NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: AN ASSESSMENT OF TYPOLOGIES, EFFECTIVENESS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Preservation COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees Master of Science in Historic Preservation and Master of Science in Urban Planning

By

Max Abraham Yeston

May 2014

NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: AN ASSESSMENT OF TYPOLOGIES, EFFECTIVENESS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE

Thesis Advisors: Carol Clark, Historic Preservation Clara Irazábal, Urban Planning

ABSTRACT:

Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs), a preservation planning tool, have proven to be a valuable approach to neighborhood preservation, and are expanding in their scope. This is significant to planning since it is a land use device intended to combat market pressures in many cases by preventing out-of-scale luxury housing. The strategy gives communities the opportunity to have a more active say in how their neighborhoods are shaped without having the physical identity of their surroundings be determined by market-based, Euclidean zoning, and without the sometimes more onerous rules of historic districts. From a preservation standpoint, an NCD is appropriate for neighborhoods that might not merit traditional historic designation, either because the building stock is not old enough, or the original built fabric has been compromised by extensive alterations. There are three basic types of NCD: the historic preservation model, which uses preservation-based design review processes and guidelines, and the neighborhood planning model, which relies more on zoning techniques and is often part of a comprehensive plan. The third ‘hybrid’ type gives individual districts the ability to choose the degree of design review. Building on previous studies that have taken a comprehensive look at the wide range of NCDs throughout the U.S., this thesis takes a deeper, more focused look at examples in three cities (Cambridge, Massachusetts; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), each with different criteria and design regulations. In this current assessment of how specific NCDs are performing now, the basic thesis questions are: are some NCDs meeting their self-expressed and explicit goals better than others? How do different standards of design review perform in different NCDs, and how do various community stakeholders view the effects of regulations (intended and unintended)? Through examining the views of various stakeholders on the ordinances against the language and intent of the laws themselves, the thesis evaluated whether NCDs are viewed as an effective preservation tool for areas that might not fit full historic designation requirements. Additionally, by taking into account the demographic and economic data for these particular neighborhoods, in combination with participants’ views, the study assesses any unintentional impacts of the different ordinances, and ascertains whether there is any room for improvement. It was discovered that officials and administrators had a more favorable view than residents. While it was assumed that property owners would be more receptive to planning-oriented conservation districts since there is typically less regulation of construction activities, the opposite turned out to be true, and homeowners in less regulated NCDs wanted more review.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first and foremost like to thank my two advisors, Carol Clark and Clara Irazábal, for their guidance and encouragement throughout this entire process. Through their insights, my perspective on how historic preservation and urban planning intersect has only been enriched. I would also like to thank my readers, Stacey Sutton and Jennifer Most, for their valuable input.

I would like to thank the staff of the Cambridge Historical Commission, Philadelphia City Planning Commission, and Raleigh Department of City Planning for generously offering me their time to share their perspectives on this significant land use tool. Additionally, I wish to thank all the residents in Avon Hill, Queen Village, and Cameron Park who generously volunteered their time and knowledge as well.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their constant and unending love and support, and for giving me the opportunity to pursue my education and life goals.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1

Background………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Scholarship on Neighborhood Conservation Districts ……………………………………………9

Research Design …………………………………………………………………………………14

Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA………………………………………………………………..17

Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA…………………………………………………………..27

Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC……………………………………………………………..41

Findings and Recommendations…………………………………………………………………53

Illustrations………………………………………………………………………………………60

Appendix A: Interview Questions……………………………………………………………….79

Appendix B: Neighborhood Composite Data……………………………………………………81

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..84

iv M. Yeston

INTRODUCTION

This thesis addresses a particular historic preservation planning tool known as the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD). The American conception of historic preservation has gradually expanded from individual buildings to character-defining Historic Districts (HDs), the first of which was enacted in Charleston in 1931.1 Starting in Boston in 1975,2 and expanding to 96 cities in 34 states by 2011,3 the regulation became used as a less strict form of HD. NCDs, a preservation planning tool, have proven to be a valuable approach to neighborhood preservation, and are expanding in their scope. This is significant to planning since it is a land use device intended to combat market pressures in many cases by preventing out-of-scale luxury housing. The strategy gives communities the opportunity to have a more active say in how their neighborhoods are shaped without having the physical identity of their surroundings be determined by market-based, Euclidean zoning, and without the sometimes more onerous rules of historic districts. The number of municipalities with NCDs has increased dramatically over the past two decades in reaction to what is referred to as “the Teardown Trend” Ð the practice of demolishing a small house on a valuable lot and supplanting it with a significantly bulkier home.4 The result is oversized houses that distort a neighborhood’s architectural character, reduce livability, and decrease an area’s economic and social diversity.5 When bigger houses are built to the lot lines, side and rear yards are filled in, landscaping and trees are removed, and the large homes cast permanent shadows onto neighboring properties, diminishing their value. Side and rear garages, which keep a street more social and pedestrian- oriented, are lost in favor of automobile-oriented frontal garages, which present a less social streetscape.6 Most significantly, Teardowns reduce the number of modest, affordable units that

1 Rachel S. Cox, Design Review in Historic Districts (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2003) 1. 2 Julia Miller, Protecting Older Neighborhoods Through Conservation District Programs (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2004) 22, in Jennifer L. Most, Neighborhood Conservation Policies: Protecting Communities From Teardowns and Other Threats to Neighborhood Conservation (New York: Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, May 2005) 59. 3 Jessie McClurg, Alternative Forms of Historic Designation: A Study of Neighborhood Conservation Districts in the United States (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 2011) 63-73, accessed August 17, 2013, http://www.cura.umn.edu/sites/cura.advantagelabs.com/files/content-docs/CD_Reporter_Final.pdf. The 16 states listed as having no NCD ordinances are Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont. 4 Adrian Scott Fine and Jim Lindberg, Protecting America’s Historic Neighborhoods: Taming the Teardown Trend (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2002) 1. George James, “McMansions or Bash-and- Builds, Some Towns Have Had Enough,” The New York Times (May 8, 2005), accessed October 17, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/nyregion/08njCOVER.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Anna Bogdanowicz, “Anti-McMansion Rules Shot Down in Westfield,” New Jersey Real Estate Report (May 30, 2006), http://njrereport.com/index.php/2006/05/30/anti-mcmansion-rules-shot-down-in-westfield/. Sarah Portlock, “McMansions swell the real estate market as homebuyers think small,” The Star-Ledger (November 13, 2011), accessed October 17, 2013, http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2011/11/mcmansions_swell_the_real_east.html. Matt Hickman, “Revenge of the McMansion: Homebuyers bounce back to big,” Mother Nature Network (June 5, 2013), accessed September 10, 2013, http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/revenge-of-the-mcmansion- homebuyers-bounce-back-to-big?hpt=hp_bn18. 5 Fine and Lindberg, Taming the Teardown Trend, 3. 6 Fine and Lindberg, Taming the Teardown Trend, 5.

1 M. Yeston enable young families to own their first homes, or allow seniors to live on a fixed income. Although there is a short-term rise in property values and taxes that comes with Teardowns and replacements, the overall increased values have the potential to displace moderate-income families and senior citizens. One psychological effect this can have is giving neighborhood residents the feeling that developers have wrested control from the community.7 NCDs are enacted to retain an area’s affordability by keeping so-called “McMansions” at bay, to maintain its established quality of life by reducing shadows created by large houses, to safeguard its pedestrian character, to secure its historical and architectural heritage for future generations, and to place more control of growth management in the hands of affected residents. The importance of how an NCD can contribute to a community’s physical sense of place can be inferred in Kevin Lynch’s seminal work, The Image of the City (1960). In his attempt to interpret the “visual form”8 of various American cities, Lynch determines five physical elements that can define the city’s image: path, landmark, edge, node and district.9 These aspects are crucial to forming a city’s “legibility” its citizens possess.10 Clear, readable physical settings can serve as a frame of reference, can store the collective memories of a community, and provide a sense of continuity and security.11 Lynch describes the “district” element, in the basic sense, as having a homogenous character that is revealed by “clues” both visible in the district and not present outside of it. A district’s distinctive quality can be determined by spatial characteristics (such as the narrow, steep streets in Boston’s Beacon Hill), building types (the row houses in Boston’s South End), or a building feature (the white stoops in Baltimore).12 An NCD is a manifestation of a community that wishes to maintain a sense of local spatial familiarity and legibility, whether this stems from an area’s physicality, street layout, building scale, or a shared sense of identity and history. From a historic preservation standpoint, the tool is meant to safeguard streetscapes or built patterns under threat from incompatible development or zoning policies that promote such development. An NCD is appropriate for neighborhoods that might not merit traditional historic designation, either because the building stock is not old enough, or the original built fabric has been compromised by extensive alterations. In an NCD, there is not as much intensive regulation of materials, paint color or other detailing, and the focus is typically on regulating a building’s height, bulk, lot coverage, orientation, and general shape. Another distinction from HDs is that in order to get off the ground, many NCDs have to be initiated by a majority of property owners, who then devise the regulations for their particular neighborhood in conjunction with local planning or preservation staff. In some cases, if 51% of property owners residing in the potential district disapprove of the plan, it does not go forward, whereas legally, no consent from property owners is required for HD designation. Some NCDs employ preservation-based design review processes and guidelines, while others rely more on zoning techniques and is part of a comprehensive neighborhood plan. Although previous scholarship has focused on the scope, strengths, and weaknesses of NCDs, there have been few on-the-ground studies that address the physical results of the

7 Fine and Lindberg, Taming the Teardown Trend, 5-6. 8 Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City, 1960 (Reprint, Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1966), v. 9 Lynch, The Image of the City, 8. 10 Lynch, The Image of the City, 2. 11 Lynch, The Image of the City, 5. “Indeed, a distinctive and legible environment not only offers security but also heightens the potential depth and intensity of human experience.” 12 Lynch, The Image of the City, 103.

2 M. Yeston ordinances, residents’ views of the districts (in addition to the view of officials and agencies), and the socio-economic impact that results from these areas. To obtain a better sense of how NCDs in the United States have performed in their 38-year history, the following research questions were pursued: 1) Are some NCDs meeting their self-expressed and explicit goals better than others? 2) How do different standards of design review perform in different NCDs, and how do various community stakeholders view the effects of regulations (intended and unintended)? As opposed to a broad view of all the NCD ordinances in the country, this study is confined to specific laws in three different cities (Cambridge, Massachusetts; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), each with slightly different criteria and design regulations. Through examining the views of various stakeholders on the ordinances against the language and intent of the laws themselves, the thesis evaluated whether NCDs are viewed as an effective preservation tool for areas that might not fit full historic designation requirements. Additionally, by taking into account the demographic and economic data for these particular neighborhoods, in combination with participants’ views, the study assesses any unintentional impacts of the different ordinances, and ascertains whether there is any room for improvement. It was discovered that officials and administrators had a more favorable view than residents. While I assumed that property owners would be more receptive to planning-oriented conservation districts since there is typically less regulation of construction activities, the opposite turned out to be true, and homeowners in less regulated NCDs wanted more review.

3 M. Yeston

BACKGROUND

Historic Districts In order to fully comprehend NCDs, it is necessary to look at the tool within the larger trajectory of historic preservation in the United States. Beginning in the 19th Century, America’s preservation movement was founded on the veneration of grand mansions and other buildings associated with prominent historical figures, such as Mount Vernon and Monticello.13 In the early 20th century, the concept of preservation was expanded to include character-defining historic contexts in the form of local preservation ordinances, the first of which was Charleston, South Carolina’s Old and Historic Charleston District, created in 1931 under the state’s zoning enabling law.14 The notion behind early HDs was that an area’s significance was derived not from its separate buildings but from the character of “the sum of its parts.”15 The five-member architectural review commission, which could include architects, engineers, city planners, and real estate agents, was given the authority to regulate demolition, new infill construction, and alteration of private property according to a specific set of criteria.16 While they began at the municipal level, HDs were recognized at the federal level through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966.17 Over the decades, local preservation ordinances gained legal recognition. Early on, HDs were seen as an aesthetic benefit to a city’s built environment and the local tourist economy.18 In the U.S. Supreme Court case Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), the court ruled that protecting historic resources was “an entirely permissible governmental goal” and that New York’s landmarks law was an “appropriate means” to advancing that goal. Certain states have also openly recognized historic preservation as a legitimate governmental action under their constitutions.19 A typical local preservation ordinance must meet the following legal requirements: it must promote a “valid public purpose” such as promoting the general welfare, property owners must be able to have a reasonable rate of

13 Elizabeth A. Lyon and Richard C. Cloues, “The Cultural and Historical Mosaic and the Concept of Significance,” in Preservation of What, For Whom? A Critical Look at Historical Significance 38 (Michael A. Tomlan ed., 1999), in Adam Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation and the Role of Neighborhood Conservation Districts,” The Urban Lawyer 40, Issue 11 (Winter 2008): 149. Neil W. Horstman, “New Dimensions for House Museums” in Antoinette Lee, ed., Past Meets Future: Saving America’s Historic Environments (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1992) 167-168. 14 Constance E. Beaumont, “State Enabling Laws,” in Chapter 1 of Smart States, Better Communities: How State Governments Can Help Citizens Preserve Their Communities (Washington D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1996) 19. Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation,” 149. 15 Diane Lea, “America’s Preservation Ethos: A Tribute to Enduring Ideals,” Introduction to A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century 7 (2003), in Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation,” 149. 16 Cox, Design Review in Historic Districts, 1. 17 Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation,” 149. 18 In a 1941 Louisiana Supreme Court case, the court upheld the regulations set forth in New Orleans’ preservation law, saying that “preventing or prohibiting eyesores in such a locality is within the police power and within the scope of this municipal ordinance. The preservation of the Vieux Carré [in New Orleans] as it was originally is a benefit to the inhabitants of New Orleans generally, not only for the sentimental value of this show place but for its commercial value as well, because it attracts tourists and conventions to the city and it in fact a justification for the slogan, America’s most interesting city.” Beaumont, “State Enabling Laws,” 21. 19 Julia Miller, A Layperson’s Guide to Historic Preservation Law: A Survey of Federal, State, and Local Laws Governing Historic Resource Protection (Washington D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2008) 9.

4 M. Yeston return on their property, and it has to guarantee “due process” and “equal protection” under the law.20 Local preservation laws have gradually become a popular municipal tool, increasing from just 51 in 1965 to well over 2,300 by 2003.21

Financial Incentives In the last four decades, the basis for historic preservation in the United States, including HDs, became more financially motivated. First through the Tax Reform Act of 1976, and bolstered by the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, the U.S. government created federal rehabilitation tax incentives for historic properties. Tax credits helped off set 20% of the cost of rehabilitation of income-producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so long as the work adhered to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards of Rehabilitation. Subsequently, several states enacted their own state tax credits to further reduce repair costs.22 During the Reagan years (1981-1989) when focus shifted from the public to the private sector, preservation became “big business” and aligned with the financial benefits of adaptively reusing historic buildings through economic incentives.23 Christopher Koziol defines this motivating ideology as privatism or entrepreneurialism, in which preservation is viewed as a tool for economic development, as opposed to essentialism or populism, in which sites are valued for their intrinsic, or cultural and associational worth.24 The political mindset of the 80s Ð more disposed toward the private sector, incentives, and property rights than government regulation Ð could be partially responsible for the increased appeal of NCDs, which are usually seen as being less stringent than HDs.25 Both Marya Morris and Rachel Cox point to the Certified Local Government (CLG) program of the National Park Service as another impetus for the creation of both HDs and NCDs. The 1980 Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act promoted agreements between the National Park Service and State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). As one part of the deal, SHPOs would grant CLG status to municipalities, which would then be expected to have a historic preservation commission with design review powers and a process to promote public participation. In return, cities would be eligible for special grants ranging from $3,500 to $20,000, which can be used to fund local preservation planning efforts, advocacy campaigns, and create conservation districts.26

A More Inclusive Preservation

20 Beaumont, “State Enabling Laws,” 20. 21 Cox, Design Review in Historic Districts, 1. In 1965 there were 51 preservation ordinances nationwide. That number increased to 421 by 1975 and doubled by 1983. In 1993 the count was 1,800, and the number grew to over 2,300 by 2003. 22 Marya Morris, Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation (Planning Advisory Service Report No. 438. American Planning Association, September 1992) 3-4. 23 Robert Weible, “Visions and Reality: Reconsidering the Creation and Development of Lowell’s National Park, 1966-1992,” Public Historian 33, No. 2 (Spring 2011), 81. 24 Christopher Koziol, “Historic Preservation Ideology: A Critical Mapping of Contemporary Heritage Policy Discourse,” Preservation Education & Research, Vol. 1 (2008): 41-50. 25 Robert E. Stipe, “Conservation Areas: A New Approach to an Old Problem,” 1993, in National Park Service, “Issues Paper: Conservation Districts” Cultural Resources: Partnership Notes (Heritage Preservation Services, 1998) 2-7. 26 Cox, Design Review in Historic Districts, 6. Morris, Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation, 13.

5 M. Yeston

NCDs also came about within the past few decades when the field of preservation became more inclusive, embracing, as Elizabeth Lyon and Richard Cloues phrased it, “vernacular architecture, social history, cultural diversity, and intangible traditions and beliefs.”27 This is evidenced by the fact that ordinary bungalows of the 1920s and 1930s have been nominated to the National Register, alongside high-style Victorian-era homes. Concurrently, sites that are representative of the Civil Rights Movement and Underground Railroad, Native American sites, and working-class neighborhoods have also been federally recognized. Many of these new trends were integrated into the Charleston Principles, affirmed at the 1990 National Preservation Conference. The principles address focusing on historic contexts and creative design for new construction, and preserving a more diverse heritage while providing affordable housing and not displacing incumbent residents through gentrification.28 NCDs are one of many strategies for communities to address varying levels of significance, and provide protection where traditional HDs cannot. As Randall Mason has demonstrated, to be more successful, preservationists must be willing to work with other municipal departments and should be open to assessing varying types of significance. Mason’s studies are apt, since NCDs are often designed to be tailored to specific neighborhoods with community input. In a piece for Forum Journal, Mason discusses a survey that historic preservation students at the University of Pennsylvania undertook in 2007 to examine nationwide trends in preservation. The most significant variable for the cities surveyed is how well a preservation agency is integrated with the citywide planning, economic development, and political procedures. The more isolated preservation is from these broader goals, the less influence is has.29 Many NCDs are just one of several components of a more comprehensive neighborhood plan. In his piece for the CRM Journal, Mason advocates for values-centered preservation planning that places emphasis on a site’s cultural significance rather than the traditional focus on built fabric. Although by no means does he imply that fabric and physicality should cease to be preservation’s principal concern, a values-centered approach can illuminate why and for whom a building and/or neighborhood are significant. As part of this

27 Lyon and Cloues, “The Cultural and Historical Mosaic and the Concept of Significance,” in Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation,” 150-151. 28 Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation,” 151. Norman Tyler, Ted J. Ligibel and Ilene R. Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice, 1994 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2009) 59-60. The Charleston Principles are as follows: 1) Identify historic places, both architectural and natural, that give the community its special character and that can aid its future well-being. 2) Adopt the preservation of historic places as a goal of planning for land use, economic development, housing for all income levels, and transportation. 3) Create organizational, regulatory, and incentive mechanisms to facilitate preservation, and provide the leadership to make them work. 4) Develop revitalization strategies that capitalize on the existing value of historic residential and commercial neighborhoods and properties, and provide well-designed affordable housing without displacing existing residents. 5) Ensure that policies and decisions on community growth and development respect a community's heritage and enhance overall livability. 6) Demand excellence in design for new construction and in the stewardship of historic properties and places. 7) Use a community's heritage to educate citizens of all ages and to build civic pride. 8) Recognize the cultural diversity of communities and empower a diverse constituency to acknowledge, identify, and preserve America's cultural and physical resources. 29 Randall F. Mason, “Preservation Planning in American Cities,” Forum Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 2009), accessed September 24, 2011, http://www.preservationnation.org/forum/forum-library/members-only/preservation- planning-in.html.

6 M. Yeston effort, preservation practitioners will need to step out of their comfort zones of architectural history and materials conservation, and analyze a site more holistically with a “full range of values” that engage both lay people and experts.30 Many NCDs do not place as stringent an emphasis on materiality as on maintaining a the general neighborhood character in terms of height, bulk and lot coverage, and more interaction with the local residents of potential districts is essential in many cities with NCD programs.

Zoning Trends NCDs could also be seen as a product of the broader trend towards Form-Based Zoning as opposed to Euclidean use-based zoning. A Planning Advisory Service report from 2009 addresses the subject of Form-Based Codes (FBCs), which are regulations chiefly concerned with the form, size, and siting of planned buildings. Unlike conventional zoning codes that deal primarily with land use and density, FBCs focus on the quality of the built environment and promote Smart Growth principles including mixed use, increased density, and a discernable neighborhood character. Often FBCs will serve to codify built patterns completed before the Second World War. The advantages of FBCs include a greater mix of compatible uses, expanding housing opportunities, encouraging pedestrian traffic and reducing car-dependency. The report is relevant to NCDs in that it places them in a broader trend away from use-based zoning towards physical and aesthetic zoning. It could be deduced that many types of FBCs that are designed to maintain the built form could end up inadvertently serving historic preservation goals, such as retaining a streetscape or house orientation.31 NCDs also largely came about during a time when American cities and towns were utilizing downzoning to maintain neighborhood character. Marya Morris says downzoning can be “a means to correct a zoning classification so that it more accurately reflects the nature of development” in an area.32 It is a mechanism to prevent higher-density development and lower the pressure for construction of larger houses in a desirable neighborhood with a historic building stock.33 Although these restrictions on density would limit property owners’ ability to maximize the development potential on their parcel, the limits would not prohibit new construction.34 In 1989, the New York City Department of City Planning implemented one of the most extensive downzonings in American history. Responding to neighborhood concerns about incompatible new construction occurring in low-density residential areas, the new zoning essentially decreased the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) in New York’s four existing low-density zones (R3-1, R3-2,

30 Mason, “Theoretical and Practical Arguments for Values-Centered Preservation,” CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship (Summer 2006): 21-48. 31 “Form-Based Code Overview and Model Approaches.” Planning Advisory Service Report 556 (April 2009): 225- 233. See also, Russell, Joel S. “Rethinking Conventional Zoning.” Planning Commissioners Journal (Summer 1994). 32 Morris, Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation, 25. 33 Morris, Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation, 25. “Consider the ways in which these areas are put under development pressure. Attractive, older neighborhoods are prone to redevelopment as new residents and businesses attempt to capitalize or at least benefit from the attractiveness of the neighborhood. In turn, intense redevelopment or rehabilitation of historical or architecturally significant structures invites new—often incompatible—development that can undermine the historical integrity and character of an area. In many cases, for instance, the real estate market dictates that any new construction on remaining vacant land be denser than what is already there.” 34 Morris, Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation, 26.

7 M. Yeston

R-4, and R-5) to remove the incentive to maximize building density.35 Portland, Maine undertook a similar initiative called the Downtown Vision, implemented in 1990. To redirect higher-density development away from historic areas, height limits were increased to 210 feet along Congress Street, the city’s main commercial thoroughfare, and reduced to 65 feet in historic and waterfront districts to protect their character and their views. Several NCDs employ downzoning as a basic feature to accomplish their goal of maintaining an area’s physical character.36

The Teardown Trend Perhaps the most direct motivator for the creation of NCDs in the past 20 years is an ominous phenomenon that has been defined as “the Teardown Trend.” Adrian Scott Fine and Jim Lindberg’s piece for the National Trust outlines the danger of teardowns to historic neighborhoods. They define a teardown as demolishing an older house and replacing it with an excessively larger structure to fill the maximum zoning envelope. One cause of this trend was the 1990s economic boom that led to a spike in housing demand and low interest rates, which caused home prices to increase. Rising prices led developers to search for “undervalued” properties in both older, stable neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs Ð the two areas most threatened by this trend. As a result, the existing house becomes less valuable than the land on which it sits. If a realtor can sell a new a house for three times what the realtor paid for the site with the old house, then a teardown pays off. Fine and Lindberg also attribute the teardown trend to shifts in American culture and taste, specifically the nation’s demand for larger homes. To cite an example, in 1950 the average new American home was 1,000 square feet. By 1970 it had increased to 1,500 square feet, and in 2001 the average was 2,265 square feet. Although NCDs have existed since 1975 and the teardown trend began in earnest in the 1990s, it is clear how neighborhoods would want to use this established tool to curb the rise of speculative development and demolition.37

35 Morris, Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation, 29. “The crafters of the new regulations sought to encourage development that is contextual—that fits in with what is around it—but not “cookie cutter.” They decided on a general height limit for roofs of 35 feet, with perimeter walls limited to 21 feet in height. These restrictions create sloping roofs with varied apex points. Setbacks are allowed to vary in an effort to make the streetscape look interesting. Houses that are built with usable attic space are eligible for 20 percent more FAR, thus encouraging sloped roofs.” 36 Morris, Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation, 30. 37 Fine and Lindberg, Taming the Teardown Trend, 1-10. The authors offer numerous recommendations for combating the trend, such as community design charrettes, conservation districts, historic districts, demolition moratoriums and delays, downzoning, design review, community land trusts, and courses in historic real estate marketing and home rehabilitation.

8 M. Yeston

SCHOLARSHIP ON NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Generally, in the current scholarship on NCDs, authors offer a concise definition of NCD ordinances, background information on the issues or threats that lead to their establishment, what distinguishes NCDs from HDs, and the different typologies into which they fall. Rebecca Lubens and Julia Miller explain each major feature and procedural step that NCDs share in common. Despite the fact that these areas are likely to not merit status as an HD, they require particular attention because of their significant character and viability to the community as a whole. Among specific goals are to protect against “mansionization” (as in Dallas), to stabilize neighborhoods (Nashville), to augment to retain the supply of affordable housing (Phoenix), and revitalize neighborhoods (Davis, CA). The authors distinguish between the historic preservation model (directed more towards maintaining an area’s physical aspects), the neighborhood planning model (that has the goal of maintaining “neighborhood character” through zoning policies such as lot coverage, setback requirements, and allowed uses as opposed to design review), and the hybrid model (where neighborhood groups help write the guidelines and decide how much design review they want). Lubens and Miller attribute the relative success of NCD programs to the focus on community planning and outreach. NCDs put residents in control of what determines a neighborhood’s characteristics, which allows them to better appreciate their communities and feel as though they have more control over their future.38 Adam Lovelady makes the case that historic preservation is essential to maintaining our connection to history, but should not be “an absolute.” He contends that to address other topics such as economic development, affordable housing and Smart Growth, and to make preservation more inclusive, NCDs might be the right tool because of their flexibility. NCDs are suitable for neighborhoods with distinctive architectural or historical characteristics, but do not have the political or residential backing for more stringent HD regulations, or do not meet “minimum requirements” for designation. He also differentiates between the preservation (Nashville), planning (Raleigh) and hybrid (Dallas) models. Putting the NCDs into perspective, Lovelady outlines their basic pros and cons. On the one hand, NCDs provide protections to a neighborhood without excessive requirements and can reduce maintenance costs. On the other hand, property rights advocates will stress that NCDs are still a form of regulation that will increase housing costs and potentially lead to gentrification. He concludes by acknowledging that supplementary policies are needed to ensure the success of NCDs, such as educating the public on the benefits of preservation (through guidebooks and technical assistance), and public and private funding to cut down maintenance costs and ensure residents are not put into financial hardship, including tax abatements, tax deferrals, and tax increment financing.39 In Marya Morris’ 1992 Planning Advisory Service Report, she states that although local preservation ordinances have been the mainstay for historic preservation since 1931, they are limited in their ability for safeguarding the larger context of historic neighborhoods (against suburban sprawl) and are limited in dealing with homeowners’ financial pressures. As a compliment to HDs, she thinks preservationists should help guide local tax policies, zoning laws and growth management plans towards protecting historic resources. In the chapter on NCDs, Morris explains they can be employed to preserve neighborhoods with historic merit and a distinguished character, but are too young for traditional designation and have experienced a loss

38 Rebecca Lubens and Julia Miller, “Protecting Older Neighborhoods Through Conservation District Programs,” Preservation Law Reporter 21 (January-March 2002-2003): 1001-1042. 39 Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation,” 154-171, 175-183.

9 M. Yeston in original fabric. Morris writes that the wave of NCDs in the 1980s could be indicative of the impact of the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980, especially the CLG program that expanded local governments’ capability to conduct preservation activities.40 In Lori Salganicoff’s unpublished survey of seventeen NCD programs prepared for the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia, she organizes the programs according to whether they are administered through a zoning department, a municipal preservation agency, or a local neighborhood commission. The first two categories are then divided by whether the ordinances were binding or advisory.41 While Lubens and Miller present a very thorough examination of the typologies, designation processes, criteria and review with multiple examples, there are not any photographic representations, and the information was accessed through telephone interviews and ordinance texts. In the current thesis, I not only conducted interviews, but also travelled to specific cities to get a physical idea of how NCDs have maintained different neighborhoods’ character. With regard to Lovelady, I see my work adding a more on the ground dimension to the issues he has raised. In my work, I discovered what were the specific impetuses behind certain NCDs, and if they ended up fulfilling communities’ goals. Since one of the cases he reviews is Raleigh, travelling there was a great opportunity to get an even closer look at how neighborhoods have been affected by the ordinance. These experiences could enable me to address some of the background issues he raises, such as affordable housing. In terms of my own research, it was hoped that the answers to my interview questions about how each program began might include the benefits from the CLG program, or the trend of anti-regulation in the 1980s. It was also hoped that interviews with administrators would yield pertinent information on how NCDs have affected staff workload, or whether any incentives are necessary for their maintenance. Only some of the aforementioned issues were raised. Nonetheless, the thesis helped put my specific examples into a wider context. Two works published in a 1998 National Park Service Issues Paper highlight other significant issues related to conservation districts. In Carole Zellie’s piece, with the help of the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission and Minnesota SHPO, she conducted a study in 1991 of twenty conservation districts throughout the country to ascertain whether this kind of legislation could be used to supplement St. Paul’s HDs. The most common critique from planners was the confusion that can result in cities with both historic and conservation districts. They also emphasized the crucial need for educational outreach programs to get the public on their side, and for the goals and review process of a conservation district to be as clear as possible. This is another study that relied exclusively on telephone interviews as well as an examination of the ordinances. I was able to add an on the ground perspective to previous studies such as this.42 In Robert Stipe’s take on NCDs, he illustrates a slightly idealized version of the “Conservation Area” (CA) as a zone unencumbered by traditional HD regulations. Writing in

40 Morris, Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation, 13-24. 41 Lori Salganicoff, “Neighborhood Conservation Districts Survey” (Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, August 2003), accessed August 2, 2013, http://www.preservationalliance.com/publications/Conservation%20District%20Description.pdf. Salganicoff, “Neighborhood Conservation Districts Matrix” (Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, August 2003), accessed August 2, 2013, http://pagp.javelinhosting.com/publications/conservation%20district%20matrix.pdf. 42 Carole Zellie, “A Consideration of Conservation Districts and Preservation Planning: Notes from St. Paul Minnesota,” 1993. In National Park Service, “Issues Paper: Conservation Districts,” Cultural Resources: Partnership Notes (Heritage Preservation Services, 1998) 8-14.

10 M. Yeston

1993, Stipe focuses on how the shift in the national mood toward an anti-regulatory mindset makes HDs seem more interventionist on the part of state and local government. Where Stipe’s argument falls short is when he makes blanket statements or assumptions that CAs are not regulatory in nature, and that no additional state enabling legislation is necessary since a CA does not feature architectural review or demolition restriction. This negates all the conservation ordinances throughout the country that have a historic preservation basis, and most of them feature a regulation against demolition. Stipe’s piece is then more of a philosophical discussion on the importance of the CA as being less punitive than an HD, and he stresses the need for more public involvement in every step of the process.43 In my interviews, I was able to glean what the ideological leanings are in each community with an NCD, and discovered what the original reasons for the regulation were. Complementing journal pieces and essays on NCDs are four academic preservation master’s theses written in the last nine years, each one addressing different examples of conservation districts. In Jennifer Most’s thesis (2005) on neighborhood conservation policies (NCPs), she assesses the role of the policies in addressing what has become an epidemic teardown trend in neighborhoods across the country. She poses the question, to what extent can these policies achieve neighborhood conservation where standard preservation and planning tools have fallen short? She thoroughly examines 50 NCPs throughout the country based on telephone and email surveys and analyzed them according to means of implementation, criteria for designation and policy objectives. She then looked at four examples (Cambridge, Sacramento, Atlanta, and Dallas) to assess their effectiveness in curbing the teardown trend. Most concludes that ultimately what makes an NCP successful is carrying authority, and this is accomplished by aligning it with zoning regulations. NCPs fail to carry authority if the design review board is only advisory and not binding, or if there is insufficient local political support. The NCPs that can “respond directly” to “community needs” and can navigate the local politics have the best chance of promoting neighborhood conservation.44 Jessie McClurg (2011) conducted a thorough research study in her thesis to assess the various approaches for establishing and maintaining NCDs, and how these techniques might apply to numerous neighborhoods in Minneapolis that have expressed interest in exploring the implementation of their own NCDs. In the Executive Summary, McClurg synthesizes her findings from six case studies of NCDs in the U.S. Her intent is to distill the broad range of approaches for creating and maintaining NCDs. She then systematically lists the catalysts for NCDs, how they were established, their regulatory intent, administration, and how they work in practice.45 Based on her interviews and reviews of the laws, McClurg arrives at a list of considerations for potential new NCDs in Minneapolis: both binding and non-binding reviews have advantages and disadvantages; districts are best supported by preservation commissions with full-time staff members to help out residents; the economic downturn after the early 2000s real estate bubble has made it challenging for certain neighborhoods to ascertain the success of NCDs, since development slowed during the decade; in Cumberland, IN, an extremely helpful tactic was to have a panel of experts from other NCDs meet with the residents who wished to create their own; since the penalties in Iowa City are minimal, it has been difficult to enforce

43 Stipe, “Conservation Areas: A New Approach to an Old Problem,” 2-7. 44 Most, Neighborhood Conservation Policies, 83-92. 45 McClurg, Alternative Forms of Historic Designation, 14-19. The assessed CDs are the Half Crown-Marsh NCD, Cambridge, MA; Queen Village, Philadelphia, PA; Northside NCD, Chapel Hill, NC; Cumberland NCD, Cumberland, IN; Governor-Lucas CD, Iowa City, IA; and Boulder, CO.

11 M. Yeston design guidelines; and in Queen Village, Philadelphia, as well as other districts, local residents, architects and developers can be unaware that the regulations even exist, which can lead to further problems.46 Nicholas Arble (2010) concludes that planning elements were used as part of the Cottage Home Conservation District designation process Ð including policy recommendations for zoning, land use, transportation and circulation, open space and public facilities Ð which resulted in a long term neighborhood plan. However, it is a neighborhood plan just in the physical sense, as opposed to a full social and economic picture of the community. As part of his method, Arble reviewed examples of Steering Committee Meeting minutes and memoranda, as well as seven semi-structured in-depth interviews with different community stakeholders.47 Malachi Peacock (2009) seeks to determine whether NCDs are effective at preserving neighborhood character by analyzing the effectiveness of different regulations, and also seeks to know how NCDs relate to the broader principals and goals of historic preservation in general. In his concluding remarks, the author alludes to how NCDs may pose a problem for traditional HDs, as more activist property owners might be more drawn to looser regulations, and those residing within HDs that neighbor NCDs may want to relax their design rules as well.48 My thesis allowed me to expand upon the methods used in the theses as well as provide new perspectives on the topic. What all works had in common was a reliance on the text of the ordinances and telephone and electronic interviews, with the exception of Arble who conducted some interviews face-to-face. Peacock’s work did not even contain interviews, only information derived from the laws themselves and newspaper articles. Also, most of the theses include very few if not any interviews with current residents of the districts to ascertain how the ordinance affects them.49 With the exception of Arble, none of the authors travel to any of their case studies. There was also no significant visual component to any of the works Ð I explored how the districts shaped the physicality of each neighborhood through photographic documentation. In addition, none of the works include a quantitative analysis of any unintended effects of the NCDs on neighborhood characteristics over an extended period of time, including housing values, median household income, changes in racial demographics, or owner vs. renter-occupied units. This is another component of the current thesis. With regard to Most’s work, it was broad-based and thorough, yet her case studies did not go very deep into the individual circumstances for any of the cities studied. While the current study does not examine dozens of ordinances, it takes a much more pointed look at three examples. Since McClurg was concerned with obtaining a comprehensive understanding of NCDs for the purposes of serving Minneapolis, it was necessary for her to cover all aspects of their criteria, process of implementation, and regulations. Since my thesis is primarily an

46 McClurg, Alternative Forms of Historic Designation, 20. 47 Nicholas Houston Arble, Neighborhood Conservation within the Framework of Neighborhood Planning: The Case of the Cottage Home Neighborhood of Indianapolis, Indiana (Kent, OH: Kent State University School of Planning, 2010) 1-4, 61-68, 128-133. 48 Malachi Reid Peacock, Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Their Relevance to Historic Preservation in the 21st Century (Athens, GA: University of Georgia, 2009) 82-90. 49 For instance, McClurg only had two sources listed for information on Queen Village in Philadelphia (Mike Hauptman, who co-authored the neighborhood guidelines, and David Schaff, the director of Urban Design at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission). For Cambridge, she spoke with two administrative officials (Sarah Burks and Eiliesh Tuffy, the Preservation Planners for the Cambridge Historical Commission) and one resident (Jim Van Sickle, a homeowner and then chair of the Half Crown-Marsh NCD).

12 M. Yeston assessment of how certain NCDs are currently functioning, certain items from her questionnaire are not as relevant to the study. Arble’s study of the Cottage Home Neighborhood, Indianapolis can provide valuable information on an in-depth look at a single case study. The author conducted face-to-face interviews in addition to telephone interviews with stakeholders. As opposed to formal questions, the participants were asked to freely discuss their views on a list of topics, such as “Views on the character of Cottage Home” or “Individual’s role in the designation process.”50 Although I have formal written questions as well, I acknowledge how important it was to allow my interviewees to freely associate when giving their responses, in case they addressed any subjects about which I did not think. Whereas Arble’s work deals primarily with the successful creation of an NCD plan, my thesis addresses its after effects.

50 Arble, Neighborhood Conservation within the Framework of Neighborhood Planning, 54-58.

13 M. Yeston

RESEARCH DESIGN

In August 2013, I began by surveying the NCD policies of thirteen different U.S. cities.51 Looking through Most’s database (2005) of NCDs as well as Salganicoff’s table (2003), I selected a group of policies that reflected a diversity of categories, such as whether the NCD is primarily preservation-oriented or planning and zoning-oriented, whether review is binding or advisory, if any traditional local landmark legislation was already in place, and what kind of government entity regulates buildings within the NCDs. To supplement this list, I reached out to the offices that manage the selected thirteen NCDs (I was able to communicate with the offices of six of them) with a series of basic questions about the nature of each one. These included: what activities are subject to review? Is there any design review? What is the nomination process for an NCD? Is the NCD part of a citywide preservation plan? When was the NCD enacted, and under what circumstances was it adopted? The responses I received allowed me to gain a basic understanding of the different legal structures of disparate NCDs and contributed to the decisions I made in composing my interview questions. Since a primary goal of my thesis was to expand from Most’s list of basic attributes about several dozen NCDs, the project required choosing two to three programs into which I could delve further through pointed interview questions. From the large universe of 96 NCDs in the United States,52 I decided to select three programs that represented as many permutations of the NCD as possible. Implicitly in this study, I intended to determine whether one typology was viewed as more successful in the eyes of those who live within it than the others. I settled on Cambridge, Philadelphia and Raleigh because each program is managed by a different regulatory body, and each one has different nomination criteria and different goals. Cambridge’s NCD program is heavily engrained in traditional preservation criteria (with a heavier emphasis on physical alteration and architectural styles), and each of its individual NCDs is regulated by a local commission. Philadelphia’s program regulates the physical appearance of residential buildings on the street beyond the standards of conventional zoning, however there are no rules governing style. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission oversees the NCD. Raleigh, however, is much more representative of a planning-oriented NCD, with greater emphasis on height, bulk, building envelope, lot coverage, and building orientation, with no provisions for materials or architectural style. Also worth noting is, while any ten registered voters in Cambridge can petition for an NCD, there is no simple majority vote taken by the residents of a potential NCD before the district is enacted by the city council. NCDs in both Philadelphia and Raleigh cannot be created if at least 51% of property owners within the affected area are opposed to the measure. In addition to exploring how each NCD is structured, it was also necessary for this study to have more of a regional diversity, which is why the three examples are not confined to the Northeast, as was originally planned. This study’s methodology is split into qualitative and quantitative analyses. For the qualitative assessment, various stakeholders in different cities were asked a series of questions. Stakeholders consist of: property owners who live in each district in question, administrators, and (occasionally) local elected officials. Approximately three to five officials and five to ten residents were interviewed per city. Questions include: “would you say the ordinance has been

51 Annapolis, MD; Austin, TX; Boston, MA; Boulder, CO; Cambridge, MA; Dallas, TX; Memphis, TN; Indianapolis, IN; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; Raleigh, NC; Roanoke, VA. 52 McClurg, Alternative Forms of Historic Designation, 63-73.

14 M. Yeston successful,” “how would you define that success,” and “how would you say the regulations affect you personally?” A full list of questions is at the end of this document. The responses from the interviews (including any unexpected answers) were then organized to address and inform the following issues: Is the program successful, and how do different stakeholders define that success? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Why was the neighborhood designated as a conservation district as opposed to an HD? Did any conflicts or significant opposition arise? What were the unanticipated effects of the conservation district, and, finally, is there room for improvement? Other issues taken into account include my visual observations of each place’s particularities. For instance, certain designs or styles mandated by the ordinance may or may not be present on the ground. I culled through the responses to my questions to see if any key themes or patterns emerge, which led to the findings and conclusions for this study. It is necessary to note that my interview subjects may have very well been self-selected. In Cambridge, I chose residents who had applied for alterations to their homes within the past year after traveling to the Cambridge Historical Commission in the fall. After speaking with the applicants, I was redirected to others within the neighborhood who were very knowledgeable about the NCD and its nomination process. Not only did those with whom I spoke know the program well, but many ended up sharing my particular interest in architectural preservation, and having several interviewees with that position might have affected how I conducted my analysis. The neighborhoods in both Cambridge and Raleigh were suggested to me by the respective planning agency because each had recently undergone changes. Each one was predominantly White and upper middle class to begin with, while Philadelphia was slightly more diverse. These factors should also be kept in mind when reviewing these particular responses. It is clearly impossible to capture the sentiment of every single member of a neighborhood by interviewing only a small sample, though it moves the study closer to gathering the relevant information about each NCD. For the quantitative data, I used Social Explorer to collect US Census data from 1990, 2000, and the American Community Survey 2005-2009 (5-Year Estimate) on a census tract level to examine any change in the areas over time (before and after the regulations were enacted). This supplementary method is intended to assess any unintended impacts of the ordinances. Variables include population, race, median household income, poverty rate, unemployment rate, educational attainment, owner vs. renter-occupied housing, and vacancy rates. In order to measure whether each conservation district may have had a significant impact on each neighborhood, the rate of change for the district is weighed against the rate of change of its respective city. This method is intended to help illustrate whether or not each neighborhood experienced what are considered some of the “proxies”53 of gentrification as a result of the NCD legislation. Using Social Explorer’s online mapping tool, I was able to observe the shape of census tracts that roughly corresponded with the shape of each NCD. I was also able to compare the tracts from decade to decade, and discovered that each NCD’s respective tract(s) did not change since 1990. It should be noted that the borders of the neighborhoods in Cambridge and Raleigh are contained within larger census tracts. Avon Hill is mostly contained within Middlesex County Census Tract 3545, which extends from Beacon Street to the east to Concord Avenue to the west, and from Linnaean Street to the south and Upland Road to the north. The southwest

53 See Lance Freeman, “Displacement or Succession? Residential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods,” Urban Affairs Review 40, 4 (2005): 463-491.

15 M. Yeston portions of the neighborhood (south of Hillside Avenue between Agassiz and Raymond Streets) is located within Census Tract 3540, which extends southward to Harvard Square and is bordered by Garden Street to the east and Massachusetts Avenue to the west. Therefore the data for Avon Hill will incorporate information on the neighborhood immediately to the south, which places a limit on how exact the demographic data can be.54 Cameron Park in Raleigh is located in the southeast corner of Wake County Census Tract 512. This tract extends to the north and west to include areas between Gardner Street to the west; Saint Marys Street to the east; Hillsborough Street to the south; and Kilgore Avenue, Oberlin Road and Wade Avenue to the north. During my field visit to Raleigh, I was driven to neighborhoods north of Cameron Park that included several so-called “scrape-off” large-scale luxury houses built in the early-mid 2000s. It is possible that the demographic and financial aspects from this larger area might skew the data for Cameron Park.55 The three census tracts that compose Queen Village nearly match the neighborhood’s borders exactly (Bainbridge Street to the north, Front Street to the East, Washington Street to the south, and 6th Street to the west. However, the southern-most tract, Philadelphia County Census Tract 25, extends four blocks south of Washington Street, and the northern tract (16) extends for one block north of Bainbridge Street. This additional geography may skew results slightly, so once again the Census data’s specificity is limited.56 A full list of variables is located in the appendix.

54 Map of United States Population Density (per sq. mile) by Census Tract, 1990, 2000, 2010. Social Explorer, (based on data from U.S. Census Bureau; accessed April 30, 2014). 55 Population Density (per sq. mile) by Census Tract, 1990, 2000, 2010. Social Explorer. 56 Population Density (per sq. mile) by Census Tract, 1990, 2000, 2010. Social Explorer.

16 M. Yeston

AVON HILL NCD, CAMBRIDGE, MA

Preservation in Cambridge The following sections will elaborate on the three case studies that are the subject of this thesis Ð NCD ordinances in Cambridge, Philadelphia and Raleigh. For each example, an explanation of the local preservation and conservation laws will be given, followed by a section on the specific district in question. This portion will include a brief history of each neighborhood, the circumstances that led to the adoption of the particular district, and what the district regulates. Historic preservation laws in Massachusetts date back to 1960 when the state legislature passed the Historic Districts Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40C), which gave cities and towns the authority to create local HDs by ordinance. Three years later, the Cambridge City Council adopted an ordinance establishing the Cambridge Historical Commission (CHC) to designate and administer four small local HDs along Brattle Street near the Cambridge Common.57 On March 23, 1981, the City Council passed legislation that created Neighborhood Conservation Districts. Chapter 2.78, Article III of the Cambridge City Code allows the council to designate NCDs by order based on the Cambridge Historical Commission’s recommendations and a report from a study committee.58 The law’s intent was to decentralize the protection of neighborhoods beyond the powers given in Chapter 40C, and to combat an increase in demolition and inappropriate infill.59 Article III draws heavily from precedent in Chapter 772 of the Acts of 1975, which created the Boston Landmarks Commission and the power to enact both Historic Districts and Architectural Conservation Districts, each with its own commission.60 Using this model, each Cambridge NCD would have its own local commission. The scope of a Cambridge NCD commission’s powers is very similar to that of a traditional historic commission. An NCD commission has the authority to review all applications for demolition, new construction, and alteration that potentially affect exterior architectural features, with the exception of paint color, within the borders of an NCD. The order that establishes an NCD may stipulate that the local commission’s authority will not extend to the review of one or more categories, such as exterior changes that do not increase or decrease the size of windows and doors and do not result in removing a porch, bay, hood or other

57 Karen Davis and William B. King, “The Mechanics of Historic Preservation: Tools & Incentives” in Heli Meltsner, Michael Kenney, Gavin W. Kleespies and Jasmine Laietmark, ed., Saving Cambridge: Historic Preservation in America’s Innovation City (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Historical Society, 2013) 143. “A Cambridge Preservation Timeline,” in Saving Cambridge, 170-171. In 1976, the City Council consolidated the four original historic districts into the Old Cambridge Historic District, which was expanded in 1986 and 1996. 58 Sarah Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Historical Commission, May 21, 1998) 35. Davis and King, “The Mechanics of Historic Preservation,” 143. “A Cambridge Preservation Timeline,” 170-171. Subsequently, the Half Crown (1984), Mid-Cambridge (1985), Avon Hill (1998), Marsh (2000), and Harvard Square (2000) NCDs were designated. The first four districts are residential while Harvard Square is commercial. 59 Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (May 21, 1998), 35. Interview with Sarah Burks, Preservation Planner, Cambridge Historical Commission, Cambridge, MA, January 8, 2014. 60 Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (May 21, 1998), 35. “Landmarks Commission: Historic Districts,” City of Boston, accessed August 20, 2013, http://www.cityofboston.gov/landmarks/historic/.

17 M. Yeston projecting elements; driveways, terraces and walkways; or signs and lawn ornaments.61 The steps for establishing such an NCD are as follows. Any ten registered voters in Cambridge may petition the Cambridge Historical Commission to request the City Manager to appoint a study committee for the purpose of assessing a potential NCD. The committee then prepares a preliminary study document that describes the history and significance of the area in question, and assesses the options for review set forth in Article III, i.e. which actions will be binding vs. advisory. The report must be sent to the CHC, Planning Board, City Manager, and City Clerk. Within 45 days a hearing, for which all potentially affected property owners must be notified 14 days prior, must take place to allow public comment. The CHC then makes its recommendation to the City Council, which then votes on whether to designate the district. Once done, the City Manager appoints a local NCD commission composed of five members and three alternates. At least two members have to be homeowners, one must be a neighborhood property owner (who may or may not be a homeowner), and one member or alternate must be on the CHC. All three alternates must be property owners within the neighborhood.62 To assess the specifics of the case study, the background of the Avon Hill NCD will be addressed.

History of Avon Hill The area now known as Avon Hill is situated on elevated land in northern Cambridge, and is bordered by Linnaean Street to the south, Upland Road to the north, Raymond Street to the west, and Massachusetts Avenue Ð an active commercial corridor under which runs the Boston subway’s Red Line Ð to the east (fig. 1). The land was first allotted to individual owners in 1638, and as late as 1830 very little construction had taken place except for four farmhouses. After the opening of railroad passenger service from Porter’s Station in 1842, property owners subdivided the land, and the first new streets were laid out in 1847. The bulk of residential development occurred between 1865 and 1900, which produced a considerable diversity of style, scale and setting. In terms of architecture, the buildings range from Italianate and Second Empire cottages, to Queen Anne and Shingle Style mansions, to Cambridge’s one true bungalow (figs. 2, 3, 4). With regard to scale, streetscapes vary from small houses on large lots, to large houses on large lots (such as those on Washington Avenue), and finally to closely spaced houses on smaller lots (such as those on Lancaster Street). Remaining vacant lots along the neighborhood’s south and east borders were filled in with four to six-story multi-dwelling units between 1900 and 1930.63 After the area was essentially built out, there were hardly any changes. This resulted in a neighborhood with great physical continuity, although well within in the context of late 19th- century architectural eclecticism. The unusually low lot coverage in Avon Hill allows the backs and sides of several houses on the far side of blocks to be seen from a public way, and the resulting open space is perceived as a crucial component of the neighborhood’s character (figs. 5, 6, 7). Furthermore, the early 20th-century apartments (fig. 8) along Massachusetts Avenue serve as noise buffers from the traffic along the commercial thoroughfare.64

61 Cambridge, Massachusetts, Municipal Code ¤ 2.78.190. 62 Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (May 21, 1998), 37-38. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Municipal Code ¤ 2.78.160. 63 Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (May 21, 1998), 20, 21, 27, 28. 64 Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (May 21, 1998), 12, 13, 23, 27.

18 M. Yeston

Avon Hill NCD The catalyst for the creation of an Avon Hill NCD was concern over any additional development in the neighborhood allowable under the existing zoning in 1997. A study committee was appointed in November of that year to assess the neighborhood’s historic significance, recommend boundaries, and select appropriate criteria for the proposed district. Using GIS and zoning data, the committee determined that 38% of parcels in the Avon Hill Study Area were below their maximum permitted floor area and could be further developed as of right.65 Additionally, the committee members identified and stipulated that 62 properties in the underlying A-2 Residential zone (which composes most of the neighborhood) met the criteria for accessory apartment construction.66 There was great potential for new house construction, inasmuch as 23 of the largest parcels could be subdivided. The committee also noted that one of the neighborhood’s defining characteristics Ð the open space surrounding the houses Ð was under threat from additional construction. Since the Cambridge zoning ordinance’s definition of “usable open space” did not include driveways, walkways or parking areas, the committee made its own calculation of all uncovered space on each parcel and called it “green space.” It was determined that 94% of lots in the Study Area had green space that took up over half the lot area. Potential accessory buildings such as garages could be constructed since their volume was not calculated as part of a lot’s allowable floor area under the then-existing code.67 The resulting Avon Hill NCD code created three categories of review: binding, non- binding, and exemptions. The eight-person Commission has binding review of all applications for construction (of new buildings, accessory buildings, or parking lots), demolition, and alteration of exterior architectural features (including window sash) except paint color. To maintain the neighborhood’s scale and open space, the commission has the authority to review and/or curtail any proposed addition to an existing structure that would raise its total lot coverage to 30% or more in the base A-2 zone, or to 40% or more in the base B and C-1 zones. In addition, the commission may review additions that would increase a structure’s gross floor area by over 750 square feet in the A-2 zone, or over 500 square feet in the B and C-1 zones.68 For any actions not mentioned in the list of binding determinations, the commission’s decisions are non-binding. Exemption actions include any alterations that do not entail the removal, covering or addition of decorative architectural details, construction of terraces and walks, building walls or fences less than four feet high, signs and lawn ornaments, and storm windows and window air conditioners.69 One of the guiding “Principles of Review” in the study committee’s recommendations is that changes in the neighborhood should not be halted, but should merely be appropriately guided to ensure that alterations do not disrupt the district’s historical and architectural character.70

65 Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (May 21, 1998), 2, 4, 7, 8, 10-11. 66 Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (May 21, 1998), 12. The zoning criteria for accessory apartment construction in the A-2 zone are pre-1940 buildings with a gross floor area greater than 3,500 square feet and lot square footage greater than 6,000 square feet, or no less than 3,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. 67 Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (May 21, 1998), 2, 12, 13, 14. 68 City of Cambridge, “Agenda Item No. 5: Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District” (In City Council June 15, 1998) 2. 69 City of Cambridge, “Agenda Item No. 5” (June 15, 1998), 3. 70 Zimmerman, Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report (May 21, 1998), 43.

19 M. Yeston

FINDINGS FOR AVON HILL, CAMBRIDGE, MA

Is the NCD successful, and how do different stakeholders define that success? What are the advantages and disadvantages? In Cambridge, there was a broad consensus among participants, both the administrators and the residents, that the Avon Hill NCD was generally successful. Members of the Avon Hill district commission as well as Cambridge Historical Society staff had responses that ranged from outright praise to qualified positive statements about the outcomes of the district. Of all the responses, the most concise definition of Avon Hill’s success was articulated by Theresa Hamacher of the Avon Hill NCD Commission:

It [the Avon Hill NCD] has created an orderly process for reviewing significant change in a district with a defined character, and it has done a good job of balancing homeowners’ interests in improving their properties with the neighborhood’s interest in maintaining a visual character.71

The notion of compromise between individual property rights and the broader aesthetic concerns of the area was echoed by Art Bardige, another member of the Commission. He contended that the NCD provided a “rational process” to accommodate physical changes to the neighborhood. He invoked the principle of each homeowner limiting their personal freedoms to respect the community at large.72 Charles Sullivan of the Cambridge Historical Commission (CHC) gave a frank response that the NCD was successful at restraining the forces that were detrimental to the conservation of the neighborhood, such as demolition, inappropriate new construction or inappropriate renovations.73 Sarah Burks, also of the CHC, highlighted the inherent flexibility of the NCD and its ability to be tailored to specific neighborhoods like Avon Hill. She admitted that although the NCD has binding and advisory reviews, which means there will not always be a 100% preservation result, it allows for a dialogue to occur between applicants and the district commission. Also, in the subsequent neighborhood survey evaluations undertaken by the Historical Commission, a clear majority of Avon Hill residents always voted to keep the NCD.74 Broadly, respondents at the administrative level viewed the effects in Avon Hill in a positive light, and more than once focused on the importance of building community spirit. Among residents and at least one architect who worked on a house in Avon Hill, opinions of the NCD’s efficacy were also high, though occasionally mixed. At least three owners criticized the high cost of required exterior repairs and alterations Ð e.g. requiring slate as opposed to asphalt shingles Ð and mentioned that the regulations added a financial burden which otherwise would not exist. A few residents also had the impression that the local commission was capable of being capricious, and might afford some of its members the opportunity to be more egotistical while in a position of authority. There was a widely held view that the type of response applicants receive is highly dependent on the specific individuals who are on the commission at a given time. In addition, the sometimes bureaucratic process might cause

71 Interview with Theresa Hamacher, Avon Hill NCD Commission, Cambridge, MA, January 6, 2014. 72 Interview with Art Bardige, Avon Hill NCD Commission, Cambridge, MA, January 7, 2014. 73 Telephone interview with Charles Sullivan, Cambridge Historical Commission, Cambridge, MA, December 23, 2013. 74 Interview with Sarah Burks, Preservation Planner, Cambridge Historical Commission, Cambridge, MA, January 8, 2014.

20 M. Yeston enough delays to lose a building season. However, there were also at least three other residents who were hard pressed to think of any negative aspects of the regulations. Owen Dempsey, a resident of Avon Hill, saw the NCD as providing a kind of “comfort” and “stability” to the neighborhood Ð the knowledge that no one will build something wildly out of scale.75 Others echoed the sense of certainty the NCD provided in Avon Hill. Despite the negative criticisms, there were no property owners who felt the NCD had failed in its objectives, and all generally thought it is a positive tool for maintaining the “look and feel” 76 of the neighborhood and for keeping inappropriate development in check (fig. 9).

Why was the area designated as an NCD as opposed to an HD? Several respondents at the administrative level informed me that one of the principal reasons Avon Hill was designated as an NCD as opposed to an HD was the relative ease of the voting process and the early protections that came once the nomination process began. As per Chapter 2.78 of the city code, the order establishing an NCD can be adopted by a simple majority (51%) as opposed to the 2/3 majority required for an HD.77 In addition, when the nomination process begins for an NCD (as with an individual landmark) there is an automatic one-year interim protection, which means any plans for demolition or excessive alteration are put on hold. Again, this is not the case with an HD.78 Therefore, in addition to the NCDs being less stringent than NCDs in Cambridge, the nomination process was more favorable as well. However, when residents were questioned about why the neighborhood was not designated as an HD, hardly anyone knew there was any difference between the two types of regulations, and therefore could not comment on the issue. At first, one respondent kept referring to the NCD as an HD. This suggests that the NCD regulations are nearly as strict (or at least perceived to be nearly as strict) as HD rules. It also might imply that the commission and Historical Commission need to do more to inform property owners about various types of landmark regulations in the city.

Conflicts and opposition The period since the Avon Hill NCD was enacted has been marked by two significant controversies Ð the so-called “Raymond Street Rebellion” and an abnormally large new construction at 79 Raymond Street. The first conflict began when eighteen property owners on Raymond Street signed petitions to be excluded from the NCD on August 4, 2005.79 Petitioners were motivated by the perception that the district commission’s rules were not applied consistently, there was confusion over what the commission had jurisdiction, that the commissioners had not acted in an impartial and civil fashion and had made personal comments.80

75 Telephone interview with Owen Dempsey, Cambridge, MA, January 7, 2014. 76 Telephone interview with Owen Dempsey, January 7, 2014. 77 Telephone interview with Charles Sullivan, December 23, 2013. 78 Interview with Sarah Burks, January 8, 2014. 79 Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study (Cambridge, MA: Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study Committee, November 3, 2006) 1. 80 Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study (November 3, 2006), 5.

21 M. Yeston

One case in November 2000 highlighted the difficulty of forging a balance between the rights of homeowners and the public interest.81 Judy Bagalay, one Raymond Street resident, applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a small garage on her property approximately four feet from the sidewalk. After conducting her own historical research, Bagalay discovered a plan by Lois Lily Howe, the architect of her house, for another house in Philips Beach, MA. This house from 1923 was designed with a small garage in the front only one year after the architect designed Bagalay’s home, so she argued that the garage addition would be consistent with the architectural development patterns of the neighborhood. However, she noted that the commission at the time did not take the historical criteria into account, and said one commissioner in particular simply stated he “just didn’t like garages.” Judy Bagalay did not feel the commission was adhering to a consistent set of standards or acting in a professional manner.82 Another Raymond Street resident, Theresa Hamacher also recalled having difficulty with the commission while trying to get projects for her home approved, and reiterated many of the same concerns. She listed the three principal issues as: 1) there was very poor communication about the ordinance’s enactment, 2) the original Avon Hill law was too vague, and 3) the commission had not received sufficient training. She and other residents perceived the commission’s decisions to be motivated too much by personal opinion as opposed to professional judgment. At one hearing, one commissioner in fact referred to part of her house as “ugly,” a word that is obviously not used in the language of the ordinance.83 After conducting neighborhood surveys and several discussions, the Boundary Study Committee produced seventeen recommendations, including the decision to keep the properties on Raymond Street within the district.84 The Study Committee’s resolutions aimed to address the problems associated with the initial commission. One resolution was to establish a Code of Conduct for commissioners that specifies that members “should refrain from expressing personal opinions on these cases and issues, both inside and outside meetings.” Commissioners were also encouraged to reach to affected property owners more and participate in community events that could provide a public forum for education on NCD issues.85 Whereas the original Avon Hill NCD stipulated that non- binding determinations were to be reviewed by the neighborhood commission, a policy which led to tensions within the community, these non-binding cases would be reviewed only at staff level in a less formal process.86 To address the issue of there not being a sufficient amount of expertise on the commission, since it was a challenge to keep searching for qualified members within the neighborhood’s small population, another recommendation made it possible to include two Cambridge homeowners from outside Avon Hill in order to broaden the pool of applicants.87 To ensure that affected property owners are familiar with the review process and to facilitate a

81 Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study (November 3, 2006), 17-18. 82 Interview with Judy Bagalay, Cambridge, MA, January 8, 2014. 83 Interview with Theresa Hamacher, January 6, 2014. 84 Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study (November 3, 2006), 1, 4-5. 85 Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study (November 3, 2006), 28. 86 Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study (November 3, 2006), 24. 87 Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study (November 3, 2006), 26. “Amendment: Ch. 2.78.160.A. of the City Code. ‘One member and/or one alternate of a neighborhood conservation district commission (in addition to the mandated member of the Cambridge Historical Commission may be a Cambridge resident who lives outside the district.’”

22 M. Yeston clear and comprehensible hearing, the Historical Commission produced a written hearing procedure that clarifies how the hearing is structured and what applicants can expect.88 The other significant controversy in Avon Hill was the construction of an unusually large house at 79 Raymond Street (fig. 10). Before the project went through, most of the lot, which is one of the largest lots in the city of Cambridge, was open. The Avon Hill Commission thought it would be better for the neighborhood’s character to conserve the lot’s open space generally, even if it meant increasing the size of the existing house. The commission reasoned this was preferable to splitting the property into smaller lots, each with its own house. As a result, the southern portion of the lot, which includes a group of mature trees, remains open.89 While the new house is not as conspicuous from the front on Raymond Street, it is quite noticeable from the rear to the neighbors along Wyman Street. Margot Welch, a resident, explained that the only reason she wouldn’t call the Avon Hill NCD a complete success is because of the large addition, which represents the kind of action against which, in theory, the NCD is supposed to safeguard. The commission seemed to exhibit a “lack of power” during this case.90 Several other property owners expressed a similar sentiment, that the NCD has been generally successful with the exception of this particular property. In the end, this action can be seen from two different perspectives, and it begs the question of whether there is any disconnect between how residents and owners think the law should be implemented. From the commission’s point of view, protecting Avon Hill’s characteristic open space was the motivating factor for not having additional houses on the empty lawn. However, certain residents felt that the extra open space would be worth sacrificing as long as an out-of-scale home was not constructed adjacent to their homes and blocking some of their open space.

Unanticipated effects, observations, takeaways After conducting interviews with administrators and residents in Cambridge, I learned significant social and behavioral factors that I had previously not taken into consideration. Defining the success of the Cambridge NCD should not be measured only by the number of buildings preserved or how many inappropriate additions are prevented. A metric for the program’s success is how equitable and accessible the review process is. Art Bardige felt the goal of the NCD law is not only to preserve the existing neighborhood’s existing character, but to have a thorough and fair process that can allow for cooperation and understanding between neighbors. Appearing before the local commission should not be akin to going before a group of uncompromising “wardens.” Rather, there should be a “neighborly” attitude of respect and working together. He contends that after the Boundary Study and seventeen new recommendations, the design review process is performing much better because it is less vague and there is more expertise on the commission.91 Theresa Hamacher echoed this sentiment saying that the rules are now more specific, the hearings are more predictable, and applicants tend to have less anxiety going before the commission. The commissioners themselves make a point to smile at people and to be welcoming, and say up front why the hearing is taking place. It is important for the commissioners to keep in mind that applicants’ houses are their financial

88 Avon Hill Hearing Procedure (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Historical Commission, March 16, 2007). 89 Interview with Sarah Burks, January 8, 2014. 90 Interview with Margot Welch, Cambridge, MA, January 7, 2014. 91 Interview with Art Bardige, January 7, 2014.

23 M. Yeston assets, and the homeowners have very little power of appeal.92 So the less concern applicants have, the more cooperative they will tend to be and the more the results will be in line with the NCD’s original goals. Andrea Wilder, a resident, said that one happy side effect of the NCD was bringing the area together as a community. If something has to go before the commission, it is now more likely that neighbors will provide help and advice to the applicant.93 One factor specific to Avon Hill I had not realized when commencing research was the importance of open space and how it is just as character defining as the diverse architecture. The space the ordinance sought to preserve has certainly been maintained, especially in winter when it is possible to see at least one block across through people’s property. In some cases one can see the front of the house on the next street over. Another significant and potentially contentious issue that arose was how well the NCD had accomplished historic preservation goals. Heli Meltsner, another commissioner, had concerns about how the commission has been interpreting the standards for preservation. Although she thought of the NCD as being mostly successful, she noted that a “misguided” pattern of constructing new homes to mimic historic homes has become commonplace in Avon Hill. She describes the problem as “Mansardization,” in reference to brand new houses built in the Second Empire style with Mansard roofs. She believes that part of the neighborhood’s character is the diversity of architecture, which should include the past and the present. A new house should not reflect the styles of the 1870s or 1880s, but rather should speak to our time and add to the area’s diversity. Coupled with this have been two recently approved demolitions of single-story mid-century bungalows (fig. 11).94 Both Heli Meltsner and Art Bardige brought up the issue that developers most likely could not sell the bungalow houses as easily as they could sell a larger, Victorian-style new house that fit in more with the neighborhood as a whole. While some members of the commission might argue that the low, mid-century houses do not have as much historical value, Meltsner contends that selective demolition goes against some of the core principles of preservation, and that those houses are just as important to Avon Hill’s history as those built in the 19th century.95 Thus the question becomes: has the Avon Hill NCD always been a successful preservation tool, or can it sometimes be used just for stylistic marketing? One crucial observation revealed with great clarity that, as regards any unforeseen consequences of the district resulting in increasing property values or gentrification, there was consensus across the board that the enactment of the NCD had little to no bearing on those consequences. With regard to property values per se, housing prices have steadily been increasing all over Cambridge during the past three decades. More than one interviewee noted a statewide referendum in 1994 that effectively ended Cambridge’s policy of rent control, which has led to prices increasing ever since.96 Since the neighborhood was comparatively well-off to begin with, displacement has not been an issue. Other citywide factors also contributed to Avon Hill’s appeal. It is walking distance from Harvard Square and subway-riding distance from other world-class universities. The neighborhood is walking distance from a commercial thoroughfare

92 Interview with Theresa Hamacher, January 6, 2014. 93 Interview with Andrea Wilder, Cambridge, MA, January 8, 2014. 94 Interview with Heli Meltsner, Avon Hill NCD Commission, Cambridge, MA, January 6, 2014. 95 Interview with Heli Meltsner, January 6, 2014. 96 Jay Fitzgerald, “The End of Rent Control in Cambridge,” National Bureau of Economic Research, accessed February 1, 2014, http://www.nber.org/digest/oct12/w18125.html. “The end of rent control raised the overall valuation of Cambridge's housing stock by $1.8 billion between 1994 and 2004, more than $1 billion of which was due to spillovers to never-controlled houses.”

24 M. Yeston

(fig. 12), but the multi-dwelling apartments along Massachusetts Avenue serve as a sound buffer, so it is as though one can walk from Westchester County to a single strip of New York City and back. It is a self-contained unit with unusually large open spaces yet still within the city proper. Lastly, when the Red Line was extended to the Porter Square Station in 1986, it became possible to take a train directly from Avon Hill to downtown Boston. In addition to the neighborhood’s distinctive character, there is a host of other urban amenities that make it an attractive place to live.

Suggestions for Improvement One area that multiple respondents said needs improvement is how the local commission membership is composed. A difficulty with choosing commissioners from such a small neighborhood is that the pool of applicants is small as well. One respondent said the commission can sometimes feel more like a community association than a government function. The only real linkage between the local commission and the Cambridge Historical Commission is that one CHC member serves on the Avon Hill commission. Another interviewee suggested that if the city paid commissioners for participating, that would be a better incentive for more professionals to bring their knowledge Ð whether planning, legal, or historical Ð to the table. If additional commissioners were gathered from outside the neighborhood, the review board would be able to capture more expertise. Another point raised was that since each Cambridge NCD has a different set of rules, it can be perplexing for both affected homeowners and developers as to what is expected of them. Having more citywide uniformity in terms of NCD policies might result in more efficient standards and review. One respondent suggested the notion of rotating commissioners among the various districts to promote continuity. However, this suggestion would entail reworking much of the legislation on which Cambridge’s NCDs are based.

Quantitative Data As can be seen in Appendix Table 1, many of the sentiments expressed by respondents about the overall aftereffects of the NCD are reflected in the data. The presence of the Avon Hill NCD after 1998 does not portray many dramatic shifts compared to the overall city. To cite some examples, although average gross rent increased by 48.4% in Avon Hill compared with 25.7% citywide, this occurred before the NCD’s enactment. The median value for owner- occupied units actually decreased at a quicker rate during the 1990s, but climbed at a faster rate than the city in the 2000s, which would likely indicate that the NCD may have contributed to a rise in property values. However, it is important to note that the data for Avon Hill goes beyond its borders, and the area includes other amenities such as access to mass transit and proximity to Harvard University. In Cambridge from 1990 to 2000, the median household income went up 31.5% in Avon Hill compared with 7.8% across Cambridge as a whole, and from 2000 to 2009 the MHI actually decreased compared with the city’s rate. The rapid growth of MHI in Avon Hill occurred predominantly before the implementation of the NCD, which means that this growth cannot be attributable to the district. While Avon Hill’s Black population decreased at a faster rate than the city from 1990 to 2009, their number was never above 5% of the area to begin with, compared to a White population of 85.3% in 1990, 76.8% in 2000, and 72.2% in 2009. Avon Hill is not the case of a large incumbent Black population being displaced by rising property values that may or may not be caused by a highly-educated White population. Rather, it is an area that simply had a White and well-off majority to begin with. While the shift in levels of education does show a gradually

25 M. Yeston higher percentage of individuals with a post-college education over time, and a decreasing number of individuals with an education less than high school, this trend is also reflected citywide, and the percentage of those without a high school education across Cambridge is dramatically low to begin with. In terms of the increase in the number of owner-occupied units vs. the amount of renter-occupied units, the changes in Avon Hill do not differ wildly from the city of Cambridge. The findings from the U.S. Census serve to bolster residents’ claims that the NCD cannot be held directly accountable for unintended changes (such as gentrification), as home values have increased throughout Cambridge as a whole.97

97 U.S. Census Bureau. Avon Hill Neighborhood Composite, 1990, 2000, 2009. Prepared by Social Explorer.

26 M. Yeston

QUEEN VILLAGE NCD, PHILADELPHIA, PA

Preservation in Philadelphia A confluence of events and initiatives after the Second World War led to the creation of Philadelphia’s planning and preservation policies. Philadelphia’s midcentury urban renewal program was anomalous in that it incorporated historic preservation and neighborhood stabilization in addition to wholesale clearance.98 As with cities across the United States, Philadelphia’s residential physical fabric had deteriorated from a combination of disinvestment during the Great Depression and WWII, the availability of suburban housing loans, and federal highway construction that ultimately relocated jobs and residents away from the city.99 In the 1940s, civic and business leaders created the Greater Philadelphia Movement (GPM) to reform local government by passing a Home Rule Charter, overhauling the City Council, and establishing the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) in 1942.100 The Commission’s 1960 Comprehensive Plan for Philadelphia was unusually conservative for its time, in that it combined redevelopment with the rehabilitation of nearly 75 percent of the city’s residential buildings as an official Urban Renewal strategy.101 A prime motivator behind the comparative lack of planned demolition was the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority’s (PRA) 1956 Central Urban Renewal Area report, which determined that having a clearance approach would lead to prohibitive costs of almost $1 billion.102 During the same period, preservation policies with a narrow definition of historic significance Ð executed through the urban renewal Independence Hall landmark district in 1947, and the 1955 Philadelphia Historical Commission (PHC, which was the first preservation commission with jurisdiction over a whole metropolitan area) Ð resulted in an immaculate restoration of Independence Hall, the wholesale demolition of a hundred buildings to create a surrounding grassy mall, and criteria for significance limited to Colonial-era buildings. This had the effect of restricting early preservation efforts to the restoration and replication of Colonial facades and the demolition of non-contributing post- Colonial structures in Society Hill.103 Although the Historical Commission broadened its categories for historic value in the 1970s, at its inception it would have allowed vast swaths of

98 Stephanie R. Ryberg, “Historic Preservation’s Urban Renewal Roots: Preservation and Planning in Midcentury Philadelphia,” Journal of Urban History 39 (2012): 193. 99 Ryberg, “Historic Preservation’s Urban Renewal Roots,” 197. 100 Ryberg, “Historic Preservation’s Urban Renewal Roots,” 198. 101 Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan: The Physical Development Plan for the City of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia City Planning Commission, 1960), in Ryberg, “Historic Preservation’s Urban Renewal Roots,” 202. The Philadelphia Comprehensive Plan organized all residential neighborhoods into four categories. In areas of major reconstruction, which contained about 100,000 dwelling units (5.5 square miles), the plan called for demolition of at least one-third of the structures. Around 200,000 units fell within limited reconstruction areas (15 square miles), in which it was recommended that one-tenth to one-third of the buildings be demolished. Conservation areas, the third category, were comprised of 150,000 units (11 square miles) that were in good condition but required more community facilities and open space. The remaining units were in locations deemed stable, with no need of intervention. 102 Guian A. McKee, “Liberal Ends through Illibreral Means: Race, Urban Renewal, and Community in the Eastwick Section of Philadelphia, 1949-1990,” Journal of Urban History 27 (2001): 559, in Ryberg, “Historic Preservation’s Urban Renewal Roots,” 201. The 1956 Central Urban Renewal Area report proposed that “rather than attacking the worst areas with aggressive clearance programs, the city would focus on the conservation of declining residential areas.” 103 Ryberg, “Historic Preservation’s Urban Renewal Roots,” 200-202, 204.

27 M. Yeston the city to be demolished for not measuring up to its midcentury criteria. The Planning Commission deserves more credit, however, for preservation on a district-scale, through its approach to protecting the built environment out of financial constraints and a desire to retain Philadelphia’s basic residential character.104 For the commission, conservation of vernacular building stock “reflected an inherent value placed on the existing built environment” and served as an unintentional, implied historic preservation, rather than an official designation based on a need to retain historic integrity.105 From early on, it appears that planning efforts in Philadelphia were more receptive to the importance of extant buildings.

History of Queen Village Since the creation of Philadelphia’s NCD legislation was largely the result of attempts to safeguard Queen Village in particular, a brief history of the neighborhood will be given. Queen Village’s architectural character is largely derived from land subdivision, early community planning efforts, an industrial waterfront, modest vernacular styles, and successive waves of immigration. The area, named Southwark by William Penn after a South London neighborhood, has one of Philadelphia’s largest collections of narrow party-wall houses (constructed between ca.1740 and 1840) and modest storefront buildings (late-19th to early-20th century).106 Most of the earliest 18th-century dwellings were built one room wide and one to two rooms deep (around 10 x 20 feet) as a result of the culture of subdividing lots in reaction to the William Penn plan.107 This density and building irregularity is what primarily defines the district to this day.108 To keep unbridled lot division and development in check, the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1762 designated Southwark as an independent municipality109 with its own

104 Ryberg, “Historic Preservation’s Urban Renewal Roots,” 208. 105 Ryberg, “Historic Preservation’s Urban Renewal Roots,” 207. 106 Terry A. Necciai, RA, Statement of Significance for Southwark Historic District (Second Draft) (Philadelphia, PA: for Queen Village Neighbors Association Ð Historic Preservation Committee, July 30, 2012) 9. Steve Sitarski, “History of Queen Village” (Queen Village Neighbors Association, May 18, 2011), accessed February 3, 2014, http://www.qvna.org/qvna/history-of-queen-village/. Before any European settlement the area was occupied by the Wiccaco, a local Lenni Lenape tribe whose name translates to “pleasant place.” In the early 17th century, Swedish colonists settled land along the Delaware River from Wilmington, Delaware to Trenton, New Jersey, and arrived at present-day Queen Village in 1638. Subsequently controlled by the Dutch, the area was swiftly ceded to the British. After William Penn received a land grant in 1682 to found the city of Philadelphia immediately to the north, he changed the settlement’s name from Wiccaco to Southwark, after a neighborhood in London. With the exception of a collection of wooden farmhouses and the Gloria Dei (Old Swedes’) Episcopal Church (1700), the land remained largely unaltered during the 17th and early 18th centuries. Gloria Dei is Pennsylvania’s oldest church, with brick walls constructed in the Flemish bond with alternative red and black headers. 107 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 11, 14-16. Southwark’s north-south streets were extensions of William Penn’s 1682 street grid. The small lots were an unintended product of how William Penn and his surveyor Thomas Holme established the Philadelphia grid and sold the land, which resulted in a culture of subdividing the larger rectangular lots into smaller lots of fixed sizes. Penn had originally envisioned a “greene Country Towne,” and he set aside larger lots with the hope of creating more open space around each house. The Philadelphia plan produced the opposite outcome, and buyers frequently paved extra narrow streets through the center of large blocks, which enabled them to build an extra row of small rental homes or speculative dwellings for sale in the blocks’ center. What resulted was more density, a loss of control of lot sizes, and building irregularity. 108 A. Welljams-Dorof, Queen Village Guide to Historic Buildings (Philadelphia, PA: Queen Village Neighbors Association, 2011) 3. 109 Sitarski, “History of Queen Village” (May 18, 2011). Southwark would remain an independent municipality until 1854 when it was incorporated into the City of Philadelphia as part of the Consolidation Act.

28 M. Yeston

“charter”-like document that regulated party wall construction and street maintenance.110 The 1762 rules, increased commercial activity along the waterfront in the mid 18th century, and the outlawing of wood frame buildings in the Philadelphia area in 1796 resulted in a relatively uniform streetscape of modest Georgian and Federal style brick row houses (each one about 16- 18 feet wide), which constitute approximately half the neighborhood’s building stock (fig. 13).111 Further developments that brought increased industrial activity to Southwark were the city’s first Navy Yard in 1801 just south of Washington Avenue, the Spark’s Shot Tower on Carpenter Street in 1808, and in the 1850s, a railroad terminal (also at Washington Avenue) that connected Atlantic maritime traffic to the Baltimore, Ohio and Pennsylvania Railroads.112 In addition to the presence of an industrial waterfront, the influx of various immigrant groups played an equally important role in Southwark’s growth, which is evidenced by the neighborhood’s prominent institutions and late-19th century storefront architecture. Following the initial Swedish population, English Quakers, Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, German Lutherans, other early Protestant groups as well as free African Americans settled in Southwark.113 Starting in the 19th century and accelerating after the Potato Famine, the neighborhood’s Irish Catholic immigrant population swelled. The St. Philip Neri Church was established in 1841 to serve this population.114 In 1873, an immigration processing facility was opened at the maritime railroad terminal at Washington Avenue, through which roughly one million immigrants (mostly Italians, Poles and Jews) passed over the next half-century.115 Polish Catholics founded St. Stanislaus Church in 1891116, and eleven synagogues were established in the neighborhood between 1890 and 1930.117 During a renewed economy in the 1890s, several Jewish-owned retail shops (especially for fabric) were established in the 1890s along South Street and 4th Street (now called “Fabric Row”) in new three-story brick storefront buildings in the Queen Anne style. Typically constructed on adjacent lots with party walls, the buildings (with a depth of 40 to 100 feet) nearly always featured two-story pressed metal semi-hexagonal bay windows on the second and third floors.118 These bay windows are present on several residents without ground floor retail as well (fig. 14).

110 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 10-11, 14, 16. 111 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 19. Sitarski, “History of Queen Village” (May 18, 2011). Among the residents of Southwark after the commercial boom were ship builders, dock workers, carpenters, craftspersons, and rope and sail makers. 112 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 19, 26. Sitarski, “History of Queen Village” (May 18, 2011). Cynthia Temple, “Settlements in Queen Village from 1600 to Today” (Queen Village Neighbors Association, October 30, 2011), accessed February 3, 2014, http://www.qvna.org/qvna/settlements-in-queen-village-from-1600- to-today/. The Sparks Shot Tower was used as a munitions manufacturing plant during the War of 1812. 113 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 27. 114 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 29. Temple, “Settlements in Queen Village from 1600 to Today” (October 30, 2011). In 1808, Catholics comprised 20% of the city’s population, and grew to approximately one third of the population by the 1850s. 115 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 26. Temple, “Settlements in Queen Village from 1600 to Today” (October 30, 2011). 116 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 30. In the former First Presbyterian Church (built 1857). 117 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 30-31. During this period, several Hebrew schools were also established, such as the Beaux-Arts style Central Talmud Torah at 314-320 Catharine Street. The building is now occupied by residential condominium units. 118 Necciai, Statement of Significance for Southwark, 21-23. Dozens of storefront buildings were constructed in Southwark between 1890 and 1930, mostly before 1910.

29 M. Yeston

After World War II, Southwark’s population declined as immigrants and their children moved to other sections of Philadelphia and the suburbs. As part of nationwide urban renewal efforts, numerous blocks between Christian Street and Washington Avenue were demolished to build the Southwark public housing projects. In addition, over 300 18th century houses were demolished to pave the way for I-95. Although similar plans were underway for a crosstown expressway that would connect to I-95 by cutting across South Street, local residents challenged the project in court and the project never materialized.119 Soon after, a Southwark National Register District was established on May 19, 1972.120 In the course of the decade, the relatively more abandoned South Street commercial area began to attract young artists and new businesses. The recent restoration and revitalization of historic buildings in Society Hill to the north inspired prospective buyers to purchase and rehabilitate old houses in Southwark, leading to increased interest in the 1980s. To capitalize on the appeal, real estate agents dubbed the neighborhood “Queen Village” in reference to the neighborhood’s Swedish pioneers and their Queen Christina.121 In the 1990s, a new business improvement district that included South Street and 4th Street was created to provide supplemental services to businesses that occupied the three- story storefront buildings established by immigrants a century prior.122 Unlike the meticulously restored streetscapes of Society Hill, Queen Village is characterized by an eclectic mix of vernacular Federal row houses, Queen Anne bay windows, geometric 1920s-1930s brick buildings, and a collection of late-20th century façade alterations (figs. 15 & 16).

Philadelphia’s NCD Ordinance and the Queen Village NCD Philadelphia’s conservation district legislation as well as the Queen Village NCD arose from concerns over development that could not be adequately addressed by HD designation. Since the Historical Commission’s creation in 1955, approximately 850 buildings in Queen Village have received local landmark protection, of which about 800 remain.123 Despite the number of individual landmarks and the National Register district, the neighborhood did not have local HD protection, which, in the early 2000s, permitted developers to purchase older houses, tear them down, and replace them with new construction that was not at an appropriate scale to the area’s smallest streets, despite being allowed by the underlying zoning code. New, incompatible materials such as vinyl were also utilized in new projects that altered the 18th and 19th century character of certain streets and courtyards. Perhaps the most dissonant change that took place during this period of intense development was replacing traditional stoops and first- floor windows with garage fronts (figs. 17 & 18). This had the effect of removing windows from the street level, adding curb cuts to the sidewalk, and taking more parking out of the public realm, which all combined in a more impersonal, less pedestrian-friendly environment.124

119 Sitarski, “History of Queen Village” (May 18, 2011). 120 Emily T. Cooperman, Ph.D. and Cory Kegerise, M.S., Historic Districts in Philadelphia: An assessment of existing information and recommendations for future action (Philadelphia, PA: Cultural Resource Consulting Group, January 9, 2007) 21. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Municipal Code ¤ 14-2008, “Southwark National Historic District.” The National Register district encompasses largely the same area as the NCD, except that it extends two blocks north to Lombard Street and ends at the rear property lines of the houses on the west side of 5th Street. 121 Sitarski, “History of Queen Village” (May 18, 2011). 122 Temple, “Settlements in Queen Village from 1600 to Today” (October 30, 2011). 123 Welljams-Dorof, Queen Village Guide to Historic Buildings, 1. 124 Interview with Mike Hauptman, co-chair, zoning committee, Queen Village Neighbors Association, Philadelphia, PA, December 17, 2013. Mike Hauptman, “Neighborhood Conservation District” (Queen Village Neighbors

30 M. Yeston

To address these encroachments on Queen Village’s character, the Neighbors Association researched NCD legislation after concluding that the community as a whole would not support a traditional HD, since the documentation would be an expensive undertaking and many residents were opposed to more stringent Historical Commission regulations. NCDs appeared more suited to the goal of impeding garage construction in a neighborhood without many garages, reducing the height of new developments, and making new materials more compatible with the area. After consultations between the Neighbors Association, the Planning Commission and the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, the City Council adopted the city’s NCD ordinance on June 21, 2004.125 The legislation stipulates that an NCD is defined by an area at least two blocks squared, no section of which is already within an HD. An NCD must be at least 70% residential use and zoned residential, and no NCD will be created unless the Council determines the area features a “consistent physical character.” A petition asking that the Philadelphia City Planning Commission begin the process of creating an NCD can be filed either by a neighborhood association in the area to be considered, or by the signatures of at least 30% of local property owners. The Planning Commission then has six months to collaborate with the neighborhood association and residents, District Councilpersons to craft the provisions of the specific NCD, and also must convene at least one meeting in the neighborhood to seek public comment. The proposed ordinance written by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission is then forwarded to the District Councilpersons who represent the NCD’s proposed boundaries. The Clerk of Council then submits the final NCD proposal to the Planning Commission and Historical Commission for any further recommendations, which both entities have 60 days to make. Within this time period a public hearing for all affected property owners is convened, and the Council will not enact the NCD if at least 51% of property owners submit written opposition to it. If there is insufficient opposition, the Council adopts the NCD and sends written notice to all affected homeowners.126 The principal actions regulated by the ordinance, and thus requiring a certificate of compliance from the Planning Commission, are a) the alteration of a building’s exterior if said alteration is visible from a public way, b) demolition of a building, c) the expansion of an existing building, and d) constructing a new building on a vacant lot or after an existing property is demolished. In reviewing a certificate of compliance, the Planning Commission may consult the Historical Commission.127 Fundamentally, an NCD is an Overlay District over any “conventional underlying zoning district,” meaning that the usual use, yard and area requirements still apply, except for any actions that conflict with the NCD ordinance.128 With the support of Councilor DiCicco and the Queen Village Neighbors Association (QVNA), Queen Village’s NCD guidelines were developed and presented at community

Association, July 3, 2013), accessed February 3, 2014, http://www.qvna.org/qvna/neighborhood-conservation- district/. 125 Interview with Mike Hauptman, December 17, 2013. Mike Hauptman, “Neighborhood Conservation District” (July 3, 2013). 126 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 040156: An Ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled ‘Zoning and Planning,’ by adding a new Chapter providing for the creation of Neighborhood Conservation Districts” ¤ 14-1203, “Creation of an NCD” (June 21, 2004). 127 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 040156” ¤ 14-504, “Design Guidelines”; 14-1206, “Certificates of compliance required within an NCD” (June 21, 2004). 128 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 040156” ¤ 14-1205, “Applicability” (June 21, 2004).

31 M. Yeston meetings from 2004 to 2007. Public comments were integrated and the Queen Village NCD became law on June 19, 2008.129 The major actions that are regulated by the NCD are new construction and substantial alteration, but not demolition.130 Review of such projects within the NCD is triggered by application for a building permit.131 The permit must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before any proposed work can begin.132 If a developer requests a zoning variance, the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) refers him or her to the Neighbors Association Zoning Committee for advisory review and neighborhood input at a scheduled meeting. Although the ZBA is not required to follow the committee’s recommendations, the board generally does so.133 The Queen Village NCD seeks to manage growth and change to be in keeping with the neighborhood’s existing street character. With regard to height regulations, along streets that are 21 feet wide or less, new properties cannot exceed 22 feet to the cornice line before either stepping back 8 feet from the front wall and rising to the maximum allowable height in the underlying zoning, or recessing back on a plane at least 45 degrees.134 To minimize the amount of new frontal garages, the Planning Commission advised the Queen Village Neighbors Association committee to refrain from using language that explicitly banned garages.135 Instead, the Queen Village bill stipulates that all residential structures require a “habitable room”136 on the ground floor. The bill does not forbid garages, rather it effectively eliminates them by having a room that presumably will have windows and doors.137 To ensure continuity with the neighborhood’s fenestration patterns and low front stoops, the law explicitly requires new doors to be elevated at least one foot above the ground,138 new first-floor windows must be at most 4 feet 6 inches from the sidewalk139, windows must be at least 4 feet high140, and the aggregate width of windows “in lineal feet” must be at least 33% of the first floor’s “total lineal frontage.” 141 The only instance where front garages are permitted is if there is a first-floor habitable room that has met fenestration requirements.142 To scale back roof decks, they must be pushed back at least 8 feet from the front property line.143 To address the issue of incompatible materials, the ordinance specifically prohibits the use of vinyl, stucco, and cement-board siding on a building’s

129 Mike Hauptman, “Neighborhood Conservation District” (July 3, 2013). 130 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A: Amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled ‘Zoning and Planning,’ by adding a new Section 14-908, entitled ‘Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District,’” Section 4a (June 19, 2008). Mike Hauptman, “Neighborhood Conservation District” (July 3, 2013). 131 Mike Hauptman, “Neighborhood Conservation District” (July 3, 2013). 132 City of Philadelphia, The Philadelphia Code, 10th ed., Title 14: Zoning and Planning, Chapter 14-500: Overlay Zoning Districts, ¤ 14-504 “NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District” (Philadelphia, PA: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011). 133 “QVNA Ð The Zoning Process” (Queen Village Neighbors Association, July 3, 2013), accessed February 3, 2014, http://www.qvna.org/qvna/the-zoning-process/. 134 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 3b (June 19, 2008). 135 Interview with Mike Hauptman, December 17, 2013. 136 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 4a.2 (June 19, 2008). 137 Interview with Mike Hauptman, December 17, 2013. 138 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 4a.3 (June 19, 2008). 139 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 4a.6.a (June 19, 2008). 140 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 4a.6.b (June 19, 2008). 141 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 4a.6.c (June 19, 2008). 142 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 4a.7.a (June 19, 2008). 143 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 4a.8 (June 19, 2008).

32 M. Yeston front façade.144 Additionally, since several late-19th and early-20th century buildings feature bay windows or other projections, the NCD requires that, where street frontage of a new building or an expanded existing building exceeds 20 feet on a single street, the street-facing façade must be varied by “offset planes” such as bay windows or set-backs.145 For new buildings or heavy alterations to structures zoned as commercial or as industrial, the “habitable room” provision does not apply, though new façade materials must be similar to those on the closest residential buildings fronting the same street.146 Since the revamping of Philadelphia’s zoning code in 2011, the Queen Village regulations were simply carried over into the new code.147 Different land uses and previously existing districts within Queen Village ultimately dictated the precise shape of the NCD. The South Street/Headhouse Square Special Services District was already in place since 1996, and consisted mostly of commercial storefronts at the ground level.148 The Planning Department encouraged the Queen Village Neighbors Association committee not to superimpose the NCD over the business district since the commercial nature of the area would most likely never comply with the NCD’s ground floor residential rules. Buildings within the South Street District that fronted 4th Street between Bainbridge and Christian Street (or “Fabric Row”)149 were therefore excluded from the NCD, otherwise bordered by Bainbridge Street to the north, Washington Avenue to the south, Front Street to the east, and 6th Street to the west (fig. 19). Although a more recent affordable housing area was included in the NCD (from 3rd to 5th Streets between Washington and Christian Streets) (fig. 20), the building regulations do not really apply since most of the buildings are two-story detached duplexes surrounded by front and back lawns.150

144 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 4a.9.a (June 19, 2008). 145 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 4a.1 (June 19, 2008). 146 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 080080-A,” Section 6a.2 (June 19, 2008). 147 Interview with Mike Hauptman, December 17, 2013. City of Philadelphia, The Philadelphia Code, 10th ed. ¤ 14- 504 “NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District” (Philadelphia, PA: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011). 148 City of Philadelphia, “Bill No. 960264: South Street/HeadHouse Square Special Services District Controls,” Sections 2-6 (July 8, 1996). The South Street/HeadHouse Square District was enacted to maintain and promote the revitalization of the mixed use retail and service area through prohibited uses and the regulation of signs and building setbacks. The district has the following boundaries: “All properties fronting on Kenilworth Street and Bainbridge Street between 3rd Street and Reese Street; all properties fronting on 4th Street between Bainbridge Street and Christian Street; all properties fronting on 5th Street between Bainbridge Street and Fitzwater Street; and, all properties fronting on the easterly side of Randolph Street between Fitzwater Street and Kenilworth Street.” 149 For more on Fabric Row, see Cynthia Temple, “Fabric Row” (Queen Village Neighbors Association, June 9, 2011), accessed February 3, 2014, http://www.qvna.org/qvna/fabric-row/. 150 Interview with Mike Hauptman, December 17, 2013. Mike Hauptman does not believe there will be an NCD- related conflict there since it is unlikely that a developer would build a high-style townhouse in the middle of an affordable housing area.

33 M. Yeston

FINDINGS FOR QUEEN VILLAGE NCD, PHILADELPHIA, PA

Is the NCD successful, and how do different stakeholders define that success? What are the advantages and disadvantages? In Philadelphia, as in Cambridge, most participants agreed that the Queen Village NCD was a success. Those at the administrative level as well as individuals in the Queen Village Neighbors Association spoke of the ordinance as having a positive effect on the general character of their streets. Members of the Urban Design Division of the Philadelphia Department of City Planning stated the NCD “created a higher standard of building design” for new projects and has led to a higher quality of work.151 Jeff Hornstein, QVNA president, described the ordinance as striking a “balance between building improvement and new development.” The NCD does not try to inhibit commercial or residential activity, rather it ensures that new buildings are not out of scale with the neighborhood.152 Peter Piven, a member of the QVNA zoning committee, agreed by noting that the “quality of the built environment is beneficially affected” through application of the regulations. Since the NCD’s enactment there have been fewer proposals for residential properties to exceed height limits and fewer street level garages.153 Furthermore, no one in the neighborhood has moved out specifically because they were not allowed to build such garages. The NCD also forces developers to come up with more creative solutions based on the regulations.154 When asked the question of how the ordinance affects them personally, some residents indicated that while the NCD does not directly affect their property, they knew that the overall presence of the law was beneficial to their community. Terese Zeccardi compared the NCD to “anti-virus software” Ð something one doesn’t constantly think about, but one knows is there safeguarding the neighborhood. She was not aware of the specific mechanics of the ordinance, but knew it was important and was glad it existed.155 Cynthia Temple, another resident, stated that the NCD affects her personally through the kind of neighborhood it maintains Ð having fewer garages, rooftop decks being set back, and having new buildings with appropriate materials.156 Respondents also drew attention to other planning-related issues that complemented the preservation aspects of the NCD. At least three residents on the Neighbors Association made references to maintaining the neighborhood’s walkability and quality of life, and making the area safe through the Jacobsian “eyes on the street.”157 Many residents stressed that a chief benefit of

151 Interview with Jack Conviser, Beige Berryman and David Schaaf, Urban Design Division, Department of City Planning, Philadelphia, PA, December 18, 2013. 152 Interview with Jeff Hornstein, President, Queen Village Neighbors Association, Philadelphia, PA, December 19, 2013. Mr. Hornstein also stressed that the QVNA has a strong partnership with the contiguous South Street Head House District along 4th and South Streets, and both organizations work together to promote the neighborhood’s vitality. 153 Interview with Peter Piven, zoning committee, Queen Village Neighbors Association, Philadelphia, PA, January 13, 2014. 154 Interview with Mike Hauptman, co-chair, zoning committee, Queen Village Neighbors Association, Philadelphia, PA, December 17, 2013. 155 Interview with Terese Zeccardi, Philadelphia, PA, January 11, 2014. 156 Interview with Cynthia Temple, historic preservation committee, Queen Village Neighbors Association, Philadelphia, PA, January 13, 2014. 157 Interview with Amy Shelanski, Executive Vice President, Queen Village Neighbors Association, January 14, 2014. Interview with Cynthia Temple, January 13, 2014. Interview with Peter Piven, January 13, 2014.

34 M. Yeston preventing garage construction, aside from allowing more windows at street level and making the streets more pedestrian friendly, was making more parking spaces available to the public realm. Every garage and curb cut represented one fewer space for the public. The NCD therefore had the effect of benefitting Philadelphia’s public interest with regard to transportation in addition to fostering a local walkable, architecturally compatible community. Jeff Hornstein noted that people are moving to the neighborhood not because they want to drive (and by extension have their own garage driveway), but because they want a walkable, bikeable community. Several local businesses are also “pro-pedestrian” because their customers walk, bike or take the bus.158 Few respondents had reasons for any negative aspects of the Queen Village NCD. Terese Zeccardi said the only downside to the NCD she could think of is the fact that it is simply another regulation to follow.159 Other respondents mentioned that since the ordinance does not regulate style or demolition, there is nothing to prevent an owner from painting his or her house a color that is seen as out of character with the district, and there is no way to prevent the demolition of the neighborhood’s original historic fabric. Jon Liss, a longtime resident, thought the law went too far with regard to the regulation that effectively prohibited garages. He personally did not have a problem with having garage doors in front, and by removing the private interior parking space, that is one less space for the property owner. Mr. Liss saw a real conflict between preservation and parking, as Philadelphia is still home to many who are dependent on automobile travel. There are therefore two perceptions of the public interest with regard to parking Ð from one perspective, not having the garages opens up more spaces for the public, and from the other, individual owners having guaranteed parking spots constitutes a public benefit in itself. Mr. Liss also viewed the ordinance’s aesthetic and height regulations as potential limits to further architectural creativity in the area.160 One additional drawback to the NCD that could be questionable from a preservation standpoint is that although the regulations engender more compatible new infill, sometimes it comes at the expense of original building fabric that few people want to save.161

Why was the area designated as an NCD as opposed to an HD? For the respondents who were able to address why Queen Village was designated as an NCD as opposed to an HD, a theme that was frequently brought up was the area’s eclectic building stock and streetscapes. Queen Village’s diverse architectural styles, extensive alterations over time, and different scales made it difficult to identify a more consistent stylistic theme for a traditional HD.162 Jeff Hornstein stated that one reason the community wanted an NCD was to have the “vitality and flexibility that comes with new developments.” It appears that there was a perception that having a traditional HD would place too many constraints on new projects.163 Cynthia Temple recalled that although there were several hundred individual landmarks in Queen Village, by the time discussions about the NCD had begun, many residents were concerned an HD would impose overly strict regulations, and that maintenance costs would

158 Interview with Jeff Hornstein, December 19, 2013. 159 Interview with Terese Zeccardi, January 11, 2014. 160 Interview with Jon Liss, Philadelphia, PA, January 11, 2014. 161 Interview with Cynthia Temple, January 13, 2014. 162 Interview with Mike Hauptman, December 17, 2013. 163 Interview with Jeff Hornstein, December 19, 2013.

35 M. Yeston be on par with the extensive renovations in Society Hill, and they would lose freedom to do what they wish with their property.164

Conflicts and opposition For the most part, interviewees did not recall significant opposition to the Queen Village ordinance. When the NCD was first under consideration, some residents were against it because they thought of the law as something taking away their right to do things to their property. The ultimate intent of the law was to prevent a resident’s neighbors from building something he or she won’t like (e.g. a garage). Once this concept was understood, the majority of the neighborhood agreed with the NCD’s purpose.165 As of now, for neighbors who pay attention to the approval process, there are individuals who can get very passionate on both sides of a new project. On the one hand, some builders and property owners are insistent on adding elements Ð such as a garage or a picture window Ð that are prohibited by the NCD. On the other hand, there are individuals who complain if the proposal is only a couple of inches beyond what the regulations allow.166 These arguments, however, tend to be limited to applicants directly affected by the NCD. With respect to points of contention, there were a few infill projects that occurred soon after the NCD was enacted that seemed to blatantly go against the purpose of the ordinance but were approved anyway. At a vacant lot at the corner of Catharine and South Hancock Streets, a permit for a new construction project was approved. Typically, if construction does not begin within a year after the zoning permit is approved, the permit expires. However, unbeknownst to anyone on QVNA or the larger community, the Pennsylvania government passed legislation extending the expiration deadline until 2016 to help developers who had already had permits approved immediately before the 2008 crash, so they could easily get their projects off the ground. The neighborhood began referring to these as “zombie” projects since it was assumed they were “dead” and were suddenly reappearing. At first, the new project appeared too tall compared to the surrounding structures. Fortunately, the new developer was willing to work with neighbors to broker a deal that allowed a roof deck, so long as there were setbacks and size adjustments. Mike Hauptman feels the result is certainly preferable to a vacant lot for parked cars. However, this occurrence created a perception that the NCD was not performing optimally, and could not be enforced as well as intended. Another “zombie” project at Carpenter and Bodine Streets was not as successful in getting the developer to compromise.167 Another instance where the NCD was perceived to not be fulfilling its purpose happened to be the first project that was considered under the new law. When the applicant came before the QVNA zoning committee, no one in the city told him about the new regulations. In addition, the zoning committee thought the stretch of Carpenter Street between 5th and 6th Street was outside the NCD (which it wasn’t) by virtue of the fact that it was within a NTI (Neighborhood Transformation Initiative) district.168 Because the surrounding neighbors were thrilled that something was being constructed on the site, they did not care that the project had two street

164 Interview with Cynthia Temple, January 13, 2014. 165 Interview with Mike Hauptman, December 17, 2013. 166 Interview with Amy Shelanski, January 14, 2014. 167 Mike Hauptman, e-mail message to author, January 12, 2014. 168 Mike Hauptman, e-mail message to author, January 12, 2014. The NTI districts began under Philadelphia’s previous mayor to improve distressed areas.

36 M. Yeston level garages. However, the end result put the QVNA in the awkward position of approving an exemption to the first NCD item that came before the Planning Commission.169

Unanticipated effects, observations, takeaways Two interviewees pointed to the fact that while the ordinance prohibits certain building materials and mandates first-floor windows in keeping with the district, there is nothing in the law that regulates style, which can have positive or negative effects depending on one’s point of view. Since both respondents had a preference for Modernism, certain infill buildings are more attractive to them while maintaining the neighborhood’s character (figs. 21 & 22).170 However, one interviewee found some infill projects to be overly historicist and derivative. In the case of the new construction on 2nd Street between Carpenter and Christian Streets (fig. 23), the combination of new stoops jutting out onto the sidewalk and the zoning requirement for any new development exceeding 5,000 square feet to have at least one street tree per “35 feet of lineal frontage” and at least 15 feet of space between each tree, has resulted in an awkward zigzagging sidewalk configuration (fig. 24). Here is a specific instance where the intent of the NCD, combined with extant street requirements, created an unforeseen consequence that could make the pedestrian experience problematic.171 When asked whether the NCD could account for any unanticipated social effects such as gentrification, increased appeal of the neighborhood, or displacement of residents, there was a large consensus that any of the aforementioned trends could be attributable to other neighborhood qualities or larger economic factors that have occurred over a long period of time. Terese Zeccardi, Jon Liss and Amy Shelanski all pointed to the Meredith School as a significant draw of new families to the neighborhood, since the school’s reputation is one of the best in the city. Shelanski mentioned that, when she speaks with prospective tenants, the school is usually the first thing that comes up while the NCD is more peripheral, and often potential residents do not bring it up at all. She observed that over the past decade there have been more children playing in the local playgrounds, which she attributed to gentrification.172 Jon Liss and Craig Smith, both longtime residents, did not think the changing demographics and increased appeal of Queen Village could be attributed to the NCD, which is only six years old. Rather the neighborhood has changed because of the wave of Baby Boomers moving back to Philadelphia beginning around the 1970s, and the gentrification that ensued in the following decades.173 Peter Piven mentioned that he has not noticed any unforeseen economic effects and suggested one would have to analyze house sales over the time since the NCD was enacted, and even then the change may be attributable to more macroeconomic forces.174 Craig Smith brought up another relevant point that speaks to the effect of the NCD in the grand scheme of Queen Village’s history. He compared the total amount of buildings in the neighborhood to a hypothetical town with 1,000 possible building lots Ð a town in which 990 lots have been filled, but a town which wishes to regulate the design of the last ten or fifteen

169 Mike Hauptman, e-mail message to author, January 12, 2014. 170 Interview with Cynthia Temple, January 13, 2014. Interview with Amy Shelanski, January 14, 2014. 171 Interview with Cynthia Temple, January 13, 2014. City of Philadelphia, The Philadelphia Code, 10th ed., Title 14: Zoning and Planning, Chapter 14-700: Development Standards, ¤ 14-705 “Landscape and Trees,” Section 2 (Philadelphia, PA: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011). 172 Interview with Amy Shelanski, January 14, 2014. 173 Interview with Craig Smith, Philadelphia, PA, January 13, 2014. Interview with Jon Liss, January 11, 2014. 174 Interview with Peter Piven, January 13, 2014.

37 M. Yeston buildings. Likewise in the case of Queen Village, by the 2000’s most lots had been filled, and the NCD could potentially be perceived as having been an afterthought to all the construction that had already occurred. The aesthetic that the NCD rules promote Ð no garages, windows in the front, low stoops Ð was largely already present in the neighborhood. Despite the fact that new residences built in the 1970s and 80s looked slightly more modern, having a stoop and windows simply made sense from an urban design point of view.175 It was only when the garages started to proliferate that the neighborhood’s street and architectural experience was disrupted. It could be argued that the NCD has been successful in Philadelphia at correcting an urban design problem. By preserving an aesthetic pattern that was already there, the ordinance ensures the last few vacant lots will be filled with buildings that conform to a well-established style, i.e. traditional urban row houses with windows on the first floor, a slight stoop, and preserving more parking spaces in the public realm.176

Suggestions for Improvement Probably the most frequently cited area for improvement was the need for better communication about the existence, purpose and benefits of the NCD. In Avon Hill there was a general awareness of the NCD’s existence, though most residents did not know the specifics of the regulation unless they were actively interested in the commission. In interviews with most Philadelphia respondents, I gradually gained the sense that most residents do not know what the NCD is in the first place. To give some context, neither Terese Zeccardi, Jon Liss or Craig Smith knew the difference between an NCD and a conventional HD, and this was the first time that Mr. Liss and Mr. Smith had ever even heard of the NCD. When I showed Ms. Zeccardi a printed map of the Queen Village NCD, she mentioned it was the first time she had ever seen it, despite the fact that it was available on the QVNA’s website. When Mr. Liss gave his impression of what the ordinance did, he seemed to think that the preservation of Queen Village’s neighborhood aesthetics also extended to the preservation of use, and kept mentioning that he valued new buildings and diversity in architecture. Might this imply that the true purposes of the NCD Ð which have nothing to do with maintaining a building’s use Ð have not been effectively communicated? Should there be more of an effort to clearly articulate the overlay district’s geographic borders? Cynthia Temple made clear that there needs to be both a more robust advertising campaign about the NCD’s successes as well as more collaboration between the QVNA historic preservation and zoning committees. She stated that the QVNA should be measuring the NCD’s effects numerically, perhaps through measuring the number of compatible building permits, or putting out a statement such as “we prevented this many street front garages this year.” In addition, it might be a benefit to have someone representing historic preservation on the zoning committee to bring concerns about the loss of physical fabric to the table. She also mentioned that the Queen Village NCD has been successful largely thanks to the effective zoning committee and its recommendations to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. However, if the local committee changes in the future and does not provide as strong a voice for the community, the NCD may not be as effective. Although this is a worst-case scenario, she stressed the

175 Mr. Smith also mentioned that when he would rehabilitate old Queen Village buildings in the 70s and 80s, he hardly ever changed the original façade. 176 Interview with Craig Smith, January 13, 2014.

38 M. Yeston importance of a more activist committee that should be “trumpeting” the NCD’s accomplishments.177 Carla Puppin, QVNA Executive Director chimed in by admitting that although meetings on the ordinance in 2004 and the NCD in 2008 were well attended and the community was informed via the local newsletter, as with any older news item the NCD is no longer on the “front page.” Typically, the only time someone would encounter the regulations would be if a builder, developer or contractor wants to build something new or to significantly alter an existing structure. She agreed that more communication and advertising are necessary, and updates with respect to the number of prevented inappropriate projects would be an effective item to put in the local newsletter, to enable more people in the neighborhood to know the NCD’s benefits.178

Quantitative Data As reflected in Appendix Table 2, some of the sentiments expressed by respondents about the overall after effects of the NCD are present in the data. The presence of the Queen Village NCD after 2008 does not reveal many dramatic shifts compared to the overall city. From 1990 to 2000, average gross rent decreased by 1.1% in Queen Village and by 7.3% in Philadelphia, and from 2000 to 2009, average gross rent increased at a faster rate in Philadelphia than in Queen Village. This indicates that rent did not increase at a faster rate in Queen Village because of the NCD. However, average gross rent is consistently higher in Queen Village than Philadelphia as a whole in all three years measured, which indicates that the neighborhood had already become a relatively more attractive place to live at least a decade and a half before the NCD. The same pattern can be observed in the median value for owner-occupied units. What is striking is the 115% increase in median value for owned units in Queen Village from 2000 to 2009, compared with a 69.6% increase in Philadelphia. It is difficult to tell whether this jump is directly the result of the NCD, largely because not enough time has elapsed since its beginning in 2008. The shift is more likely the product of the overall appeal of the neighborhood Ð being close to downtown without being as expensive as Society Hill, being home to one of the best schools in Philadelphia, having access to transit, and having vibrant local retail corridors. By the same token, the consistently higher median household income in Queen Village compared to Philadelphia is most likely the result of the prior patterns of gentrification that were occurring from the 1970s through the 1990s, during which time young professionals rehabilitated the existing building stock. The shift in the percentage of White and Black residents, as well as the changing education demographics, also points to changes that had already occurred in the 1990s and 2000s. In the 1990s, there was a sharp drop off in the amount of individuals with less than a high school education (-33.1% in Queen Village compared with -19.3% in Philadelphia) and a sharp increase in those with a post-college education (34.1% in Queen Village compared with 17.8% in Philadelphia). After twenty years, the population with a Bachelor’s Degree or beyond in Queen Village grew from 35.5% in 1990 to 53.3% in 2009, and the population without a high school education shrunk from 25.7% in 1990 to only 9.3% in 2009. This dramatic influx of highly educated individuals and the exodus of those without a high school education can be seen as indicators of gentrification. Once again, the bulk of this shift occurred before the NCD’s establishment in 2008. Likewise, Queen Village’s Black population experienced steep declines

177 Interview with Cynthia Temple, January 13, 2014. 178 Interview with Carla Puppin, Executive Director, Queen Village Neighbors Association, January 17, 2014.

39 M. Yeston compared with the rest of the city, while the White population remained fairly stable. The aforementioned findings from the U.S. Census serve to bolster residents’ claims that the NCD cannot be held directly accountable for unintended changes such as gentrification, as most changes associated with neighborhood change had largely occurred before the NCD’s creation.179

179 U.S. Census Bureau. Queen Village Neighborhood Composite, 1990, 2000, 2009. Prepared by Social Explorer.

40 M. Yeston

CAMERON PARK NCOD, RALEIGH, NC

Preservation in Raleigh In 1961, the Raleigh City Council formed the city’s first historic preservation committee. Out of this came the Raleigh Historic Development Commission (RHDC), which has worked with Raleigh’s citizens and neighborhoods to adopt historic preservation ordinances in order to incorporate preservation as a component of the city’s comprehensive plans. In addition, the Commission has helped designate local Historic Overlay Districts (HODs) beginning in 1975,180 while contemporaneously providing educational outlets through lectures and publications (such as Design Guidelines for landmark exteriors) and technical assistance.181

Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts On December 13, 1988, the City Council adopted an ordinance to create a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) program.182 Legally, broad zoning authority implied the right to establish such a Neighborhood program,183 the principal motivating factor for which was the non-contextual infill development in older neighborhoods that had been relatively static up until the 80s. Most of the residential lots in Raleigh are rather large and the houses are surprisingly modest for the value of the property, making demolition and replacement very attractive to developers.184 The original ordinance called for the creation of a Neighborhood Plan to be completed prior to the application of the NCOD.185 Citizens would work with city planning staff through multiple community meetings in a process that focused on the neighborhood in question, identifying the major characteristics they wanted to protect. The process used to take from six months up to two years to analyze the area’s built character, land use, and density, before generating specific recommendations (much longer than it takes today). In addition to the character-defining elements of the neighborhood, other planning topics were incorporated into the plans, including crime issues, capital improvement needs, transportation, open space, and socio-economic factors.186 For instance, Cameron Park’s Neighborhood Plan includes such goals as maintaining the area’s historic character, preventing teardowns and “out-of-scale

180 Raleigh Historic Districts Commission, Design Guidelines for Raleigh Historic Districts (Raleigh, NC: Raleigh Historic Districts Commission, 2001) 84. 181 “About RHDC,” Raleigh Historic Development Commission, accessed March 1, 2014, http://rhdc.org/about- rhdc. 182 “Finalized Text Changes,” City of Raleigh, accessed March 1, 2014, http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanDev/Articles/Zoning/FinalTextChanges.html. 183 Miller, Protecting Older Neighborhoods (2004), 6, in Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation,” 156. 184 Interview with James Brantley, Long Range Planning Division, Department of City Planning, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 185 Lubens and Miller, “Sample Conservation District Ordinance Provisions,” Preservation Law Reporter 21 (April- June 2002-2003): 1100, accessed March 1, 2014, http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/law-and- policy/legal-resources/preservation-law-101/resources/Sample-Conservation-Ordinances.pdf. 186 Interview with Dhanya Sandeep and Doug Hill, Long Range Planning Division, Department of City Planning, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014.

41 M. Yeston rebuilds,” providing a mixture of housing options, and ensuring a safe environment for pedestrians.187 As an outcome of the neighborhood plan, one of the available recommendations could be the adoption of an NCOD.188 In order to qualify for an NCOD, the development within the proposed area must have begun at least 25 years prior to the application for the overlay district, at least 75% percent of the land must be developed, the area must contain at least 15 contiguous acres unless it is an extension of an existing conservation district, and the neighborhood must possess “unifying distinctive elements” expressed in building features that contribute to an “identifiable setting.” Depending on what each neighborhood deems its most important zoning controls, an NCOD can regulate area, density and bulk, yard setbacks, and building height. For all future developments, whenever the underlying zoning for any of the aforementioned categories conflicts with the standards of the Neighborhood Plan, the Plan shall supersede.189 A Neighborhood Plan could not be approved by the City Council until after the Planning Commission has made a recommendation. Ten days prior to this, copies of the plan had to be mailed to all property owners within the proposed overlay district.190 The Council would then approve the plan as part of Raleigh’s comprehensive plan.191 This resulted in various individual neighborhoods being able to tailor zoning regulations to fit the particular historic development patterns of each one.192 Over the past 25 years, 17 NCODs have been created in Raleigh.193 In 2008, the Planning Department created a second iteration of the NCODs out of a need to make the application process more streamlined, to give them more legal authority, and to ensure that certain applicants would not use the tool to achieve an inappropriate goal for a neighborhood. While developing the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the NCODs received a full audit. It was determined that the NCODs would be more enforceable and easily accessible to the public if they were brought directly into the zoning code, rather than remaining mere policy documents.194 One particular problem that needed to be addressed concerned a neighborhood’s potentially self-serving use of the process of applying for an NCOD in order to craft a Neighborhood Plan designed to accommodate larger homes than were already present, thereby ignoring the historic built pattern.195 To safeguard against incidents like this and provide a more consistent and quick process, the Neighborhood Plan approach was replaced by a planning staff- led comprehensive field study. In the new process, if at least three residents of a neighborhood jointly petition for an NCOD based on a certain quality or metric Ð such as a maximum building height of 25 feet Ð the planning staff will conduct a built environment analysis by measuring the height of all properties within the proposed district. If over 75% of properties possess this characteristic, the planning process can move forward, and the Planning Department will notify all homeowners within the proposed area about the study results and the time and location of a

187 City of Raleigh, “Cameron Park Neighborhood Plan” (Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, 2005) [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning]. 188 Interview with Dhanya Sandeep and Doug Hill, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 189 Lubens and Miller, “Sample Conservation District Ordinance Provisions” (April-June 2002-2003): 1097-1098. 190 Lubens and Miller, “Sample Conservation District Ordinance Provisions” (April-June 2002-2003): 1099-1100. 191 Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation,” 163. 192 Lubens and Miller, “Protecting Older Neighborhoods” (January-March 2002-2003): 1027. 193 City of Raleigh, City of Raleigh Unified Development Ordinance ¤ 5.4.3 (Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, effective September 1, 2013). 194 Interview with Dhanya Sandeep and Doug Hill, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 195 Interview with James Brantley, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014.

42 M. Yeston public meeting to be held. Following the meeting the findings are presented to members of the City Council for approval, after which the NCOD guidelines are put into the zoning code through a text change. To actually implement the proposed rules in the form of a rezoning, within four years after the text change the Planning Department may accept an application to rezone the proposed area as an NCOD. Unless 51% of property owners are opposed to the measure, the district becomes enforceable.196

History of Cameron Park Since Cameron Park is the overlay district chosen for this study, a basic history of its development and designation as an NCOD will be presented here. Like many early suburbs in Raleigh, Cameron Park was part of the region’s overall transition from an agrarian to an urbanized, industrial economy. Like the nearby suburbs of Boylan Heights and Glenwood, the neighborhood was platted on part of a large plantation, close to the capital, held by a prominent local family.197 Since there was a housing shortage in Raleigh in 1900, developers had to respond to the city’s burgeoning growth by providing homes for the new urban, White professional class. Additionally, since the city’s population was becoming more segregated along racial and class lines, developers were responding to a need for “outward signs of personal and group status.”198 Cameron Park was connected to downtown through a streetcar line. Developed largely between 1910 and 1930, the neighborhood consists of modest single-family dwellings executed in a variety of architectural styles including the Queen Anne/Colonial hybrid, Colonial box, bungalow, American Craftsman, neo-Georgian, with some Dutch Colonial Revival and Mission style (figs. 25, 26, 27). The diversity of styles indicates the eclectic tastes of homebuilders in the early 20th Century.199 Since the houses have an unusually large footprint compared to the narrow deep lots, the neighborhood is characterized by a relatively dense built pattern with a consistent scale.200 Features such as limited street widths, walkways, trees and plantings, as well as three large linear parks (fig. 28), make Cameron Park amenable to pedestrian access and circulation.201 Although some subsequent houses were built in a more modern style, such as a 1950s California-style bungalow and a ‘solar house’ built in 1982 (fig. 29), these developments have largely adhered to the pre-existing scale of the neighborhood.202

196 Interview with Dhanya Sandeep and Doug Hill, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. Interview with Travis R. Crane, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Long Range Planning Division, Department of City Planning, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. City of Raleigh, “Ordinance No. (2008) 428 TC 313 TC-4-08: An ordinance to revise the process for establishing a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and to incorporate into the city’s zoning code the previously approved standards for all existing Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts” (July 1, 2008). 197 Charlotte V. Brown, “Three Raleigh Suburbs: Glenwood, Boylan Heights, Cameron Park” in Catherine W. Bishir and Lawrence S. Earley, eds., Early Twentieth-Century Suburbs in North Carolina: Essays on History, Architecture and Planning (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, 1985) 31. City of Raleigh, “Cameron Park Neighborhood Plan.” In Cameron Park, the Parker-Hunter Realty Company bought land from the Cameron family. 198 Brown, “Three Raleigh Suburbs,” 33. 199 Brown, “Three Raleigh Suburbs,” 32. National Register of Historic Places, Cameron Park Historic District, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina, National Register #85001673. City of Raleigh and Wake County iMAPS, accessed January 17, 2014, http://maps.raleighnc.gov/imaps/. 200 City of Raleigh, “Cameron Park Neighborhood Plan.” 201 Brown, “Three Raleigh Suburbs,” 32. City of Raleigh, “Cameron Park Neighborhood Plan.” 202 Telephone interview with Charlie Madison, Raleigh, NC, December 15, 2013. City of Raleigh and Wake County iMAPS, accessed January 17, 2014, http://maps.raleighnc.gov/imaps/.

43 M. Yeston

Cameron Park NCOD The impetus for the Cameron Park NCOD, as with previous overlay districts, was trepidation over the teardown phenomenon, which had accelerated in the early-mid 2000s. From 2002 to 2007, 1,198 structures in Raleigh were demolished, and 656 new homes were built on properties were demolition permits had been recently issued. Many of these were built inside the I-440 Beltline, which includes a large portion of early 20th Century modest homes whose land value exceeded the building value, thus making them ripe for demolition and replacement.203 The phenomenon was occurring mostly outside Cameron Park in areas to the north where so- called McMansions and circular front driveways became more commonplace. However, there was one case of what local residents deemed a highly out-of-scale and inappropriate house in Cameron Park in 2005 (fig. 30).204 Another house built in 1999 had a side-loading garage, which also seemed to detract from the early 20th Century character of the blocks. An additional problem that began in the 1970s was local university students using front lawns for surface parking, which detracted from the overall aesthetic of relegating parking to the rear of lots via back alley ways and side driveways.205 The Cameron Park NCOD (fig. 31) consists of a “Core Area,” which encompasses the predominant single-family detached homes from Calvin Road and S St. Mary’s Street to the east, one lot in from Clark Avenue to the north, Oberlin Road to the west, and one lot in from Hillsborough Street to the south. Within this zone, it specifies that the maximum lot size will be 21,779 square feet, the front yard setback will be within 10% of the average front setback on the same block face, side yard setbacks can be no less than 5 feet, the maximum building height is 30 feet, and the orientation of a new building and its front entrance should reflect the aesthetic of the majority of buildings on the same block. Buffering the Core Area is a “Transition Area” that encompasses the grounds on which the St. Mary’s preparatory school and the Wiley Elementary rest. In this zone, the maximum building height is 40 feet if located within 75 feet of an adjacent lot in the Core Area. Bordering the neighborhood to the north and south are mixed-use commercial strips along Hillsborough Street and Clark Avenue. The neighborhood is bordered to the north by the Cameron Village Shopping Center, a multi-family housing complex, and the Broughton High School. To the immediate west is Pullen Park and North Carolina State University. Cameron Park is also walking distance from Downtown Raleigh.206

Unified Development Ordinance When considering current conservation districts in Raleigh, it is necessary to take current larger planning trends into account. Perhaps the most significant change in how Raleigh’s physical growth will be managed is the recent adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in 2013. In the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, it is stated that Raleigh’s population has increased by 72% since 1989, and is expected to grow by nearly 600,000 by 2030 from 390,000 today. Therefore it is necessary for the city to address this future growth challenge while incorporating sustainability and green jobs, promoting walkable streets and transit-oriented

203 City of Raleigh, Impact Analysis Report: Residential Infill Construction (Draft) (Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, June 6, 2008) 4-6 [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning]. 204 City of Raleigh and Wake County iMAPS, accessed January 17, 2014, http://maps.raleighnc.gov/imaps/. 205 Telephone interview with Charlie Madison, Raleigh, NC, December 15, 2013. 206 City of Raleigh, “Cameron Park Neighborhood Plan.”

44 M. Yeston development, retaining green space, promoting social and economic welfare, and protecting and enhancing the city’s “architectural assets.”207 In the decade before the Comprehensive Plan’s adoption, it was determined by various municipal bodies that, in order to be sustainable, healthy and viable, Raleigh would have to shift away from the more conventional, suburban car-based zoning towards a code that favors more compact, clustered development connected by a multi- modal transportation system friendly to pedestrians and cyclists.208 The Planning Department held several community conversations and workshops that dealt with the issue of compatible infill.209 Section A.8 of the Comprehensive Plan specifies that the City of Raleigh values and intends to conserve its tree-lined, street-car inner-ring suburbs, in order to maintain their sense of place and connectivity with nearby institutions, shopping centers and parks.210 A proposed policy requires that infill development should “complement the established character of the area and should not create sharp edges in the physical development pattern.”211 Other proposed policies stress the need to further protect the city’s historic neighborhoods while permitting “context-sensitive infill.”212 The UDO, Raleigh’s new zoning code, is a product of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. To address the issue of compatible development, all the NCODs as well as HODs were transferred into the UDO.213 A new tool to protect an area’s “traditional neighborhood patterns” is the Streetside Historic Overlay District (HOD-S), which unlike the traditional HOD, is restricted to only historic resources as seen from the street. The Streetside HOD regulates the first 25% of the lot area adjacent to a public way, the first 50% of the depth of an existing building, any additions that project beyond the building’s “maximum front and side wall and roof plane envelope,” and the entirety of any new construction on a vacant lot.214 Another new tool is a provision for residential infill compatibility, requiring any new property within an R-4, R-6, or R-10 district to conform with pre-existing development patterns. New construction cannot be closer to the street than the smallest setback along a block, and no further than the largest setback (fig. 32). The maximum wall height allowed for a new building is either 22 feet or the average height of the two abutting wall planes of neighboring buildings, whichever is higher. For each foot of horizontal distance the building wall is moved from the side setback line, the wall height may increase by one foot, so long as the maximum height allowed by basic zoning is not exceeded. Side-gable roofs may extend beyond the side setback plane for a length no greater than 30 feet, and dormers can extend for a total length of no greater than 15 feet (fig. 33). Additionally, no side wall can extend for over 50 feet without having a “projection” or “recession” at least 10 feet long and 4 feet deep.215 In the subsequent interview responses, some participants wondered whether this citywide application will ultimately compromise the relevance of new conservation districts.

207 City of Raleigh, Designing a 21st Century City: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Raleigh, Volume I: Comprehensive Plan (Raleigh, NC: City of Raleigh Planning and Development, 2009) 1-2. 208 City of Raleigh, The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 12-13, 40. Interview with Russ Stephenson, Councilor At Large, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. 209 Interview with Travis R. Crane, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 210 City of Raleigh, The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 52. 211 City of Raleigh, The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 54. 212 City of Raleigh, The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 271. 213 City of Raleigh, Unified Development Ordinance ¤ 5.4.1 and 5.4.3. 214 City of Raleigh, Unified Development Ordinance ¤ 5.4.2. 215 City of Raleigh, Unified Development Ordinance ¤ 2.2.7.

45 M. Yeston

FINDINGS FOR CAMERON PARK NCOD, RALEIGH, NC

Is the NCOD successful, and how do different stakeholders define that success? What are the advantages and disadvantages? On the whole, both administrators and residents as well as two elected officials in Raleigh agreed that the NCOD program had been largely successful, both broadly and in Cameron Park. Most participants expressed a general feeling of satisfaction with the law, while also describing what they viewed as either flaws or issues to be improved upon. These topics will be explored later in this section. Dhanya Sandeep and Doug Hill at the Raleigh Department of City Planning noted that the NCOD was transferred from being an expression of policy, via the previously-requisite area planning process, to being incorporated formally into the Raleigh zoning code in 2008.216 Therefore, if owners are in violation of the specifics of an NCOD, they are held liable. Over time the NCODs have established a legal standing for recognition of a neighborhood’s identity, and have accomplished the goal of “preserving character.” Since many of them are located close to the downtown core, they exist because of a point of value that was recognized. The districts can provide a modicum of certainty in terms of how the neighborhoods will develop in the future, without the intensity of design review required by HODs. However, Sandeep and Hill also noted that the city has not adopted a new NCOD in the past three to four years. This could be an unfortunate coincidence with macroeconomic conditions, since developers might not have been motivated to undertake teardowns in the middle of a recession. Sandeep and Hill also indicated that Raleigh is currently seeing a major trend away from single- family development towards apartment living. These factors might contribute to the overall lack of new districts.217 Travis R. Crane, Planning and Zoning Administrator, also felt the NCODs have been successful, and said he did not see any major flaws moving forward. The NCOD can be viewed as a good compromise between character protection and allowing for more freedoms of property ownership, since the traditional HOD can be perceived as too onerous, and base level zoning has no provision for safeguarding neighborhood character.218 City Councilor Mary Ann Baldwin held a similar position.219 However, Mr. Crane saw advantages and drawbacks with both the old and current means of implementing an NCOD. Prior to the 2008 ordinance that incorporated NCODs into the zoning code, the application process was more rigorous, with many more interactions between the planning staff and the neighborhood, and the process could take months to years. The advantage was the ability to talk to more individuals on the ground, while the disadvantage was the difficulty of getting the community to agree on which regulations met its common values. With the new process, planning staff conducts a more objective survey to determine if over 75% of properties meet the neighborhood’s desired criteria, which, while being more streamlined, can feel too “mechanical.”220 James Brantley, also with the Planning Department, argued that one of the most significant benefits of the NCOD was that neighborhoods can have a dialogue about their future. The preparation of the early NCODs involved making a neighborhood plan, which involved

216 City of Raleigh, “Ordinance No. (2008) 428 TC 313 TC-4-08” (July 1, 2008). 217 Interview with Dhanya Sandeep and Doug Hill, Long Range Planning Division, Department of City Planning, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 218 Interview with Travis R. Crane, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 219 Interview with Mary Ann Baldwin, Councilor At Large, Raleigh, NC, January 17, 2014. 220 Interview with Travis R. Crane, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014.

46 M. Yeston multiple meetings, mail outs, which then helped communities “band together” and become more “cohesive.” He recalled that very few overlay districts were city-initiated, and mostly came from the communities themselves. Nonetheless, Brantley concluded that he ultimately did not know how successful the NCODs have been in recent years. To put it diplomatically, several neighborhoods probably did not require the measure as much as they thought they did, and it was difficult to tell whether the NCOD had a noticeable effect one way or the other. From another point of view, he thought city dwellers have simply become more accustomed to there being infill. In several neighborhoods that asked for NCODs, including Cameron Park, he got the sense that neighbors perceived a tremendous pressure to have teardowns and replacement houses when that pressure simply did not exist. After the NCOD was enacted for instance, there were no angry developers complaining to the planning office about not being able to build. So it could be the case that some neighborhoods asked for the regulation even though they did not need it.221 The positive aspects of the NCOD program were echoed by two local elected officials as well as a group of residents from the specific district in question. Councilors Russ Stephenson and Mary Ann Baldwin thought the overlay districts give citizens the opportunity to regulate what they deem most important to preserve.222 Charlie Madison, a resident of Cameron Park, made clear that community members were able to avoid the problems they wanted to avoid Ð the area is still architecturally diverse, the district has kept the scale of new houses similar to adjacent buildings, and front parking, frontal garages and semicircular driveways are no longer allowed.223 Alan Jurkowski, another resident, viewed the district as a positive influence because it maintained a neighborhood “that stays true to its original intent.”224 This is similar to a point Craig Smith raised in Queen Village, that the local NCD is successful in that it helps to perpetuate physical development patterns that were already there or already intended. In a group discussion with Charlie Madison, Myrick Howard, Doug Johnston and one other resident, there was also consensus that on the whole the program had met the goal of maintaining the neighborhood’s built form. Nevertheless, the notion of success remained difficult to measure since residents do not know entirely what developments they stopped from occurring. For instance, there may have been some developers who were interested in launching a project, but didn’t even try because of the regulations, or someone who wanted to buy in Cameron Park, saw the rules and moved on. The inherent challenge is that it is “hard to get a sense of how effective [the NCOD] has been because what it does is get people to not do things [emphasis added].”225

Why was the area designated as an NCOD as opposed to an HOD? Two factors led citizens of Cameron Park to shift away from an HOD approach to a Conservation District. In their meetings with the Raleigh planning department, residents remarked that an HOD study could not be undertaken because of the lack of staff at the time.

221 Interview with James Brantley, Long Range Planning Division, Department of City Planning, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 222 Interview with Mary Ann Baldwin, January 17, 2014. Interview with Russ Stephenson, Councilor At Large, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. Councilor Stephenson commented that the fact that there has been little discussion or debate about the NCOD means it is working well. 223 Telephone interview with Charlie Madison, Raleigh, NC, December 15, 2013. 224 Interview with Alan Jurkowski, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 225 Group discussion with Charlie Madison, Myrick Howard, Doug Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014.

47 M. Yeston

Additionally, at initial meetings a majority of Cameron Park neighbors were vocal against HOD regulation because of is perceived strictness. The meetings took place just five years after an elderly woman living in Raleigh’s Oakwood HOD was criticized by her neighbors and later fined by the Raleigh HODs Commission for installing a miniature lighthouse on her lawn without applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness. That then led HODs to be perceived at the time by residents and the local media as being elitist and onerous.226 It was ultimately agreed that the neighborhood wanted a more flexible overlay.

Conflicts and opposition In terms of initial opposition to the proposed NCOD, there existed a small number of people who opposed it on principle, saying the regulation would bring down their property values. According to Travis Crane, these arguments are hollow because neighborhoods with HODs or NCODs tend to be more desirable places to live, and have higher property and tax value because of the certainty the regulations provide.227 Charlie Madison echoed these sentiments when he recalled that despite some opposition, those opposed had an opportunity to air their concerns, the district was favored by a majority of residents, and no one can say it was ramrodded through.228 There was one instance of new housing construction within a few years after the Cameron Park NCOD’s establishment that led petitioners to request a text change to the original regulations. Specific residents were frustrated that, after all the time and effort to craft the NCOD neighborhood plan and being told what specific words to use, the language of the ordinance was misinterpreted. One of the original concerns was to maintain the traditional side driveways and minimize front yard surface parking and frontal garages. However, it was determined that explicit language about front parking was not necessary since the original code required that “The orientation of building and entry level of the main entrance to the building shall be located in a manner that is the same as the majority of buildings on the block face” and that front yard setbacks had to be “within ten percent (10%) of the average front yard setback of houses on the same block face.”229 One new home built in 2008, while being architecturally and contextually appropriate to the neighborhood according to most residents, was perceived to be in blatant disregard of the NCOD by virtue of the fact that it included a front parking surface and a garage immediately in the front of the lot (fig. 34).230 The building also exceeded the desired height limits.231

226 Group discussion with Madison, Howard, Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. Associated Press, “Neighborhood says woman’s miniature lighthouse must go,” Spartanburg Herald-Journal (January 30, 1999) B3, accessed March 3, 2014, http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19990130&id=NkEfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wc8EAAAAIBAJ&pg =6810,8256776. 227 Interview with Travis R. Crane, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 228 Telephone interview with Charlie Madison, Raleigh, NC, December 15, 2013. 229 Group discussion with Madison, Howard, Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. City of Raleigh, “Proposed Cameron Park NCOD Regulations” (Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, 2009) [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning]. 230 City of Raleigh and Wake County iMAPS, accessed January 17, 2014, http://maps.raleighnc.gov/imaps/. 231 Group discussion with Madison, Howard, Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. City of Raleigh, “Proposed Cameron Park NCOD Regulations” (Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, February 2010) [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning]. The original Cameron Park plan stated with regard to

48 M. Yeston

In January 2009, neighbors requested that Planning Department staff undertake an additional study of the built characteristics of Cameron Park with specific regard to “the location of building entrance, building height, and front yard parking area.” The study determined that 92% of properties lack front yard parking, and the predominant building height (meaning at last 75% of properties) is 24 feet or less and 25% of homes are taller than 24 feet. Two new maximum height zones were then proposed according to the petitioners’ request Ð 26 feet in Zone A and 30 feet in Zone B.232 New language was then proposed to specifically prohibit “vehicular surface area” in the front yard, and to ensure that no garage entrances would be permitted to face the front yard.233 Neighborhood participants indicated that they are more satisfied with the amendments thus far, and that the ordinance still addresses their original concerns overall. Nevertheless, while the NCOD was successful at preventing the combination of multiple lots, front yard parking and building orientation, there still remains no explicit language regarding lot coverage in the code, which raises the concern that new buildings could expand as close as possible to adjacent lots with only a 5-foot side yard setback.234

Unanticipated effects, observations, takeaways With regard to unanticipated economic or social effects, once again, several participants were in agreement that there were no major economic changes as a result of the overlay. Issues such as gentrification or displacement are the result of citywide growth.235 Cameron residents admitted they did not perceive any significant economic shifts since the NCOD took hold.236 A factor of the neighborhood’s increased appeal that several residents pointed was the presence of the National Register District that essentially encompassed the Cameron Park NCOD. The resulting financial incentives offered by the state tax credits had a huge impact on façade improvements, and incentivized people to renovate their homes more sensitively.237 Charlie maximum building height that “If a new two story house or additional story on a one story house is taller than 30 feet, it shall be no more than 20% taller than the average residential building height on the block face.” 232 Travis Crane, Senior Planner and Mitchel Silver, Director of Planning to J. Russell Allen, City Manager, May 21, 2010, Department of City Planning, City of Raleigh, “NC-1-09/Cameron Park NCOD amendment.” [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning] 233 City of Raleigh, “Proposed Cameron Park NCOD Regulations” (February 2010). City of Raleigh, Unified Development Ordinance ¤ 5.4.3. The “vehicular surface areas” amendment became applicable on August 8, 2010. The full list of front parking amendments is as follows: “Within that portion of the front yard area (as measured perpendicular to the right-of-way), between the principal building and the public street, vehicular surface area shall not be permitted. This will not affect parking areas installed previously in conformity with city ordinance, nor will it affect driveways constructed alongside the house in the shortest practical distance from the right-of-way to the rear of the building. No vehicular entrance to a garage attached to the principal structure shall face the front yard. No portion of any garage or carport shall protrude beyond the primary façade of the principal structure. Covered porches shall be considered part of the primary façade. For corner lots with driveway access from the secondary side, attached garage entrances must be set back at least 10 ft. from the secondary side building elevation. A secondary side elevation is the alternative side of a corner lot house that faces a roadway, but does not include a primary entrance to the house. Maximum driveway width on public streets shall be limited to 12 feet for single driveways and 20 feet for shared driveways.” 234 Group discussion with Madison, Howard, Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. 235 Interview with Travis R. Crane, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. Interview with Mary Ann Baldwin, January 17, 2014. Interview with Russ Stephenson, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. 236 Group discussion with Madison, Howard, Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. 237 Group discussion with Madison, Howard, Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. Telephone interview with Michael Lindsay, Raleigh, NC, January 19, 2014.

49 M. Yeston

Madison felt that the district’s height limits might have a long-term effect of stabilizing property values, which is important for Cameron Park since it is adjacent to several commercial areas and institutions.238 Alan Jurkowski posited that while he thinks the NCOD is a wonderful tool that maintains property values, it has the potential to create a quasi-gated community. If a historic neighborhood, whether an HOD or an NCOD, makes the price of entry too high, it could be at cross-purposes in terms of income and demographic diversity. Also, eliminating multifamily dwellings through maintaining a landscape of single-family detached homes is also counterproductive to diversity, which is a broader zoning issue that goes beyond Cameron Park.239 Participants indicated that another significant citywide trend that could have consequences for how future NCODs will proceed is the new UDO and its provisions for residential infill compatibility. For every property that has basic R-4, R-6 or R-10 zoning, if a developer wants to build a single family structure, he or she must pay attention to the buildings on the adjacent lots in terms of height and setbacks. Since the new residential infill provision is now built into the code, it is possible that the number of applications for new NCODs will continue to decline. While, in the past, compatible infill had to be achieved through an individual neighborhood plan, now appropriate scale can be reached through a citywide policy.240

Suggestions for Improvement One of the deepest frustrations expressed by Cameron Park residents is the absence of any kind of public review of new infill or alteration projects. New projects are administered by those at the Building Inspection Department who read and approve the permit. Beyond that, no one in the community is privy to the applications, there are no public hearings, and “all new projects are complete mysteries until they are done.” Because the NCODs do not have any design review, there is no Certificate of Appropriateness process involved, and no real control over demolition.241 One of the neighborhood’s primary goals was to prevent teardowns and McMansions. Although no infill projects were designed as a prototypical McMansion and the new houses have been compatible in size and massing, there have still been three teardowns in the neighborhood, which could be seen as a failure of the NCOD. For example, a viable historic arts and crafts bungalow was being partially dismantled, neighbors were told it was renovation, and it was demolished soon after. All of this occurred with no public notification. If Cameron Park were an HOD, or a Streetside HOD as part of the new UDO, there would at least be a communication process “where you see what’s going to happen.” If Cameron Park had a Streetside HOD, it would give a project a year’s delay to be torn down, and the community would have some form of design review. If an architect or developer were required to put a plan out in the open, the neighborhood would be able to look at it and comment on it, an adjudicative body could force the developer to reevaluate the plan, and the project could turn out more favorably.242

238 Telephone interview with Charlie Madison, Raleigh, NC, December 15, 2013. 239 Interview with Alan Jurkowski, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. 240 Interview with Travis R. Crane, Raleigh, NC, January 16, 2014. City of Raleigh, Unified Development Ordinance ¤ 2.2.7. 241 Group discussion with Madison, Howard, Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. 242 Group discussion with Madison, Howard, Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. City of Raleigh, Unified Development Ordinance ¤ 5.4.2.

50 M. Yeston

The need for more review has grown out of the perception of infill projects in Cameron Park to be a so-called mixed bag. On the one hand, the community has roundly praised a 2010 house designed by local architect Michael Stevenson (fig. 35), indicating the design reflects the scale and diversity of the surrounding houses, adheres to the NCOD’s driveway rules, and instead of being a historicist carbon copy is a fresh, contemporary design that looks almost Wrightian. On the other hand, neighbors have had mixed reactions to the project that replaced the arts and crafts bungalow, saying that although it followed the NCOD’s height and massing regulations, the design and use of materials is radically out of character (fig. 36). Giving the community the opportunity to have more say, as in Cambridge and Philadelphia, could end up having a more positive influence on the future of the neighborhood’s physical fabric.243

Quantitative Data According to Appendix Table 3, some of the sentiments expressed by respondents about the overall after effects of the NCOD are present in the data. The presence of the Cameron Park NCOD after 2006 does not reveal many dramatic shifts compared to the overall city. With regard to the average gross rent in Cameron Park, it has actually been consistently less than that of Raleigh in 1990, 2000 and 2009. However, the median value of owner-occupied units increased by 53.6% in the vicinity of Cameron Park from 1990 to 2000, compared with 20.2% in Raleigh during the same period. The median value then increased by 24.2% in Cameron Park’s vicinity from 2000 to 2009 compared with 3.8% in Raleigh. Obviously since the NCOD was designated in 2006, it cannot account for the growth during the 1990s, and it could be that the neighborhood was simply riding a larger wave of rising home values, especially the kind that lead to the local teardown phenomenon. A sharp increase in the 2000s could partially be attributable to the NCOD, as the regulation ensured that certain types of development would be legally prohibited. However, it is important to be aware that Cameron Park Ð like Oakwood Park, Mordecai, Five Points East, Oberlin Village, and Southpark Ð is an inner-ring suburb that is walking distance from downtown. It could be just as likely that the convenience of living so close to downtown inflated property values in these areas over the past two decades. From 1990 to 2000, the median household income went up 10.3% in Cameron Park compared with 6.9% across Raleigh as a whole, and from 2000 to 2009 the MHI actually decreased in both the neighborhood and the city at comparable rates. The growth of MHI in Cameron Park occurred predominantly before the implementation of the NCOD, which means that this growth cannot be attributable to the district. While Cameron Park’s Black population decreased at a faster rate than the city’s from 2000 to 2009, the population never rose above 11% of the area to begin with, compared with a White population of 89.1% in 1990, 82.1% in 2000, and 92.7% in 2009. Once again, Cameron Park is not the cause of a large incumbent Black population being displaced by rising property values that may or may not be caused by a highly-educated White population. Rather, it is an area that was simply very White and well-off to begin with. While the shift in levels of education does show a gradually higher percentage of individuals with a post-college education over time, and a decreasing number of individuals with an education less than high school, this trend is also reflected citywide, and the percentage of those without a high school education across Raleigh is comparably low to begin with. In terms

243 Group discussion with Madison, Howard, Johnston and resident, Raleigh, NC, January 18, 2014. City of Raleigh and Wake County iMAPS, accessed January 17, 2014, http://maps.raleighnc.gov/imaps/.

51 M. Yeston of the increase in the number of owner-occupied units vs. the amount of renter-occupied units, the changes in Cameron Park do not differ wildly from the city of Raleigh. The findings from the U.S. Census serve to bolster residents’ claims that the NCOD cannot be held directly accountable for unintended changes such as gentrification, as home values have increased throughout Raleigh as a whole. Additionally, it is necessary to note that the available unit of measurement for Cameron Park’s census data is limiting, because the data reflects an area at least double the size of the neighborhood in question.244

244 U.S. Census Bureau. Cameron Park Neighborhood Composite, 1990, 2000, 2009. Prepared by Social Explorer.

52 M. Yeston

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the accumulated responses, the general consensus from administrators, residents, and some elected officials is that these particular conservation districts are functioning as they were intended. As for some performing better than others, it is difficult to single out one in particular, since each district has its share of success stories and controversy. The Avon Hill NCD was able to retain the neighborhood’s rich diversity of architectural styles as well as its signature open space. Despite this, what I view as a relatively non-contextual house was still able to get through the public review process. The Queen Village NCD accommodated contemporary design while maintaining the neighborhood’s signature attributes Ð low stoops, ground floor windows, and contextual materials. However, because of miscommunications during the district’s rollout period, certain developments that directly contravened the regulations were allowed to be constructed. In Cameron Park, it is indisputable that the neighborhood’s dense street façades, setbacks, open spaces and pedestrian access have been maintained. With one exception, a single house that went against the rules regarding front parking, prominent new infill projects have been deemed largely successful by both administrators and residents. The difficulty is that, despite the infill’s appropriateness, three teardowns were still allowed to occur after the date of the district’s initial designation. In sum, it is challenging to determine which districts were more “successful” than the other, as each one featured at least one significant flaw while maintaining the overall aesthetics of the pre-existing built environment. With regard to the issue of how different stakeholders view the conservation districts, administrators and elected officials tended to have a more consistently favorable view, while residents tended to have more mixed views. These ranged from viewing a given NCD as wholly positive, to seeing the regulations as too onerous, to thinking the ordinance did not go far enough in terms of protecting neighborhood resources. The answers given by study participants revealed numerous factors that I had not taken into account, and defied some of my expectations. In all three case studies, respondents made clear that factors beyond the conservation district were shaping the socio-economic aspects of the neighborhood. Each ordinance encountered an unexpected challenge that the community met, sometimes through reevaluating the law. In communities where I assumed that property owners were satisfied with less regulation, it turned out that more regulation was desired. Many participants stressed the value of good communication between review entities and the served population. Finally, new developments in Raleigh in particular could indicate the direction in which NCDs are headed. When asked if they observed any economic changes in the neighborhood as a result of the particular NCD, such as gentrification, displacement and new neighbors or businesses, participants across the board indicated that any changes in home prices or population reflected economic shifts on a citywide scale. Avon Hill’s increasing property values are more the result of the overturning of Cambridge’s ability to impose rent control, as well as the overall economic boom of the 1990s. The neighborhood was also fairly financially well off to begin with. In Philadelphia, the trend of upper middle class people moving into Queen Village and rehabilitating buildings had already changed the social landscape of the neighborhood long before the NCD was enacted in 2008. In Raleigh, planners and local representatives again indicated that any gentrification in Cameron Park was the result of citywide growth. Some interviewees questioned whether it is, at present, too early to measure the full economic and

53 M. Yeston social impacts of each district, as they are relatively new (Avon Hill in 1998, Cameron Park in 2006, and Queen Village in 2008). Participants also stated that each district has particular neighborhood amenities besides the NCD that make it inherently attractive. For Avon Hill, factors included proximity to mass transit and being close to a commercial corridor while remaining in a peaceful and quiet setting (thanks in part to the multifamily dwellings that serve as a sound buffer between the homes and Massachusetts Avenue). In Queen Village, it is the walkability, proximity to the South Street commercial district, and the fact that the neighborhood has one of the best schools in the city. For both Avon Hill and Cameron Park, the neighborhood is walking distance from major educational institutions as well as downtown. A crucial element that all three neighborhoods share is their being located, either partially or fully, within a National Register Historic District, established in Queen Village in 1972, Avon Hill in 1983, and Cameron Park in 1985.245 Both administrators and residents agreed that each neighborhood’s improved physical condition can be partially attributed to the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits that came with this distinction. Each NCD encountered a challenge soon after its enactment, which was typically the result of a failure of communication. Some homeowners of Avon Hill wanted to be excluded from the district because the review process was perceived to be unprofessional and not transparent. To remedy this, the ordinance was evaluated and recommendations were made for a Code of Conduct, and for local commissioners to reach out to affected property owners to educate them on the nature of the law. In Philadelphia, because the Queen Village NCD was enacted on the cusp of the Great Recession, the Neighbors Association zoning committee was unfortunately unaware of state legislation that extended the expiration date of developers’ permits, which led to the allowance of large new construction that the NCD would otherwise have prevented. The presence of these large projects gave the impression that the NCD was not fulfilling its purpose. With regard to Cameron Park, the text of the district had to be amended because it was not specifically worded appropriately enough to fully prevent front yard surface parking. The overlay district had to be amended because of an unforeseen interpretation of the rules, and neighbors came away having learned a lesson to state their goals as clearly as possible at the outset. In all cases, many residents stressed the importance of effective communication about how each NCD functions. For Cambridge, the success and appeal of the NCD largely depended on commissioners making an effort to talk to those affected, and to make clear whether actions would be regulated by the commission or the city preservation staff. Some participants in Philadelphia expressed concern that the Queen Village NCD may lose some of the appeal it once had because so few homeowners in the district are aware it exists. It was recommended that making more attempts to tout the NCD’s aesthetic benefits to the neighborhood’s character would increase its local popularity, and possibly get more neighbors involved at public meetings and hearings at the Planning Commission. Residents of Cameron Park were concerned with how those who approve zoning permits will interpret the language of the NCOD, especially since there is still no public forum for neighbors to comment on proposed work. There was one interesting outcome of note that defied some of my expectations when beginning the study. At first, I assumed that the more planning-oriented conservation districts in

245 National Register of Historic Places, Avon Hill Historic District, Cambridge, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, National Register #83000782. National Register, Southwark District, Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, National Register #72001172. National Register, Cameron Park Historic District, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina, National Register #85001673.

54 M. Yeston

Raleigh, which unlike the more preservation-oriented ordinances in Cambridge or Nashville, do not regulate architectural details such as fenestration and materials. Since Raleigh’s NCODs primarily control height, setbacks, building orientation and lot coverage, I assumed the city’s program would be more favorable to property owners since the construction controls would be relatively less onerous. What I discovered is that neighbors with whom I spoke in Cameron Park appeared to want more regulation Ð even in terms of materials Ð than is currently offered. The fact that there is no public review board (unlike the neighborhood commissions in Cambridge and the Planning Commission in Philadelphia) was seen as particularly frustrating. Since there is no notification process for new projects, neighbors have no opportunity to weigh in on how a proposal will affect their community aesthetics. As opposed to being relieved at not having design review, these particular residents indicated they would welcome it, in order to have the chance to be able to communicate with applicants. However, it is possible that the frustration associated with a lack of review could indicate a desire for more public participation, and not necessarily more regulation. Additionally, it is important to note that these are the views of only a small portion of Cameron Park’s residents who were particularly well-informed about the preservation of physical fabric. Whether the majority of residents desire more architectural regulation or simply more participation in how the neighborhood’s growth is managed could be the subject of future studies on NCDs. Based on my observations, it is clear that either having or not having some type of review board makes a significant difference to how represented residents feel. So while the NCOD regulations might not be as stringent in Raleigh as an NCD in Cambridge, merely having a reviewing entity can serve as a communication outlet for residents. With regard to the nomination process, it is difficult to say whether requiring a figure such as 75% of residents as opposed to 51% for NCD approval would improve the tool’s overall effectiveness. On the one hand, a greater percentage requirement would be more representative of local residents. On the other hand, the higher the required approval percentage is, it is arguable the more difficult it would be for more new NCDs to be enacted. It would be worth investigating in the future how effective NCDs with a 75% to 100% required property owner consent have been.246 A no less significant factor concerns how NCDs can respond to issues of race and class. If we review first some of the key issues surrounding NCDs, they have the potential to safeguard property values of stable existing communities by prohibiting larger, wealthier private homes from upsetting the physical fabric and property values of neighboring buildings. This can result in the retention of smaller affordable units, preventing the community’s property taxes from skyrocketing, and mitigating gentrification.247 However, like HDs, this could equally have the potential to make an area more valuable by virtue of its historical distinctiveness. In my case studies, based on interviews and census data, there is no clear link between each NCD and what might be symptoms of gentrification. Two of the three neighborhoods studied were predominantly White and well-off to begin with. In Philadelphia, most of the shift in population and home values pre-dated the NCD in 2008, and across-the-board similar changes could be observed on a city-wide scale, indicating that it was not the NCD that was responsible for any disproportionate changes. One drawback that the NCD might suffer, in terms of the suburban model, as with any residential zoning district that allows for only single-family detached houses,

246 Most, “Appendix A-1: Neighborhood Conservation Policy Summary (based on ordinance text),” Neighborhood Conservation Policies. Some examples include Memphis, TN, where 75% property owner consent is required; Phoenix, AZ (70%); and Oregon City and Portland, OR (both 100% in accordance with state law). 247 Fine and Lindberg, Taming the Teardown Trend, 5-6.

55 M. Yeston is that it could inherently permit members of one circumscribed social class to occupy the neighborhood Ð i.e. those who can afford to buy the houses Ð and exclude members of another social class by not permitting tall, bulky multi-dwelling rental units. Then again, this does not mean it is impossible to have low-income rental units in small detached houses. To ascertain whether other NCDs have had any effects of displacement, it would be worthwhile to conduct a demographic and economic analysis of perhaps one third of the 96 NCDs in the U.S. Comparing the data for the blocks of a specific NCD with neighboring blocks not covered by it could explicate the racial and ethnic makeup in each one to see if there are any radical changes within the NCD. To get an even more specific assessment of on-the-ground neighborhood sentiment, a distinct questionnaire could be distributed to every single resident of an NCD, as opposed to speaking to a smaller sample of five to ten residents, which clearly can provide only a narrower representation of the community. Although the three examples used in this study feature mostly White, upper middle class communities, there are still examples of NCDs in mostly minority communities, as well as examples of how preservation can dovetail with other policy agendas that advance the interests of less-advantaged neighborhoods. Two such examples of predominantly African-American initiated NCDs are Plano in Dallas and Ransom Place in Indianapolis.248 Since it could be argued that the goals of NCDs are post-materialistic concerns, it would be advisable to align the interests of some NCDs with affordable housing goals. Stephanie R. Ryberg’s comparative study of community-based organizations (CBOs) with preservation components contrasts the successful efforts of Pittsburgh’s Manchester Citizens Corporation (MCC) with the less successful Mt. Auburn Good Housing Foundation (MAGHF) in Cincinnati.249 By the 1970s, traditional historic preservation came to be seen as a profit-driven enterprise for the rehabilitation of previously dilapidated homes targeted for middle-class residents. To bridge this gap between preservation and lower income residents, preservationists and planners needed to create initiatives that would revitalize neighborhoods without displacing incumbent dwellers. A host of CBOs began incorporating preservation tools into their efforts to stabilize and improve low- income areas while contemporaneously maintaining affordability and avoiding gentrification.250 Pittsburgh’s MCC and Cincinnati’s MAGHF were among the earliest grassroots efforts to use preservation as a tool for neighborhood improvement.251 The MCC, incorporated in 1971,252 was more successful because it was dedicated to enhanced outreach and transparency. As the neighborhood’s needs changed over time, it was able to adapt its focus through partnering with other local community organizations, and through expanding its programs to include infill

248 Lubens and Miller, “Protecting Older Neighborhoods” (2002-2003): 1011, 1023-1024. Whether or not these NCDs have experienced significant racial and other demographic changes since their designation could be the subject of a future study. 249 Ryberg, “Preservation at the Grassroots: Pittsburgh’s Manchester and Cincinnati’s Mt. Auburn Neighborhoods,” Journal of Planning History 10 (2011): 139. 250 Ryberg, “Preservation at the Grassroots,” 140-141, 159. CBOs that utilized preservation as part of their efforts at revitalizing low income neighborhoods starting in the late 1960s include the following: Parkside Development Corporation, Philadelphia, PA (1967); Savannah Landmark Rehabilitation Project (SLRP), Savannah, GA (1975); Seattle Chinatown-International District Preservation Development Authority, Seattle, WA (1975); Central Wards Conservation Area, Richmond, VA (1976); Beach Institute Historic Neighborhood Association, Savannah, GA (1980); Sweet Auburn Historic District Development Corporation, Atlanta, GA (1980); Jubilee Baltimore, Baltimore, MD (1980). 251 Ryberg, “Preservation at the Grassroots,” 141. 252 Ryberg, “Preservation at the Grassroots,” 143.

56 M. Yeston development on vacant parcels, reinvestment, public housing redevelopment, the conducting of planning studies, and the funding of social services such as the Manchester Work Program that provided job training in construction and historic renovation.253 However, the MAGHF in Cincinnati was less successful because it had an uncompromising leadership, a confrontational approach to the community, and thus a lack of universal resident support.254 One other case is Chicago’s New Communities Program (NCP), which seeks to both preserve the physical historic fabric and address a neighborhood’s cultural history while simultaneously preventing displacement of low- and moderate-income residents.255 Being flexible, in combining an NCD with whatever other regulatory tools might be necessary to retain neighborhood affordability, is key to cases of middle- to low-income neighborhoods that have few means but might want to protect their neighborhood’s history and character. What must also be taken into account is the degree to which NCDs are a signifier of a larger trend towards deregulation. Robert Stipe (1993) addressed the growing conservative “public mood” that was turning against government regulation in general.256 Given the further growth of the Conservative Movement since Stipe’s writing, and the American public’s generally increasing distrust of large governmental apparatuses since the 1970s,257 it is not surprising that NCDs have become a popular tool in communities that are concerned about the potentially burdensome costs and regulations associated with HDs in the public mind. This sentiment was demonstrably reflected in the accounts of the public decision-making process during the creation of the Cameron Park NCOD and Queen Village NCD. While the NCD might prove to be a more popular alternative to HDs in lower-income areas, there are new citywide zoning initiatives that may yet prove to be even more appealing. Interviews with stakeholders in Raleigh shed light on the potential future of the conservation district as it relates to the new zoning code in that city, and possibly cities across the country. Raleigh’s UDO is based on new models for constructing more sustainable, transit- friendly and pedestrian-friendly cities that have emerged in the past three decades in the form of New Urbanism and other form based codes. Both Denver and Miami now have citywide zoning

253 Ryberg, “Preservation at the Grassroots,” 149, 157. 254 Ryberg, “Preservation at the Grassroots,” 157. 255 Trent Nichols, “Protecting the Neighborhood: Historic Preservation and Community Development,” Forum Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Fall 2011): 42-46. In North Lawndale, Chicago’s Neighborhood Housing Services partnered with local community members to launch the Historic Chicago Greystone Initiative in 2006 to promote the preservation of the area’s distinctive houses characterized by their gray limestone façades. In addition to conserving the structures through financial and technical assistance, the Greystone Initiative promoted local pride of place and celebration of the community’s history, culture and identity. The effort led to the neighborhood’s nomination as a National Register historic district in 2010, and publication of promotional and technical literature. In Chicago’s predominantly Mexican working class Pilsen neighborhood, the local Eighteenth Street Development Corporation expanded its agenda of providing job training to include preservation initiatives to promote its “quality of life plan.” One of the economic benefits that came with Pilsen’s National Register listing was the Illinois state property tax freeze program for owner-occupied rehabilitated historic buildings. Nichols’ larger point is that in less advantaged communities where local historic designation or National Register listing might be met with suspicion, including a CDC preservation program or a grassroots quality of life initiative will make preservation much more palatable in three principal ways. First, preservationists can form partnerships with the local CDC. Second, partnering with preservationists can improve the capacity and effectiveness of a CDC. Third, preservation and social history can unite a community around a common issue, and can earn the support of low- to moderate-income residents. 256 Stipe, “Conservation Areas: A New Approach to an Old Problem,” 2. 257 Ryberg, “Preservation at the Grassroots,” 140.

57 M. Yeston codes based on pre-existing building forms rather than strict separation of uses.258 In Raleigh, as in other cities with NCDs, the tool was itself a reaction against a so-called one-size-fits-all mid- century zoning based largely on separation of uses and automobile transportation. NCDs were enacted to retain existing development patterns, largely from the early 20th Century. Raleigh’s code now makes compatible infill a matter of policy. There, the exception to mid-century zoning (the NCD) has now become the norm. Whether the form-based infill model becomes more commonplace throughout U.S. cities, and the appeal of NCDs decreases, remains to be seen. Despite the new infill and Streetside sections of the Raleigh UDO, all of the conservation districts have remained intact. Furthermore, the three districts under consideration have been largely successful because of how the regulations have been specifically tailored to meet each neighborhood’s concerns. Additionally, zoning codes typically cannot mandate architectural elements such as stoop construction or materials on a citywide scale, whereas a conservation district can. Notably during the past six months alone, the Streetside HOD, which is also a new regulatory option in Raleigh’s UDO, has increased in popularity. Doug Hill recently noted that there have been a number of groups in older neighborhoods close to downtown (including Cameron Park, Mordecai, University Park, and Glenwood-Brooklyn) that have discussed pursuing this course. The Streetside provision allows a new type of compromise, since design review regulations only affect that portion of the properties visible from the street while granting residents freedom to make any alterations in the back. Hill noted that the Streetside program provides a certain degree of protection when it comes to the overall character of a neighborhood, and the NCOD tool could potentially take a “back seat.” However, only time will tell whether the Streetside HOD becomes more prevalent.259 A constrained budget is a crucial factor for local governments to consider when deciding how many regulatory tools to adopt which may affect the physical environment. It would be ideal for cities to be able to grant numerous options for how neighborhoods might wish to control future growth and alteration of their built environment. Giving communities a full range of choices Ð from more stringent HDs to NCDs tailored to a specific area, to more Form-Based Codes that seek to maintain existing built patterns Ð is, in my view, a more democratic solution. Nonetheless, at a time when Federal discretionary funds continue to dwindle, states and cities will face increasingly tight budgets. This means that planning and preservation offices may have to limit their number of paid staff, which could diminish the number of aesthetic regulations the office can execute. It may be worthwhile for future studies to address the financial dimensions of operating HDs, NCDs, and Form-Based Zoning. The only study that specifically addressed the impact on staff workload is Salganicoff’s (2003) NCD survey, in which she included sections on the effect on staffing and any incentives offered. To cite two examples, NCDs in Dallas have added to staff workload because of their increased popularity, and Riverside, California’s NCD program has the same incentives as local HDs, and it can take advantage of Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) for low interest home improvement loans.260 A closer examination of how NCDs, as well as Form-Based Codes, affect municipal budgets and staff would be warranted.

258 Matt Goebel, Jim Lindberg, Wade Broadhead, “Meeting Preservation Challenges Through Creative Planning and Zoning” (lecture presented at the National Preservation Conference, Buffalo, NY, October 19-22, 2011). 259 Interview with Doug Hill, Raleigh, NC, April 16, 2014. 260 Salganicoff, “Neighborhood Conservation Districts Survey,” 9, 12.

58 M. Yeston

NCDs are an effective planning tool because they have a demonstrated potential to foster greater communication between neighbors with respect to what they want for the future of their communities, and to how they may wish to protect the physical and spatial qualities that matter to them. Participants noted that there is a need not merely to protect the historic integrity of buildings, but additionally to have a more constructive and congenial dialogue with neighbors toward reaching common goals. Another way of looking at an NCD takes into account the perspective that residents have invested not merely in their homes, but in their surroundings as well. So their investment is not only the house they live in, but indeed the whole neighborhood and everything which that implies. One way these communities have strengthened their neighborhoods is through their own collective action, in order for their physicality and identity to be managed by those who live there as opposed to solely external market forces. NCDs are therefore an effective way of protecting their investments. The surveyed communities included in this study indicated that, on the whole, NCDs do work as a mechanism for residents to have an active say in how their physical environment is shaped. Despite whatever challenges emerged, each of the three neighborhoods studied accomplished that.

59 M. Yeston

Figure 1. Map of Avon Hill NCD, 1998. (Cambridge Historical Commission)

Figure 2. From left to right: Dutch Colonial Revival house (E.K. & W.E. Blaikie, 1894), Dutch Colonial Revival house (Putnam & Cox, 1909), Italianate house (Prescott & Sidebottom, 1896), Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. The intent of the Avon Hill NCD was not to protect one particular style of late-19th century residential architecture, but the neighborhood's rich variety of styles. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

60 M. Yeston

Figure 3. From left to right: Second Empire house (c.1870s), Italianate house (1880-81), Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 4. Queen Anne house (Hartwell & Richardson, 1886), Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

61 M. Yeston

Figure 5. Three houses in Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. The other intention of this particular NCD was to preserve the open space and sense of expansiveness that distinguishes this neighborhood. Because the houses are relatively small compared to their large lots, vistas like this are created which allow viewers to see the backs and sides of houses further away from the street. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 6. Second Empire house (1876) with surrounding open space, Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. Once again, open space maintained by the limits on lot coverage. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

62 M. Yeston

Figure 7. Open space seen from a house’s rear deck, Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 8. View of early 20th century multifamily dwellings along Linnaean Street on the southern edge of the Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

63 M. Yeston

Figure 9. Italianate house (1846, 1867), Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. Two new second-floor porches were built in place of two sloping roofs, and two existing second-floor windows were converted to doors that access the porches. This is an example of a sensitive alteration that harmonizes with the existing building. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 10. 79 Raymond Street, Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

64 M. Yeston

Figure 11. Bungalow (c.1950), Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 12. View of Massachusetts Avenue on the eastern edge of the Avon Hill NCD, Cambridge, MA. The tall early-20th century brick apartment buildings along this commercial corridor serve as a ‘sound buffer’ to the comparatively more tranquil NCD. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

65 M. Yeston

Figure 13. Federal row houses, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 14. Queen Anne residential buildings with semi-hexagonal bay windows, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

66 M. Yeston

Figure 15. Typical streetscape, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 16. Typical streetscape, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

67 M. Yeston

Figure 17. Incompatible garage, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 18. Incompatible garages, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

68 M. Yeston

Figure 19. Map of Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA, 2008. (Philadelphia City Planning Commission)

69 M. Yeston

Figure 20. Affordable housing units, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 21. Post-2008 residential infill, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

70 M. Yeston

Figure 22. Post-2008 residential infill, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 23. Post-2008 residential infill, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

71 M. Yeston

Figure 24. Post-2008 residential infill, Queen Village NCD, Philadelphia, PA. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 25. Colonial Box house with hip roof and hip dormer (1915), Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

72 M. Yeston

Figure 26. Bungalow with engaged porch, gable roof and gable dormer (1917), Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 27. Two Colonial Box houses with hip roofs and gable dormers (1915), Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

73 M. Yeston

Figure 28. Park Drive East, Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 29. “Solar House” (1982), Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

74 M. Yeston

Figure 30. Out-of-scale house (2005), Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 31. Map of Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC, 2010. (Department of City Planning, Raleigh)

75 M. Yeston

Figure 32. “Residential Infill Compatibility,” City of Raleigh Unified Development Ordinance, effective September 1, 2013. (Department of City Planning, Raleigh)

Figure 33. “Residential Infill Compatibility,” Unified Development Ordinance. (Department of City Planning, Raleigh)

76 M. Yeston

Figure 34. Residential infill (2008), Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

Figure 35. Residential infill (Michael Stevenson, 2010), Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

77 M. Yeston

Figure 36. Residential infill (2013-14), Cameron Park NCOD, Raleigh, NC. (Max Yeston, January 2014)

78 M. Yeston

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

For property owners/general public:

How long have you lived (or worked) in the district?

Did you choose to live (or work) in the district, and if so, why?

How would you say the design review regulations affect you personally?

How would you say the design review regulations affect the neighborhood?

In your own words, what have been the results of the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) ordinance?

Do you feel the NCD regulations have more flexibility than Historic District regulations? Why or why not?

Do you think the results of the NCD ordinance have been successful? If so, how would you define that success?

What are the pros and cons of the NCD ordinance?

Would you want to see any changes to the NCD ordinance or complementary regulation? If so, what, and what for?

Do you recall any local opposition to the NCD ordinance and the reason for it?

Have you perceived any unanticipated effects of the ordinance (e.g., displacement of residents and/or retail, or attraction of new ones? Change of land values, rent?)

For administrators/elected officials:

When was the NCD ordinance adopted?

What were the local concerns (or motivating factors) that led to the adoption of the NCD ordinance?

What kinds of activities are regulated by the ordinance?

What goals does the NCD seek to achieve? Has it achieved those goals?

Why has this neighborhood been designated as an NCD as opposed to a traditional historic district? Why not just designate it as an HD?

79 M. Yeston

Do you think the results of the NCD ordinance have been successful? If so, how would you define that success?

What are the pros and cons of the NCD ordinance?

Would you want to see any changes to the NCD ordinance or complementary regulation? If so, what, and what for?

Do you recall any local opposition to the NCD ordinance and the reason for it?

Have you perceived any unanticipated effects of the ordinance (e.g., displacement of residents and/or retail, or attraction of new ones? Change of land values, rent?)

80 APPENDIX B: NEIGHBORHOOD COMPOSITE DATA

Table 1. U.S. Census Bureau. Avon Hill Neighborhood Composite, 1990, 2000, 2009. Prepared by Social Explorer.

Table 2. U.S. Census Bureau. Queen Village Neighborhood Composite, 1990, 2000, 2009. Prepared by Social Explorer.

Table 3. U.S. Census Bureau. Cameron Park Neighborhood Composite, 1990, 2000, 2009. Prepared by Social Explorer.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, REVIEW OF SCHOLARSHIP

Issues Papers Cox, Rachel S. Design Review in Historic Districts. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2003.

Fine, Adrian Scott and Jim Lindberg. Protecting America’s Historic Neighborhoods: Taming the Teardown Trend. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2002.

Miller, Julia. A Layperson’s Guide to Historic Preservation Law: A Survey of Federal, State, and Local Laws Governing Historic Resource Protection. Washington D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2008.

. Protecting Older Neighborhoods Through Conservation District Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2004.

Stipe, Robert E. “Conservation Areas: A New Approach to an Old Problem,” 1993. In National Park Service. “Issues Paper: Conservation Districts.” Cultural Resources: Partnership Notes. Heritage Preservation Services, 1998.

Zellie, Carole. “A Consideration of Conservation Districts and Preservation Planning: Notes from St. Paul Minnesota,” 1993. In National Park Service. “Issues Paper: Conservation Districts.” Cultural Resources: Partnership Notes. Heritage Preservation Services, 1998.

Journal Articles and Essays “Form-Based Code Overview and Model Approaches.” Planning Advisory Service Report 556 (April 2009): 225-233.

Freeman, Lance. “Displacement or Succession? Residential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods.” Urban Affairs Review 40, 4 (2005): 463-491.

Horstman, Neil W. “New Dimensions for House Museums.” In Past Meets Future: Saving America’s Historic Environments, edited by Antoinette Lee, 167-173. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1992.

Koziol, Christopher. “Historic Preservation Ideology: A Critical Mapping of Contemporary Heritage Policy Discourse.” Preservation Education & Research, Vol. 1 (2008): 41-50.

Lea, Diane. “America’s Preservation Ethos: A Tribute to Enduring Ideals.” Introduction to A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century 7 (2003).

Lovelady, Adam. “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation and the Role of Neighborhood Conservation Districts.” The Urban Lawyer, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Winter 2008): 147-183.

Lubens, Rebecca, Julia Miller. “Protecting Older Neighborhoods Through Conservation District Programs.” Preservation Law Reporter (January-March 2002-2003): 1001-1042.

. “Sample Conservation District Ordinance Provisions.” Preservation Law Reporter (April-June 2002-2003): 1059-1103. Accessed March 1, 2014. http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/law-and-policy/legal- resources/preservation-law-101/resources/Sample-Conservation-Ordinances.pdf.

Lyon, Elizabeth A. and Richard C. Cloues. “The Cultural and Historical Mosaic and the Concept of Significance.” In Preservation of What, For Whom? A Critical Look at Historical Significance 38, edited by Michael A. Tomlan, 1999.

Mason, Randall F. “Preservation Planning in American Cities,” Forum Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 2009). Accessed September 24, 2011. http://www.preservationnation.org/forum/forum-library/members-only/preservation- planning-in.html.

. “Theoretical and Practical Arguments for Values-Centered Preservation,” CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship (Summer 2006): 21-48.

Morris, Marya. Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 438. American Planning Association, September 1992.

Nichols, Trent. “Protecting the Neighborhood: Historic Preservation and Community Development,” Forum Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Fall 2011): 41-48.

Russell, Joel S. “Rethinking Conventional Zoning.” Planning Commissioners Journal (Summer 1994).

. “What is a Local Preservation Plan?” The Alliance Review: News from the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (Fall 1989): 1-2.

Ryberg, Stephanie R. “Preservation at the Grassroots: Pittsburgh’s Manchester and Cincinnati’s Mt. Auburn Neighborhoods,” Journal of Planning History 10 (2011): 139-163.

Salganicoff, Lori. “Neighborhood Conservation Districts Survey.” Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, August 2003. Accessed August 2, 2013. http://www.preservationalliance.com/publications/Conservation%20District%20Descripti on.pdf

. “Neighborhood Conservation Districts Matrix.” Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, August 2003. Accessed August 2, 2013. http://pagp.javelinhosting.com/publications/conservation%20district%20matrix.pdf

Weible, Robert. “Visions and Reality: Reconsidering the Creation and Development of Lowell’s National Park, 1966-1992.” Public Historian 33, No. 2 (Spring 2011): 67-93.

Books Beaumont, Constance E. “State Enabling Laws.” In Chapter 1 of Smart States, Better Communities: How State Governments Can Help Citizens Preserve Their Communities. Washington D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1996.

Bowsher, Alice Meriwether. Design Review in Historic Districts, 1978. Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1985.

Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.

Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. 1960. Reprint, Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1966.

Tyler, Norman, Ted J. Ligibel and Ilene R. Tyler. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice, 1994. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2009.

Articles Bogdanowicz , Anna. “Anti-McMansion Rules Shot Down in Westfield.” New Jersey Real Estate Report, May 30, 2006. http://njrereport.com/index.php/2006/05/30/anti- mcmansion-rules-shot-down-in-westfield/

Hickman, Matt. “Revenge of the McMansion: Homebuyers bounce back to big.” Mother Nature Network, June 5, 2013. Accessed September 10, 2013, http://www.mnn.com/your- home/at-home/blogs/revenge-of-the-mcmansion-homebuyers-bounce-back-to- big?hpt=hp_bn18

James, George. “McMansions or Bash-and-Builds, Some Towns Have Had Enough.” The New York Times, May 8, 2005. Accessed October 17, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/nyregion/08njCOVER.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Portlock, Sarah. “McMansions swell the real estate market as homebuyers think small.” The Star-Ledger, November 13, 2011. Accessed October 17, 2013. http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2011/11/mcmansions_swell_the_real_east.html

Sullivan, Jenny. “Is the McMansion Dead?” Builder, November 10, 2009. Accessed October 17, 2013. http://www.builderonline.com/infill-development/is-the-mcmansion-dead_2.aspx

Theses Arble, Nicholas Houston. Neighborhood Conservation within the Framework of Neighborhood Planning: The Case of the Cottage Home Neighborhood of Indianapolis, Indiana. Kent, OH: Kent State University School of Planning, 2010.

McClurg, Jessie. Alternative Forms of Historic Designation: A Study of Neighborhood Conservation Districts in the United States. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,

2011. Accessed August 17, 2013. http://www.cura.umn.edu/sites/cura.advantagelabs.com/files/content- docs/CD_Reporter_Final.pdf

Most, Jennifer L. Neighborhood Conservation Policies: Protecting Communities From Teardowns and Other Threats to Neighborhood Conservation. New York: Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, May 2005.

Peacock, Malachi Reid. Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Their Relevance to Historic Preservation in the 21st Century. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, 2009.

Ordinances and Codes City of Austin. “Brentwood/Highland Neighborhood Plan.” Adopted May 13, 2004. Accessed October 15, 2013. ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/Austingo/brent-highland-np.pdf

. “Neighborhood Conservation Combining District.” Accessed October 22, 2013. http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Applications_Forms/07_neig hborhood_comb_app.pdf

Chapter 211. Municipal Zoning Authority, “Zoning Regulations Generally,” Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 211, Section 211.003. Accessed September 29, 2013. http://www.weblaws.org/texas/laws/tex._local_gov%27t_code_section_211.003_zoning_ regulations_generally

City of Boston. “St. Botolph Architectural Conservation District Standards & Criteria.” Accessed September 29, 2013. http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/St.%20Botolph%20Architectural%20C onservation%20District%20Standards%20%26%20Criteria_tcm3-13568.pdf

. “Bay State Road/Back Bay West Architectural Conservation District Specific Standards.” Accessed September 29, 2013. http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Bay%20State%20Road- Back%20Bay%20West%20Standards%20and%20Criteria_tcm3-13474.pdf

City of Cambridge. “Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Order.” Adopted June 5, 1998. Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www2.cambridgema.gov/Historic/AHNCD_order.pdf

. “Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Review Criteria.” Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www2.cambridgema.gov/Historic/avonhillcriteria.pdf.pdf

. “Harvard Square Neighborhood Conservation District Order.” Adopted December 18, 2000. Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www2.cambridgema.gov/Historic/HSqCD_order.pdf

. “Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Order.” Adopted June 8, 1992. Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www2.cambridgema.gov/Historic/MCNCD_order.pdf

. “Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Review Criteria.” Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www2.cambridgema.gov/Historic/midcambridgecriteria.html

. “Practical Guide to Permitting in the Harvard Square Conservation District.” Cambridge Historical Commission, May 2001. Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www2.cambridgema.gov/Historic/HSquareGuide.pdf

City of Philadelphia. “Section 14-908: Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District.” Philadelphia Code, Section 14-908. Accessed October 1, 2013. http://www.qvna.org/qvna/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NCD-Ordinance.pdf

City of Raleigh. “Permitted Land Uses in Zoning Districts.” Accessed September 29, 2013. http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanDev/Articles/Zoning/PermittedUses.html

Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee. “Blakemore.” Accessed August 20, 2013. http://www.nashville.gov/Historical- Commission/Services/Preservation-Permits/Districts-and-Design- Guidelines/Blakemore.aspx

. Blakemore Planned Unit Development Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay, Handbook and Design Guidelines. Nashville, TN: MHZC, 1989.

. “Historical and Historic Zoning Commissions.” Accessed August 20, 2013. http://www.nashville.gov/mhc/index.asp.

Court Cases Penn Central Transportation Co., et al., Appellants, v. City of New York, et al. Supreme Court Reporter, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).

Data Map of United States Population Density (per sq. mile) by Census Tract, 1990, 2000, 2010. Social Explorer, (based on data from U.S. Census Bureau; accessed April 30, 2014).

U.S. Census Bureau. Avon Hill Neighborhood Composite, 1990, 2000, 2009. Prepared by Social Explorer.

. Cameron Park Neighborhood Composite, 1990, 2000, 2009. Prepared by Social Explorer.

. Queen Village Neighborhood Composite, 1990, 2000, 2009. Prepared by Social Explorer.

AVON HILL NCD, CAMBRIDGE, MA

“A Cambridge Preservation Timeline.” In Saving Cambridge: Historic Preservation in America’s Innovation City, edited by Heli Meltsner, Michael Kenney, Gavin W. Kleespies and Jasmine Laietmark, 168-172. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Historical Society, 2013.

Avon Hill Hearing Procedure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Historical Commission, March 16, 2007.

Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study. Cambridge, MA: Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary Study Committee, November 3, 2006.

City of Boston. “Landmarks Commission: Historic Districts.” Accessed August 20, 2013. http://www.cityofboston.gov/landmarks/historic/.

City of Cambridge. “Agenda Item No. 5: Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District.” In City Council June 15, 1998.

Davis, Karen and William B. King. “The Mechanics of Historic Preservation: Tools & Incentives.” In Saving Cambridge: Historic Preservation in America’s Innovation City, edited by Heli Meltsner, Michael Kenney, Gavin W. Kleespies and Jasmine Laietmark, 140-149. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Historical Society, 2013.

Fitzgerald, Jay. “The End of Rent Control in Cambridge.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Accessed February 1, 2014. http://www.nber.org/digest/oct12/w18125.html.

Zimmerman, Sarah. Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Study Report. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Historical Commission, May 21, 1998.

Interview & Correspondence List Bagalay, Judy. Resident, Cambridge, MA. Personal Interview. January 8, 2014.

Bardige, Art. Member, Avon Hill NCD Commission. Cambridge, MA. Personal Interview. January 7, 2014.

Burks, Sarah. Preservation Planner, Cambridge Historical Commission. Cambridge, MA. Personal Interview. January 8, 2014.

Dempsey, Owen. Resident, Cambridge, MA. Telephone Interview. January 7, 2014.

Hamacher, Theresa. Member, Avon Hill NCD Commission. Cambridge, MA. Personal Interview. January 6, 2014.

Meltsner, Heli. Member, Avon Hill NCD Commission. Cambridge, MA. Personal Interview. January 6, 2014.

Sullivan, Charles. Cambridge Historical Commission. Cambridge, MA. Telephone Interview. December 13, 2013.

Welch, Margot. Resident, Cambridge, MA. Personal Interview. January 7, 2014.

Wilder, Andrea. Resident, Cambridge, MA. Personal Interview. January 7, 2014.

QUEEN VILLAGE NCD, PHILADELPHIA, PA

City of Philadelphia. “Bill No. 040156: An Ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled ‘Zoning and Planning,’ by adding a new Chapter providing for the creation of Neighborhood Conservation Districts.” June 21, 2004.

. “Bill No. 080080-A: Amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled ‘Zoning and Planning,’ by adding a new Section 14-908, entitled ‘Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District.’” June 19, 2008.

. “Bill No. 960264: South Street/HeadHouse Square Special Services District Controls.” July 8, 1996.

. The Philadelphia Code, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011.

Cooperman, Emily T., Ph.D. and Cory Kegerise, M.S. Historic Districts in Philadelphia: An assessment of existing information and recommendations for future action. Philadelphia, PA: Cultural Resource Consulting Group, January 9, 2007.

Hauptman, Mike. “Neighborhood Conservation District.” Queen Village Neighbors Association, July 3, 2013. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.qvna.org/qvna/neighborhood- conservation-district/.

McKee, Guian A. “Liberal Ends through Illibreral Means: Race, Urban Renewal, and Community in the Eastwick Section of Philadelphia, 1949-1990.” Journal of Urban History 27 (2001): 547-583.

Necciai, Terry A. RA. Statement of Significance for Southwark Historic District (Second Draft). Philadelphia, PA: for Queen Village Neighbors Association Ð Historic Preservation Committee, July 30, 2012.

Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Comprehensive Plan: The Physical Development Plan for the City of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia City Planning Commission, 1960.

“QVNA Ð The Zoning Process.” Queen Village Neighbors Association, July 3, 2013. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.qvna.org/qvna/the-zoning-process/.

Ryberg, Stephanie R. “Historic Preservation’s Urban Renewal Roots: Preservation and Planning in Midcentury Philadelphia.” Journal of Urban History 39 (2012): 193-213.

Sitarski, Steve. “History of Queen Village.” Queen Village Neighbors Association, May 18, 2011. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.qvna.org/qvna/history-of-queen-village/.

Temple, Cynthia. “Fabric Row.” Queen Village Neighbors Association, June 9, 2011. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.qvna.org/qvna/fabric-row/.

. “Settlements in Queen Village from 1600 to Today.” Queen Village Neighbors Association, October 30, 2011. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.qvna.org/qvna/settlements-in-queen-village-from-1600-to-today/.

Welljams-Dorof, A. Queen Village Guide to Historic Buildings. Philadelphia, PA: Queen Village Neighbors Association, 2011.

Interview & Correspondence List Conviser, Jack, Beige Berryman and David Schaaf. Urban Design Division. Department of City Planning, Philadelphia, PA. Email Correspondence. December 18, 2013.

Hauptman, Mike. Co-chair, Zoning Committee, Queen Village Neighbors Association. Philadelphia, PA. Telephone Interview. December 17, 2013.

Hornstein, Jeff. President, Queen Village Neighbors Association. Philadelphia, PA. Telephone Interview. December 19, 2013.

Liss, Jon. Resident, Philadelphia, PA. Personal Interview. January 11, 2014.

Piven, Peter. Member, Zoning Committee, Queen Village Neighbors Association. Philadelphia, PA. Telephone Interview. January 13, 2014.

Puppin, Carla. Executive Director, Queen Village Neighbors Association. Philadelphia, PA. Telephone Interview. January 17, 2014.

Shelanski, Amy. Executive Vice President, Queen Village Neighbors Association. Philadelphia, PA. Telephone Interview. January 14, 2014.

Smith, Craig. Resident, Philadelphia, PA. Telephone Interview. January 13, 2014.

Temple, Cynthia. Member, Historic Preservation Committee, Queen Village Neighbors Association. Philadelphia, PA. Personal Interview. January 13, 2014.

Zeccardi, Terese. Resident, Philadelphia, PA. Personal Interview. January 11, 2014.

CAMERON PARK NCOD, RALEIGH, NC

Associated Press. “Neighborhood says woman’s miniature lighthouse must go,” Spartanburg Herald-Journal (January 30, 1999) B3. Accessed March 3, 2014. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19990130&id=NkEfAAAAIBAJ&sj id=wc8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6810,8256776.

Brown, Charlotte V. “Three Raleigh Suburbs: Glenwood, Boylan Heights, Cameron Park.” In Early Twentieth-Century Suburbs in North Carolina: Essays on History, Architecture and Planning, edited by Catherine W. Bishir and Lawrence S. Earley, 31-37. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, 1985.

City of Raleigh. City of Raleigh Unified Development Ordinance. Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, Effective September 1, 2013.

. “Cameron Park Neighborhood Plan.” Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, 2005 [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning].

. Designing a 21st Century City: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Raleigh, Volume I: Comprehensive Plan. Raleigh, NC: City of Raleigh Planning and Development, 2009.

. “Finalized Text Changes.” Accessed March 1, 2014. http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanDev/Articles/Zoning/FinalTextChanges.h tml.

. Impact Analysis Report: Residential Infill Construction (Draft). Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, June 6, 2008 [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning].

. “Ordinance No. (2008) 428 TC 313 TC-4-08: An ordinance to revise the process for establishing a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and to incorporate into the city’s zoning code the previously approved standards for all existing Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts.” July 1, 2008.

. “Proposed Cameron Park NCOD Regulations.” Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, 2009 [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning].

. “Proposed Cameron Park NCOD Regulations.” Raleigh, NC: Department of City Planning, February 2010 [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning].

City of Raleigh and Wake County iMAPS. Accessed January 17, 2014. http://maps.raleighnc.gov/imaps/.

Department of City Planning, City of Raleigh. “NC-1-09/Cameron Park NCOD amendment.” [Courtesy of the Raleigh Department of City Planning]

Goebel, Matt, Jim Lindberg and Wade Broadhead. “Meeting Preservation Challenges Through Creative Planning and Zoning.” Lecture presented at the National Preservation Conference, Buffalo, NY, October 19-22, 2011.

National Register of Historic Places. Avon Hill Historic District, Cambridge, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, National Register #83000782.

. Cameron Park Historic District. Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina, National Register #85001673.

. Southwark District. Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, National Register #72001172.

Raleigh Historic Development Commission. “About RHDC.” Accessed March 1, 2014. http://rhdc.org/about-rhdc.

Raleigh Historic Districts Commission. Design Guidelines for Raleigh Historic Districts. Raleigh, NC: Raleigh Historic Districts Commission, 2001.

Interview & Correspondence List Baldwin, Mary Ann. Councilor At Large. Raleigh, NC. Telephone Interview. January 17, 2014.

Brantley, James. Planner II, Long Range Planning Division, Department of City Planning. Raleigh, NC. Personal Interview. January 16, 2014.

Crane, Travis R. Planning and Zoning Administrator, Long Range Planning Division, Department of City Planning. Raleigh, NC. Personal Interview. January 16, 2014.

Hill, Doug. Planner II, Long Range Planning Division, Department of City Planning. Raleigh, NC. Personal Interview. January 16, 2014.

. Telephone Interview. April 16, 2014.

Howard, Myrick, Doug Johnston, and Charlie Madison. Residents, Raleigh, NC. Group Discussion. January 18, 2014.

Jurkowski, Alan. Resident, Raleigh, NC. Personal Interview. January 16, 2013.

Lindsay, Michael. Resident, Raleigh, NC. Telephone Interview. January 19, 2014.

Madison, Charlie. Resident, Raleigh, NC. Telephone Interview. December 15, 2013.

Sandeep, Dhanya. Planner II, Long Range Planning Division, Department of City Planning. Raleigh, NC. Personal Interview. January 16, 2014.

Stephenson, Russ. Councilor At Large. Raleigh, NC. Personal Interview. January 18, 2014.