WHY DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK LIKE THIS? THE IMPACT OF HOMEOWNERSHIP, TENANCY, AND VACANCY ON THE CONDITION OF HISTORIC HOUSING STOCK A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF SCIENCE BY WHITNEY AIRGOOD DUNCAN CAMPBELL BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA JULY 2011 Many thanks to Susan Lankford, Duncan Campbell, and Olon Dotson for your time, insight, and support. And just as many thanks to John F. Obrycki for keeping it all in perspective. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Definitions 6 Literature Review 8 Methods 15 Hypotheses 23 Results 24 Discussion 29 Suggestions for Future Study 32 Conclusions 34 Appendices A: History 36 B: East Washington Street Property Information 44 C: East Main Street Property Information 132 D: Statistical Guide 201 Works Cited 204 Introduction It was my third month of working in Muncie, Indiana for ecoREHAB, an organization that took on the rehabilitation of the 1850s Italianate home that loomed behind me, and as usual I was early. As I waited for my supervisor to arrive and unlock the 110-year old door, I sat on the steps of 601 East Washington Street, gazing to my right at the surrounding houses. I found myself daydreaming as I did most mornings, wondering what the street looked like when the homes were first built, marveling at their grandeur, and imagining myself living in one of those masterpieces. During my three months of work, I had become completely enamored with East Washington Street. I felt the impulse to live on this tree-lined street, to walk down the slate sidewalk to my very own nineteenth century Queen Anne home. I had even gone so far as to drag my fiancé to an open house a few blocks down. We had spent weeks pining over the incredible detail that the home had to offer - leaded windows, a large front porch, interior wood trim, well-crafted mantles, and an impressive central staircase - before finally deciding that our two meager graduate stipends would not cover the purchase costs, let alone the additional repairs that it needed. My thoughts shifted to my first encounter with this neighborhood. I had been downtown doing research with my classmates at the county building. As we were about to head back to Ball State University’s campus, we noticed a series of chimneys 2 emerging from an interesting roofline and decided to investigate. As we entered the Emily Kimbrough Historic District that encompasses part of East Washington Street, we were completely taken aback. Despite some noticeable dilapidation, the street was full of immense houses that appeared seemingly out of place in Muncie, Indiana. During my initial look at the neighborhood, I failed to notice the great variety in housing condition. In my awestruck state, the houses had all appeared virtually the same: large homes set close to the street in need of some repair. But as I sat on the steps each morning for three months, I realized that East Washington Street exhibited an interesting array of housing condition. While some homes looked perfectly preserved and well maintained, others showed signs of abandonment and degradation. I found the variation to be particularly striking because it did not occur by block or in a seemingly logical pattern. Instead, it was a mottled display of historic housing condition. This range in condition surprised me because each house has had the same protective measures to guard it; the entire residential corridor is designated at the national, state, and local level as a historic district. My ponderings on the steps of 601 East Washington Street are the basis for this study. I seek to explore, in quantifiable terms, why the neighborhood is in such varied condition today, despite having the same overarching guardianship for the past thirty years. This study explores the possible relationships between historic housing condition and homeownership, tenancy, and vacancy. The exploration of these factors has the potential to better inform local government neighborhood policy as well as preservation initiatives in historic neighborhoods. 3 The issues contained within this study reflect the intersection, and oversight, of three subject areas: historic preservation, community theory, and homeownership studies. Historic preservation policy has done little to promote quality condition of residential structures. Policy incentives, such as federal and state tax credit programs, are geared almost exclusively toward the rehabilitation of income-producing structures, which includes rental apartments. As a result, the incentives may encourage owners to physically divide homes into apartments to create an income-producing use. The focus of preservation programs favors commercial buildings more heavily than residential neighborhoods. This is perhaps due to the view that neighborhoods do not have the same economic draw as commercial areas. But as Jane Jacobs noted in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, cities are only viable if they provide mixed uses; there is no sense in working to preserve commercial areas while making residential areas a secondary priority. The federal government has primarily focused on creating incentives for the preservation of commercial buildings. The government currently offers twenty percent tax credits for the substantial rehabilitation of commercial properties1 that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or are listed as a contributing structure in a National Register District.2 Because the federal government 1 Substantial rehabilitation for the federal 20% tax credit is defined as exceeding the adjusted basis. The adjusted basis is calculated by taking the purchase price of the property, subtracting the cost of land and any depreciation credits the owner has taken, and adding the cost of any improvements already made. A commercial structure in this program is defined as a depreciable, income-producing building. 2 Contributing structures in local districts are also eligible in cities that have local ordinances and Certified Local Government (CLG) status. CLGs act as preservation partners with State Historic Preservation Offices and the National Park Service. 4 does not extend any tax credits to homeowners, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has recommended that states take on this responsibility.3 While thirty-one states currently offer state tax credit incentives, only six states, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, New York, North Carolina, and West Virginia, have policies that specifically benefit the homeowners of properties listed on the National Register. These states provide twenty to thirty percent tax credits for substantial rehabilitations on owner-occupied historic properties.4 States with preservation incentives for homeowners have begun to fill the gap that federal policy has left, but they still only apply to substantial rehabilitations. Additional programs that encourage ownership of historic housing and provide grants for maintenance or education could have a significant impact on the condition and desirability of historic neighborhoods. Quantitative homeownership studies such as this could provide the rationale for implementing such programs. Additionally, commentators on community theory have not adequately considered small or mid-sized cities as a topic of study. The majority of these authors, such as Jane Jacobs, Roberta Gratz, and William Julius Wilson, look at large cities. Boston, New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, and Philadelphia reoccur in numerous studies. The lessons of big cities cannot be applied adequately to small cities. Some of the same problems, such as abandonment, disinvestment, and crime, may exist in all sizes of cities, 3 Harry Schwartz, “State Tax Credits for Historic Preservation: A Public Policy Report Produced by the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Center for State and Local Policy,” (October 2010). 4 Ibid. 5 but the resources and populations to combat these problems are on an entirely different scale. Thus, it is important to consider small cities as entities worthy of study. Community theory research also lacks in solid methodology. Many of these studies are comprised of observations and address large, indefinable topics such as neighborhood stability. While these works provide important considerations, they lack sufficient quantifiable data as support and often fail to coherently define abstract terms such as community. The same problem occurs in homeownership studies. While homeownership is a significant part of United States culture, policies have been created without full understanding of the effects of homeownership on neighborhood stability, citizenship, and historic preservation. The central importance of this study is to establish a new and repeatable methodology that will allow for the objective, quantitative consideration of homeownership as a policy decision. This methodology has the ability to help document the importance of homeownership on the physical condition of historic housing stock. As national and state historic preservation budgets are reduced, this type of study will indicate whether preservation policy should be expanded or shifted to provide incentives for residential, owner-occupied properties. Finally, it will be useful in determining whether cities’ sparse financial resources should be allocated for homeownership programs. Definitions Several terms will be used throughout this study. For clarity of meaning, frequently used terms of importance are defined in this section. A homeowner