Thank you again Mary.  Although I am well versed on the "intangibles" I lack
most of the hard economic stuff to which you refer.  Could you send a list
of some of the studies (such as Knox).
The subjects of gentrification and post-affordable neighborhoods and the
issues of standards of rehabilitation that not only increase annual
maintenance costs and construction costs are prickly indeed.  The other side
of the coin is equally difficult: taste.  "Look, vinyl not only is cheaper,
the windows less drafty, no painting is needed and financing terms
available, but best of all it looks better and tastes great (or at least
better than lead)."

Yours Truly,

Leland
-----Original Message-----
From: MDK10 (by way of Dan Becker) <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 12:59 PM
Subject: Economics of Preservation - Reply


>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