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” – 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.