Urban Preservation: A Community and Economic Development Perspective

Preserving urban historic resources has a long history within preservation practice, dating to earlyefforts in Boston (Holleran, 2001), New York (Mason, 2004, 2009), Charleston (Weyeneth, 2000;Yuhl, 2005), and beyond. Over the course of the twentieth century, urban preservation initiatives attimes found synergies with broader urban planning efforts (Greenfield, 2004; Ryberg, 2013a), whilealso functioning as a counter-narrative in the face of large-scale demolition typically associated withurban renewal and mid-century highway building. By the end of the twentieth century, cities acrossthe country were engaging in local community and economic development (CED) efforts to build,strengthen, and revitalize neighborhoods and downtown districts in the wake of ongoing federaldevolution and shifting urban development and planning theories that prioritize grassroots processes, citizen engagement, and tailored strategies responding to micro-conditions. At the same time,municipal preservation practice grew exponentially after the passage of the 1966 National HistoricPreservation Act and the creation of the National Register of Historic Places, which established afederal precedent for designating both individual buildings and entire historic districts. Cities acrossthe country, including Cleveland, formed local preservation commissions to identify, designate, andregulate the change of important historic resources.Today, these two broad areas of practice – urban preservation and community/economicdevelopment – co-exist within the space of older and historic neighborhoods. While the intersections of preservation with CED practice in the field are nuanced, vary place-by-place, and shift overtime, recent literature emanating from both scholarly research and preservation practice arguesthat preservation can and should play a prominent role in furthering CED goals in neighborhoodsand cities around the United States. The most prominent arguments highlight positive economicoutcomes including job creation, increased tax revenue, and stabilized or improved property values,an important goal for legacy cities such as Cleveland and a cautionary note for high-growth cities facing rapid price increases and gentrification pressure. The purported benefits of preservationfrom within the field can be broad and lofty at times. For instance, a 2001 report completed forthe Advisory Council on Historic Preservation begins with the broad claim: “historic preservationhas become a fundamental tool for strengthening American communities” (Rypkema, Cheong &Mason, 2011). Specifically, the report states, preservation contributes to core economic and community development goals including “small business incubation, affordable housing, sustainabledevelopment, neighborhood stabilization, center city revitalization, job creation, promotion ofthe arts and culture, small town renewal, heritage tourism, economic development, and others”(Rypkema, Cheong & Mason, 2011)