located in the outer boroughs. For each of the outcomes, we find that the results are consistent with the results from the full set of tracts. We choose to show the results for Model 2, which do not include the TPost or trends variables, because these models provide a more straightforward interpretation of the impact of historic preservation on neighborhoods.