Does anyone know of any examples of when a building that has been added to the USA's National Register of Historic Places, or has become listed in the UK, or equivalent, and has had detrimental outcomes.
For example has the so call 'protection' that such designation offer caused speculators or developers not to be able to restore/reuse the building and has therefore become neglected and deteriorated.
Any links to academic papers on this sort of thing I would find interesting to read.
Peter Normand
Aug 8, 16 9:40 am
None that I can think of, in the US this is a voluntary process and comes with tax abatement and other financial incentives. There is however some writing, not scholarly, on historic districts stifling development and use, especially when the "Historic Character" excuse is used to stop development.
proto
Aug 8, 16 1:08 pm
we had a neighborhood sign up for historic status, only to have all the people get pissed when it forced them into a city zoning process every single time they wanted to change a window or modify their houses...the self-centered blue blood NIMBY who drove the bus on that one promptly sold her house and left the unsuspecting neighborhood with a financial burden they didn't have the foresight to suss out
but, as an architect, i get to bill more for an added step in the process on the way to a renovation project
mightyaa
Aug 8, 16 1:20 pm
None that I can think of, in the US this is a voluntary process and comes with tax abatement and other financial incentives
Actually, that depends on jurisdiction.
It’s a complex issue. You will always be able to find someone who says the designation was detrimental. Think of it very much like a zoning law. Someone, somewhere will argue the max height or use limiting what can be built on their site puts a cap on how much they build, thus limit generating income on that structure. The basic premise is that it is not about the property owner, it is about the community at large, the cultural heritage, and not losing it entirely. “Sense of Place”.
Most jurisdictions have essentially a non-consensual authority. Historic Districts are a prime example since most regulations require a simple majority in the US. A lot as well incorporate a “list of merit” which are non-designated structures that have been identified as significant historic structures, and have in place a non-consensual designation process identified to save the structure as sort of a last chance process. So at least with the District I ran, those merit buildings were on a redflag in the building department system and we’d be notified. That would give us the opportunity to discuss the historic significance with the owner and offer input to help try to maintain the historic character. If the owner didn’t want to, we had to make a choice whether to designate or not. BTW; that just flags the public process where the community is notified and given the opportunity to speak and give input. If the support was for saving it, that’s probably how we’d vote and pass it along to City Council where it would start another public process. (the final verdict would be the appeals board for severely stubborn owners).
As for studies; I’ve only seen the ones who show how designation helps with property values and the community at large. I’m sure though someone out there was cock blocked by the historic board from building a stucco box or parking lot and ended up ‘stuck with a building they couldn’t do anything with’. You might also find somewhere someone who couldn’t maintain the historic structure they owned and it fell into decay and/or was repossessed by the bank or had the city place a lien on the property or condemn it until it was repaired; the money pit concept.
mightyaa
Aug 8, 16 1:36 pm
we had a neighborhood sign up for historic status, only to have all the people get pissed when it forced them into a city zoning process every single time they wanted to change a window or modify their houses...the self-centered blue blood NIMBY who drove the bus on that one promptly sold her house and left the unsuspecting neighborhood with a financial burden they didn't have the foresight to suss out
We solved that one by having a staff member assigned (and trained) and defining minor and major modifications within a historic district designation (individual designation would always have to run through the board). So a window replacement (roof, paint, and other maintenance type repairs) in a district would just have to go through administrative review as part of the building department permit package. That cut down a lengthy public posting / hearing process to a few days versus 2 months.
Even if it went to the Board, we had administrative versus public process for minor repairs and upkeep. Oh, and there are benefits to going through the Board; We had grant money available to distribute so we might pick up half the bill.
gruen
Aug 8, 16 7:34 pm
Currently dealing w historic designation on a ratty 1945 vinyl sided 2 bed ranch home. It's delaying construction at least 6 months and for a building w no character.
mightyaa
Aug 8, 16 8:18 pm
Don't know enough to help... We had issues with the time thing, particularly on the ones that required public notice. We did what we could, but had a nasty time trying to modify the codes in the political climate where folks don't trust the government and won't give them that authority to make decisions on behalf of the public. So the lengthy processes with lots of public input stayed instead of trusting someone to just make a administrative decision or trust the appointed group to make decisions without a lot of checks and balances: 6 months wasn't abnormal if you were doing much more than we could squeeze under 'maintenance' or 'repair' exclusions.
And you were really screwed if your property pre-dated the ordinance; We have several "historic easements". Basically, think planned development process with several extra layers of review built in. A year or more being pushed in front of one hearing after another, not because there are objections, but because that is what we're forced to do by the codes adopted. (see above for why we couldn't do squat about changing the outdated language and code).
Put it this way; it took us years to write the ordinance, another 4 years do the public education, and a strong year of grassroots campaigning and public presentations to every group around to get the ordinance finalized as well as begging and pleading for agency funding to support this (as well as forming business and political alliances to assist) . That was 6 years of my life and I didn't even start the task. It was a decade from inception to law. Having been through it, I have a whole new level of understanding why zoning codes and the process looks like it does and why the government is so screwed...
awaiting_deletion
Aug 9, 16 7:08 am
search New York City Landmarks Preservation Commision. they are city designated and often if facade or storefront they overide building code changes, like making an ADA entrance. it gets convulted sometimes.
Does anyone know of any examples of when a building that has been added to the USA's National Register of Historic Places, or has become listed in the UK, or equivalent, and has had detrimental outcomes.
For example has the so call 'protection' that such designation offer caused speculators or developers not to be able to restore/reuse the building and has therefore become neglected and deteriorated.
Any links to academic papers on this sort of thing I would find interesting to read.
None that I can think of, in the US this is a voluntary process and comes with tax abatement and other financial incentives. There is however some writing, not scholarly, on historic districts stifling development and use, especially when the "Historic Character" excuse is used to stop development.
we had a neighborhood sign up for historic status, only to have all the people get pissed when it forced them into a city zoning process every single time they wanted to change a window or modify their houses...the self-centered blue blood NIMBY who drove the bus on that one promptly sold her house and left the unsuspecting neighborhood with a financial burden they didn't have the foresight to suss out
but, as an architect, i get to bill more for an added step in the process on the way to a renovation project
None that I can think of, in the US this is a voluntary process and comes with tax abatement and other financial incentives
Actually, that depends on jurisdiction.
It’s a complex issue. You will always be able to find someone who says the designation was detrimental. Think of it very much like a zoning law. Someone, somewhere will argue the max height or use limiting what can be built on their site puts a cap on how much they build, thus limit generating income on that structure. The basic premise is that it is not about the property owner, it is about the community at large, the cultural heritage, and not losing it entirely. “Sense of Place”.
Most jurisdictions have essentially a non-consensual authority. Historic Districts are a prime example since most regulations require a simple majority in the US. A lot as well incorporate a “list of merit” which are non-designated structures that have been identified as significant historic structures, and have in place a non-consensual designation process identified to save the structure as sort of a last chance process. So at least with the District I ran, those merit buildings were on a redflag in the building department system and we’d be notified. That would give us the opportunity to discuss the historic significance with the owner and offer input to help try to maintain the historic character. If the owner didn’t want to, we had to make a choice whether to designate or not. BTW; that just flags the public process where the community is notified and given the opportunity to speak and give input. If the support was for saving it, that’s probably how we’d vote and pass it along to City Council where it would start another public process. (the final verdict would be the appeals board for severely stubborn owners).
As for studies; I’ve only seen the ones who show how designation helps with property values and the community at large. I’m sure though someone out there was cock blocked by the historic board from building a stucco box or parking lot and ended up ‘stuck with a building they couldn’t do anything with’. You might also find somewhere someone who couldn’t maintain the historic structure they owned and it fell into decay and/or was repossessed by the bank or had the city place a lien on the property or condemn it until it was repaired; the money pit concept.
we had a neighborhood sign up for historic status, only to have all the people get pissed when it forced them into a city zoning process every single time they wanted to change a window or modify their houses...the self-centered blue blood NIMBY who drove the bus on that one promptly sold her house and left the unsuspecting neighborhood with a financial burden they didn't have the foresight to suss out
We solved that one by having a staff member assigned (and trained) and defining minor and major modifications within a historic district designation (individual designation would always have to run through the board). So a window replacement (roof, paint, and other maintenance type repairs) in a district would just have to go through administrative review as part of the building department permit package. That cut down a lengthy public posting / hearing process to a few days versus 2 months.
Even if it went to the Board, we had administrative versus public process for minor repairs and upkeep. Oh, and there are benefits to going through the Board; We had grant money available to distribute so we might pick up half the bill.
Currently dealing w historic designation on a ratty 1945 vinyl sided 2 bed ranch home. It's delaying construction at least 6 months and for a building w no character.
Don't know enough to help... We had issues with the time thing, particularly on the ones that required public notice. We did what we could, but had a nasty time trying to modify the codes in the political climate where folks don't trust the government and won't give them that authority to make decisions on behalf of the public. So the lengthy processes with lots of public input stayed instead of trusting someone to just make a administrative decision or trust the appointed group to make decisions without a lot of checks and balances: 6 months wasn't abnormal if you were doing much more than we could squeeze under 'maintenance' or 'repair' exclusions.
And you were really screwed if your property pre-dated the ordinance; We have several "historic easements". Basically, think planned development process with several extra layers of review built in. A year or more being pushed in front of one hearing after another, not because there are objections, but because that is what we're forced to do by the codes adopted. (see above for why we couldn't do squat about changing the outdated language and code).
Put it this way; it took us years to write the ordinance, another 4 years do the public education, and a strong year of grassroots campaigning and public presentations to every group around to get the ordinance finalized as well as begging and pleading for agency funding to support this (as well as forming business and political alliances to assist) . That was 6 years of my life and I didn't even start the task. It was a decade from inception to law. Having been through it, I have a whole new level of understanding why zoning codes and the process looks like it does and why the government is so screwed...
search New York City Landmarks Preservation Commision. they are city designated and often if facade or storefront they overide building code changes, like making an ADA entrance. it gets convulted sometimes.