Mary is too reluctant to toot her own horn, so on behalf of the queen of
forwarding, I leaf those of you not participating on P-L these thoughts to
ponder:

In a message dated 5/14/98 7:29:39 PM EST, Donovan Rypkema writes:

>Well, Mary, you may "wonder...." but: 1) no one I know suggests that the
>economic arguments for historic preservation are anywhere near the top of the
>reasons for its importance, although 2) it has been the corresponding
economic
>benefit that has, more than anything else dramatically broadened the historic
>preservation movement beyond local history mavens and interior decorators.

The
>reality is that those most able to influence the possibility of preservation
>taking place for ALL of its merits (elected officials, bankers, property
>owners, business owners, Realtors) are generally most actuated -- at least
>initially -- by the economic arguments.
>
>Historic buildings are torn down not because some decision maker hates
history
>or even aesthetic quality; they are torn down because the decision maker
>didn't understand the economic opportunity the building might have
>represented.
>>
>So to try to be helpful to B. Lufkin, in Utah, a million dollars of
>rehabilitation expenditure will create 7.7 more jobs than a million
>dollars of new construction and add $122,700 more to local household incomes
than a million dollars of new construction.  If the question had been about
what
> to talk about at the organization's annual session for architectural
>historians perhaps a critique of the quality of the Corinthian capitals would
be the
>appropriate focus. Since it is for local business leaders talking about the
> economic impacts of historic preservation, I might suggest that jobs and
>income are a more appropriate discussion than the more ephemeral benefits
>of historic preservation.

Mary replies:

Intangible, perhaps; not ephemeral. There are many good economic arguments for
the preservation and reuse of older and historic buildings: jobs, preservation
of resources, tourism, fostering of incubator industries, creation of
affordable housing, etc., etc.  Recent studies have performed an enormous
service for preservationists who in the past lacked the hard numbers and
methodology to prove to the business community just how valuable in dollar
terms preservation efforts are to the American economy.

We need to know the numbers ... they are powerful stuff. But that's not all
there is.  There are intangible benefits that flow from preservation of
historic buildings and sites that are not easily quantified, but that doesn't
make them any less important. Saying that economic benefits is "not at the top
of the list" as far as reasons for preservation go may be true for those
already committed to HP, but preservationists have focused great attention on
those issues over the past several years, perhaps to the exclusion of other
issues -- intangible benefits -- that are also important.

I spend a lot of time talking about economic benefits, and have run into a
number of responses that override a strict economic approach.  When I showed
the impressive results of the Knoxville Knox County study -- 157% increase in
sf selling price -- to a community leader of an ethnic, deteriorating, NR
eligible neighborhood (a natural ally under the affordable housing rubric) her
response was:  "When you show me figures like that, it means that my people
are out of here and wealthier people are in. We couldn't afford to live here
anymore." When the studies were offered to bolster support for local landmark
regulation, property rights advocates challenged the methodologies and
dismissed the findings as "inapplicable" to the unique market conditions of
that community. And the economics of rehabilitation had very little to do with
a decision to put a rail link through the middle of a low-income, ethnic, NR
district. There the greater good of mass transit and an anticipated increase
in property values along the preexisting line made the economic arguments
about job creation and rehab investment of comparatively small consequence.

Disney would have built 3 theme parks by now in Manassas if something else
hadn't made the site more valuable "empty" than full -- and it probably would
have generated a lot more revenue and created a lot more jobs than the Park
Service. New Jersey's farmlands are being overrun by sprawling housing
developments and regional shopping malls, its rural roads widened right up to
the front doors of the houses in early 19th C. hamlets, its historic truss
bridges replaced with concrete and steel that "meet or exceed AASHTO
standards."

And it's a lot more profitable -- at least for some -- to do that than
preserve the hamlets and the fields. Yet, there are many towns in NJ that are
imposing additional taxes on themselves to buy up vacant land to keep it from
developers, and keep their historic towns small and intact.

That is not the profit motive, that is something else.  There is an intangible
value to keeping a village a village and preserving historic truss bridges
that doesn't show up on the spreadsheets as "jobs" or "rehab investment."
This is about quality of life. This is about shared values.

Without knowing whether the "business audience" is from a rural area
overwhelmed by sprawl, a suburban town, or an urban area, I don't think you
can give pat answers.  You have to analyze what's going on in each location.
What are the threats to preservation and "livable communities" -- real and
perceived -- in that area? What appear to be the shared values? What's
important to each community?  What's important to the American culture as a
whole?

I don't think it is just dollars. And I am not sure that the business and
banking community is going to buy these economic arguments without something
more. People who connect with these historic buildings need to sit on their
desks or stand up in the Council chambers, planning board sessions, and state
legislatures and say that these buildings are important to them. Economic
arguments are important and necessary, but they are only part of the story.
These buildings are more than just another capital asset.

Mary Krugman