Stephanie Meeks, president and chief executive officer of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, responds to news that lawmakers in Michigan and Wisconsin are proposing legislation to prevent municipalities from designating historic preservation districts, and affordable housing arguments that support such measures1.
Both sides argue for the homeowner’s investment. On one hand, homeowners in these districts have to get approval for upgrades and maintenance, such as painting or new windows. On the other, the designation prevents neighbors from demolishing a historic home and replacing it with a modern marvel that might affect house values in the district. In some cities, however, historic preservation districts are being used to protect private assets in fights against affordable housing projects. Preserving neighborhood character, whether it be historical or by some other basis, is resulting in “pockets of highly segregated wealth and access,” according to Kriston Capps, the writer at CityLab and former editor of Architect magazine that Meeks is, in part, responding to1.
“First, older buildings are often very well equipped to provide affordable housing, because they were designed to hold multiple families and uses...Second, while we share the concern about the affordable housing crisis gripping the nation, getting rid of historic preservation districts is not the answer,” says Meeks. While she agrees that affordable housing is needed in places like San Francisco, Calif., “it’s far from clear how casting aside historic preservation districts would address these troubling trends.”
Meeks argues that preservation projects are actually expanding housing options nationwide through reuse and conversions of historic properties, and it is thus a crucial tool.
Read the original CityLab story.
