The Case for Historic Preservation

This morning, a post on Facebook alerted me to a new publication from PlaceEconomics, a consulting firm in Washington, D.C., whose principal is Donovan Rypkema, the first, to my knowledge, to write about the economic benefits of historic preservation back in the early 1990s. The new publication is called Twenty-four Reasons Historic Preservation Is Good for Your Community. It can be found here, and it is recommended reading.

House in Saratoga Springs that is one of the illustrations in the document

In the introduction, after listing all the books that argued the benefits--"aesthetic, symbolic, cultural, social, educational, economic, and others"-- of historic preservation, a point is made that resonates for us in Hudson:

But in spite of the strength of their arguments, historic preservation is under attack in many places in the United States. Sometimes those attacks are made by well-meaning community activists, usually arguing with the vignette rather than substantive research, that historic preservation is the cause of gentrification, high rents, and is stopping needed densification.

Here's something else of relevance for Hudson: the first of the twenty-four reasons presented is jobs.

Historic rehabilitation means jobs—generally well-paid jobs, particularly for those without advanced formal education. Rehabilitation tends to be more labor intensive than new construction, so work restoring historic buildings has a greater job creating impact per dollar spent than new construction. In Savannah, for example, one million dollars spent on the rehabilitation of a Savannah historic building will generate about 1.2 more jobs and $62,000 more in income for Georgia citizens than the same amount spent on new construction.

Thanks for Cynthia Lambert for bringing this to our attention
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK