The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development

Abstract

Historic preservation contributes greatly to housing and economic development. Historic preservation has produced almost 250,000 housing units through use of the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit. Additionally, heritage tourism is a multibillion-dollar industry, and preservation projects help further community revitalization.Historic preservation also has a downside. Preservation's growing popularity may dilute its imperative and market prowess, and some argue it is used to thwart new development. Preservation requirements may impede affordable housing production and displace area residents. These undesirable consequences are not givens, however. Preservationists are working to become more flexible, and we suggest ways to practice historic preservation while mitigating some of its negative consequences-for example, tax credit changes, more flexible building codes, and a ''tiered'' system of designating historic properties at varying levels of significance.

Gauging the Relationship between Contextual Growth and Structural Neglect

“…Therefore, the examination of the individual structure and its dynamic setting must occur if neglect can be fully understood. (Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998;Pickerill & Armitage, 2009). The shift toward a more dynamic management of historic structures must focus on adaptive reuse, rehabilitation, and land use management.…”

Urban regeneration, retail development and the role of information and communication technologies

“…The paper discusses earlier that previous Americans' urban planning have tended to focus on physical and economic enhancements without considering of existing environments. Little attention has been given to respect socio-historical assets under redevelopment of urban spaces (Khakee & Strömberg, 1993;Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998); for instance, economic-oriented urban policies do not consider relocation of exiting residents. In addition, tourism planning disrespect the value of historic sites to develop more tourist-attracted places (Timothy, 1997).…”

The Smart Growth Implications of the Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance

“…Building reuse has been considered an effective tool in supporting smart growth initiatives that lower the demand for suburban development, such as inner-city revitalization (Ryberg-Webster & Kinahan, 2013;Birch & Roby, 1984, pp. 199-204;Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998;Frey & Bowdon, 2012).…”

“…216-217;Birch & Roby, 1984;Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998;Laurie, 2008). Furthermore, historic preservation offers intrinsic social benefits to communities because of the retention of local heritage (Yung & Chan, 2012, p. 355;Ryberg-Webster & Kinahan, 2013;Barthel-Bouchier, 2013;Bullen & Love, 2010, p. 216;Frey & Bowdon, 2012;Langston, 2008).…”

“…454-455). Listokin, Listokin and Lahr (1998) argue that historic preservation contributes to urban revitalization largely because of heritage tourism, which helps to spurs economic development (pp.440-444, 451-459). In addition, it has been documented that historic preservation helps to stimulate the local economy more than new construction, because the labor and materials required for restoration and rehabilitation tend to come from local sources (Gilderbloom, Hanka, & Ambrosius, 2009, p. 85;Frey & Bowdon, 2012, p. 4;Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998, p. 444;Shipley, Utz, & Parsons, 2006, pp.…”