Content uploaded by Galen Newman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Galen Newman on Aug 28, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
PER is published annually as a single
volume. Copyright © 2014 Preservation
Education & Research. All rights
reserved. Articles, essays, reports and
reviews appearing in this journal may
not be reproduced, in whole or in part,
except for classroom and noncommercial
use, including illustrations, in any form
(beyond copying permitted by sections
107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law),
without written permission.
ISSN 1946-5904
&
Oprint from
PRESERVATION EDUCATION & RESEARCH
EDITORS
Jeremy C. Wells, Roger Williams University
(jwells@rwu.edu)
Rebecca J. Sheppard, University of Delaware
(rjshep@udel.edu)
BOOK REVIEW EDITOR
Gregory Donofrio, University of Minnesota
(donofrio@umn.edu)
ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD
Steven Homan, Southeast Missouri State University
Carter L. Hudgins, Clemson University/College of Charleston
Paul Hardin Kapp, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Ted J. Ligibel, Eastern Michigan University
Vincent L. Michael, Global Heritage Fund
Andréa Livi Smith, University of Mary Washington
Michael A. Tomlan, Cornell University
Robert Young, University of Utah
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR PRESERVATION
EDUCATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Lauren Weiss Bricker, Chair,
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Trudi Sandmeier, Vice Chair and Memberships,
University of Southern California
Andréa Livi Smith, Vice Chair and Web Site Editor,
University of Mary Washington
Steven Homan, Secretary,
Southeast Missouri State University
Robert Young, Treasurer, University of Utah
Cari Goetcheus, Internships, University of Georgia
Michael Tomlan, Special Projects, Cornell University
Paul Hardin Kapp, Chair Emeritus,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Preservation Education & Research (PER) disseminates
international peer-reviewed scholarship relevant to
historic environment education from elds such as historic
preservation, heritage conservation, heritage studies, building
and landscape conservation, urban conservation, and cultural
patrimony. e National Council for Preservation Education
(NCPE) launched PER in 2007 as part of its mission to
exchange and disseminate information and ideas concerning
historic environment education, current developments and
innovations in conservation, and the improvement of historic
environment education programs and endeavors in the United
States and abroad.
Editorial correspondence, including manuscripts for
submission, should be emailed to Jeremy Wells at jwells@rwu.
edu and Rebecca Sheppard at rjshep@udel.edu. Electronic
submissions are encouraged, but physical materials can be
mailed to Jeremy Wells, SAAHP, Roger Williams University,
One Old Ferry Road, Bristol, RI 02809, USA. Articles
should be in the range of 4,500 to 6,000 words and not be
under consideration for publication or previously published
elsewhere. Refer to the back of this volume for manuscript
guidelines.
Books for review, and book reviews, should be sent to
Gregory Donofrio, School of Architecture, University
of Minnesota, 145 Rapson Hall, 89 Church Street S.E.,
Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. E-mail donofrio@umn.edu.
Subscriptions are US$60.00 per year. Payments can be
made online at the NCPE Store (http://www.ncpe.us/
storemembership) or send a check with name and mailing
address to PER, c/o NCPE, Box 291, Ithaca, NY 14851, USA.
V | • Preservation Education & Research 41
ABSTRACT— Rapid land conversion of peripheral areas helped facilitate both relocation of populations and land
use from many historic areas, leaving numerous historic districts replete with nonfunctional and unmaintained
structures. Many once-vital structures were removed while others were abandoned, le to decay—a process known
as demolition by neglect. While new historic preservation policies attempt to salvage these structures, such policies
tend to be based primarily on local ordinances Corollary, and precise statistics on the amount of historic structures
undergoing neglect are not readily available. In response to growing concerns about the climbing rate of neglected
historic structures, this article investigates connections between peripheral growth and historic preservation, examin-
ing indicators to measure both historic integrity and viability to generate a new model with which to measure rate of
neglected structures in historic districts. e model is applied to Quakertown, Pennsylvania’s historic district to test
its eectiveness. Results suggest the model serves as a strong foundation for monitoring neglect rates, and might help
to measure impacts of both local and regional growths on historic districts in the future.
A Conceptual Model for Measuring
Neglect Rates in Historic Districts
GALEN NEWMAN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION, NEGLECT, AND REGIONAL GROWTH
NEGLECT AND CONTEXTUAL CHANGE
Urban outward growth oen leaves vacant his-
toric structures to rot as unused relics, lead-
ing to their ultimate removal—a process
known as demolition by neglect. Demolition by ne-
glect is the destruction of a heritage landscape or area
through abandonment or lack of maintenance, and oc-
curs when an owner lets a building deteriorate until it
becomes a structural hazard and asserts that the build-
ing’s advanced state of deterioration justies removal
(Mostafavi and Leatherbarrow 1993). Following a pe-
riod in the1990s when demolition by neglect was in the
forefront of preservationist thought, research on the
issue declined quietly while the phenomenon contin-
ues to plague some of the most important structures in
the United States. e epidemic for state and local au-
thorities is a recognized heritage planning issue glob-
42 Preservation Education & Research • V |
ally, and the number of demolition applications being
submitted is on the rise (Wallace and Franchetti, 2007).
Most risk factors to historic structures threatened
by demolition by neglect are incipient and progressive,
making preserved structures vulnerable. Neglect is a
process, not a product, and thus must be examined lon-
gitudinally. Although immediate instances may occur
due to unanticipated disasters, the neglect of a structure
until its ultimate demolition usually takes long periods
of time. is process must be monitored in an eort to
help prevent demolition before it occurs. Because external
forces such as land-use change and population outmigra-
tion have much impact on neglect, mediating this process
eectively will be dependent on a broader, multi-scalar
approach. Historic preservation eorts to prevent neglect
should be less a separate movement and more a philoso-
phy of urban planning and design (Collins, Waters, and
Dotson, 1991). e integration of historic preservation
as a mechanism embedded within broader regional and
urban planning initiatives is necessary for this to occur.
is presupposes that preservation of historic districts is
too important to be le to chance, and that the eect of
contextual change on these districts needs to be better
linked to broader regional growth plans. According to
Jigyasu (2002), historic districts have two fundamental
dimensions. e rst deals with aspects of integrity and
the second with their relationship within the living envi-
ronment in which they exist. It is important to examine
both site and context to understand the process fully, but
contemporary preservation policies do not suciently
examine the value of context in the preservation of struc-
tures. Historic preservationists must continue to expand
the scope of current management strategies to deal with
the dilemma. Eorts need to move beyond saving single
objects of historic or aesthetic signicance to a broader
context of rural and urban planning (Cook 1996).
Rapid conversion of peripheral land uses has facilitated
relocation of both residential and commercial activities
in communities across the United States, leaving cities
replete with nonfunctional, unused, and unmaintained
heritage structures (Trieb 2006). To counteract this
eect, practitioners of historic landscape preservation
must learn to mediate two forces: the accommodation of
unavoidable growth (managed and non-managed) and
the abilit y to retain h istoric structures. e destruction of
a historic structure due to vacancy or function relocation
cannot normally be resolved with individual incentives.
Whi le preservat ion is a necessa ry function, herit age struc-
tures occupying the built environment are not individua l
objects, but portions of a larger pattern and frames in
which external forces reveal themselves (Nivala 1997).
e landscape is a causal net work of interrelated mech-
anisms in which one change in the network results in
repercussions throughout the system. A unique portion
of this system is the historic landscape, impacted sig-
nicantly since its dynamic context alters constantly. To
mediate the process of change, the scale of preservation
is forced upward toward more regional-based approaches
to managing heritage areas. Consequently, management
of preserved structures must also conform to this shi.
Outmigration of populations and functions to the
periphery of American cities has resulted in numerous
historic structures becoming neglected, deteriorating to
the point where they can no longer be saved. In response
to these concerns, this study considers factors that
inuence the viability of these structures while simulta-
neously protecting their historic integrity. e objective
of this ar ticle is to oer a conceptual model for measuring
the number of historic structures experiencing neglect,
using an historic district as a unit of analysis. e con-
ceptual framework identies hypothesized, causal factors
that increase or decrease the process of neglect of his-
toric structures. ese factors are validated empirically
through a case study of Quakertown, Pennsylvania’s his-
toric district.
THE EXPANDING SCOPE OF HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PHILOSOPHY
Decentralized growth is spreading a homogenous form
across the landscape, destroying multiple layers of cul-
tural history (Yahner and Nadenicek 1997). Edge cities,
strip malls, and suburban developments can pull both
population and building function away from historic
districts, resulting in the demolition of these structures.
Concentrations of historic structures are extremely vul-
nerable to this pattern. As long as fringe areas continue
to welcome corporate oce parks, and the residential
and commercial developments they generate, U.S. cities
will continue to rot at their historic cores (Daniels 1999).
Jigyasu (2002) suggests that contemporary historic
areas have not received the attention and support they
deserve to maintain their viability, protect their struc-
tural integrity and heritage values, and stimulate their
local economic base as populations and occupancies
continue to undergo various incremental transforma-
tion processes. ese transformations are tied largely
to regional growth patterns as many peripheral lands
V | • Preservation Education & Research 43
that serve as the settings to historic structures have also
become threatened. is presents a dire need for both
broad and local historic planning forces to work coopera-
tively to regulate threatened landscape topologies better.
“People must begin to look beyond traditional preserva-
tion ordinances and landmark commissions to address
the plann ing forces that have the most i nuence over their
city’s future development” (Collins, Waters, and Dotson
1991, 8). e solution to preserving historic st ructures lies
not only with managing individual buildings and infra-
structures (internally) where historic preservationists
attempt to address the quandary, but also with manag-
ing rapidly developing regional landscapes outside cities
(externally) to which the structures connect inescapably.
e ability of preservation standards to support both
the historic character of sites and their viability depends
increasingly on eective processes for examining changes
within the larger town or urban context (Alderson 2006),
but since contexts are constantly in ux, form and func-
tion rarely coincide sustainably in any environment
(Jackson 1997). According to historic preservation
theory, the contemporary tendency is to give priority
to form by means of thorough documentation and in-
depth historic interpretation. An unfortunate fallacy to
this premise is that when building function dissolves, too
oen the building form itself is simply removed or rebuilt.
Although aesthetics adds character to cities, the inabil-
ity of many of these historic structures to attract future
investment—not lack of historic integrity—is what leads
to removal.
Older buildings represent important cultural, eco-
nomic, and aesthetic resources for cities. e ability to
reuse and maintain these structures while retaining
their historic integrity is known as heritage development
(Shiply, Utz, and Parsons 2006), but heritage develop-
ment in the form of renovation or adaptive reuse can be
more costly than new buildings, while return on invest-
ment for heritage development cannot always be proven
to be higher (Shiply, Utz, and Parsons 2006). e return
on investment of retaining historic structures does not
always exceed new development. is uncertainty of
return—coupled with the task of conforming to bui lding
codes and local heritage design requirements, and lack
of capacity to retain a building’s integrity despite altera-
tions—constrains heritage development. To save heritage
structures, new alternatives to preserve these treasures
passively must be identied.
Civic growth and historic structure preservation
should be mutually benecial; the two elds are neither
incompatible nor in opposition. Historic districts are
a key characteristic to making growing cities livable.
According to the Millennium Project commissioned by
the United Nations secretary-general in 2002 to develop
a concrete action plan for the world to achieve national
development goals and reverse grinding poverty, “liva-
bility” is an umbrella term that describes characteristics
cities should obtain by 2050 (Allison and Peters 2011).
e World Federation categorizes contemporary cities
as either shrinking (i.e., stagnant or dying economies) or
growing (i.e., vibrant economies). is simplistic system
of classication is somewhat incomplete, especially in
regards to neglect . American cities are in a constant str ug-
gle to simultaneously appease two opposing forces: the
external and internal frontiers (Berger 2006). e exter-
nal frontier is composed of the vast continental stretch of
open land outside the centralized city, while the internal
frontier is composed of those unused spaces within the
civic boundaries. e degree to which these two fron-
tiers have demarcated their space accumulation is largely
related to popu lation and land use mig rations with in and
outside the city. Elastic cities (xed sizes through growth
boundaries, natural borders, or some other political
mechanism, e.g., Seattle) and inelastic cities (expanding
boundaries through annexation or other political pro-
cesses, e.g., Phoenix) have been thoroughly researched
through sprawl-based literature. It has been shown that
elastic cities report about two and a half times the amount
of abandoned/vacant land as do inelastic cities, 23 percent
to the former versus 8 percent to the latter (Pagano and
Bowman, 2000). is is an indication that even “growing
cities,” as the Millennium Project describes them, face
an ongoing struggle with abandonment. Historic struc-
tures are present in shrinking or growing conditions, but
like the landscape, these classications are elastic; they
depend on the inuences of change within a city to cater
to a population’s needs. Some cities adjust to the impacts
of change, resulting in functioning, vital historic struc-
tures and vibrant historic districts, while others cannot
recover from alteration and become stained by neglected,
abandoned, and dilapidated historic structures.
One adjustment might be designation of historic dis-
tricts that provide protection for all structures within
an area identied as culturally or aesthetically valuable.
According to Allison and Peters (2011), historic districts
oer many economic values such as increased property
values and heritage tourism revenues, psychological
values such as increased safety, cultural values such as
landmark and cultural activities, and identifying cities
44 Preservation Education & Research • V |
through place-making. Historic district implementation
has not always been eective. In some cases, structures in
historic overlay districts continued to decay to the point
where they were eventually demolished. Preservationists
have attempted to counteract this by placing restrictions
on individual structures that prohibit their removal and
providing alternative or complementary policies such as
transfer of development rights, purchase of development
rights, tax incentives, and design guidelines, to name a
few. Although sometimes eective, at other times these
policies only delay the inevitable demise of many struc-
tures (Jigyasu 2002).
Local approaches to regulating heritage structures
are more likely to attract investors into the heritage
conservation market, but due to weaknesses in broader
conservation regulations, the result is the potential loss
of important non-renewable heritage resources (Pickerill
and Armitage 2009). A survey conducted in 1996 on
growth management and statewide comprehensive land-
use planning listed acts in Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington
State included historic preservation as a primary goal
(Listokin 1997). Oregon’s innovative transportation and
growth management strategies placed it at the forefront
of sustainable growth relative to many other U.S. states.
Historic preservation plays a key role in the objectives
of its multifaceted, growth-management schemes. e
overarching historic preservation goal for the state is
to create new partnerships to make it easier to integrate
preservation into planning partnerships. A key objective
to achieving this goal is to incorporate cultural resource
data into the data systems of other government entities
to integrate preservation into land-use and manage-
ment processes better (Listokin 1997). e identication
of these resources has led to a heritage inventory that is
monitored to help regulate the resources. Maryland’s
emphasis on economic investment has shown the ability
to stimulate reinvestment by providing more tax credits
to persons who rehabilitate or adaptively reuse heritage
structures (Lipman, Frizzell and Mitchell LLC 2002).
Other states such as New Jersey whose preservation
goals call for more urban revitalization through growth
management strategies have successes in re-centralizing
governmental residential, commercial, and cultural land
uses in historic downtown areas (Mason 2005). is sug-
gests progressive states are already exposing the need for
increasing data regarding historic inventory and integra-
tion of these data into regional management processes.
A need for data, coupled with expanding philosophies
of historic preservation and loss of historic structures,
supports the need for a model that connects local pres-
ervation programs with regional growth management
strategies to measure neglect.
Rethinking spatial planning of historic preservation to
enhance more proactive forms of heritage management
has been an iterative process since the nascence of his-
toric preser vation. Historic preservationists have created
a more exible discipline regarding managing the local
built environment based on larger-scale factors (Listokin,
Listokin, and Lahr, 1998). e shi from less rigid pres-
ervation planning toward dynamic heritage management
represents a change toward more area based-heritage
management. e approach of America n preservationists
diers from European heritage management by remain-
ing primarily locally regulated, while European cities,
especially in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands,
practice an area-based approach when managing the his-
toric built environment (Doratli 2005). Simultaneously,
an increasing amount of American heritage structures
within and outside of preservation programs are being
eradicated from the landscape due to a lack of viability
and vitality. Area-based strategies for built environment
conservation have shown multiple benets, including (1)
increases in nongovernment funding for architectural
heritage funding in Amsterdam due to the proliferation
of fostered relationships among local communities and
outlying available partnerships; (2) increases in the sus-
tainability and longevity of historic architecture through
historic district expansion in Montreal, Canada; (3)
substantial additional private-sector investment in con-
servation-led regeneration projects from the formation
of the Grainger Town Partnership in Newcastle, United
Kingdom, which coordinated heritage regeneration
funds through a variety of local, regional, national, and
European funding partners and increased rehabilitation
of derelict heritage sites in impoverished areas through
regional nonprot organization partnerships in Belville
Paris, France (Pickerill and Armitage 2009).
Listokin’s (1997) theory posits that growth manage-
ment and historic preservation are intrinsically linked,
but the connections between the two are not fully under-
stood. Pickerill and Pickard (2007) postulate that within
this connection local authorities alone do not suciently
meet the needs of conservation of built heritage. Case
study evidence f rom historic area s in Germany has shown
that the constraints imposed by wider economic and
political contexts have a signicant impact on preserved
V | • Preservation Education & Research 45
structures, demonstrating the need for integrating his-
toric preservation projects with a comprehensive urban
planning framework (Alberts and Brinda 2005). More
contemporary research has shown a disjuncture bet ween
preservation and the broader land use and building poli-
cies necessary for this integration, specically in regards
to the long-term sustainability of preserved structures
(Avrami 2012). Historic preservation is an integral com-
ponent of a larger system and must align its aims with
those of this larger system if the process of neglect is to
be stymied.
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR MEASURING NEGLECT
The Need for a Model
Since the passing of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, the pace of hi storic preservation has increas ed
vastly (Longstreith 2008); those once satised with pres-
ervation of individual buildings and districts now speak
of preserving entire landscapes (Francavigilia 2000).
e original guidelines of the National Trust’s Critical
Issues Fund (CIF) in 1981 state that historic preserva-
tion should “play a responsible role in the processes that
will decide the future for historic properties” (Collins,
Waters, and Dotson 1991, 11). e CIF has begun to
encourage weaving preservation values into land-use
management and zoning policies to limit demolition
of historic structures, approaches requiring under-
standing of the dimensions of integrity and viability. A
preservationist model that evaluates these dimensions
must also incorporate variables that will measure them
eectively. ere is also a lack of statistical data con-
cerning the condition of historic landscapes (Wallace
and Franchetti 2007), information necessary to describe
historic districts both nationally and regionally and to
test causal factors contributing to demolition by neglect.
A 1992 article in the Historic Preservation Forum
states that growth management is a signicant factor to
realizing the goals of historic preservation (Beaumont
1992). Despite this innovative discussion, the connec-
tion between the two entities has not been explored
thoroughly. ere are parallels between growth and
historic preservation (Listokin 1997). In states such as
Oregon, Florida, and Pennsylvania that practice pro-
gressive growth management, historic preservation has
been adopted as a primary objective for development
and redevelopment. Establishment of Local Preservation
Commissions (LPCs) in these areas has already created
a governing body to identify and designate resources
worthy of preservation through historic building sur-
veys. Why are these bodies not also monitoring neglect
rates, and correlating these rates with various regional
growth management schemes? If growth management
spurs historic preservation inherently, improperly man-
aged growth deters preservation eorts, increasing the
rate of neglected structures. Although this assumption is
unproven, a regional-based model that measures neglect
rates in historically preserved areas could serve as a cata-
lyst for testing this supposition empirically.
LAYOUT OF THE MODEL
Preservation philosophy relies primarily on evaluati ng
architectural signicance (i.e., integrity), not necessarily
a structure’s ability to attract new investment (i.e., viabil-
ity). Variables for both dimensions need to be employed
in a model to measure regional impact. Listokin (1997)
identies a gap in both theory and practice between con-
textual growth and historic preservation, suggesting ve
impacts of regional growth on an historically preserved
landscape regarding demolition by neglect:
1.
economic sustainability of preserved historic
resources
2. fostering identication of existing and future his-
toric resources
3. reorientation of development for function retain-
ment in historic resources
4. ability of planning agencies to prevent demolition
of historic resources
5.
increase or reduction of threats posed to historic
resources
e dimensions of integrity and viability and the ve
impacts identied by Listokin serve as a synthesized
framework for variables utilized in t he conceptual model
to measure the rate of demolition by neglect. While
Jigyasu (2002) identies both historic integrity and via-
bility as dimensions that should be examined with rega rd
to demolition by neglect, previous studies suggest that
historic integrity is a key dimension to preventing neglect
(Berg 1988; Birnbaum 1994; Birnbaum and Hughes 2005;
Dick 2000; Carr 2005) and that use structural viability
is also a necessary dimension (Ravencro 2000; New
Castle City Council 2005; Cooke 2007). Integrity is a key
dimension when examining heritage properties (Stovel
2007), but viability factors that support the functionality
46 Preservation Education & Research • V |
of these structures are a necessary ingredient to the lon-
gevity of this integrity (Prideaux 2002). Precedent studies
that combine the dimensions of viability and integrity
such as Doratli, Hoskara, and Fasli’s (2004) study on the
Walled City of Nicosia in North Cyprus utilize the physi-
cal condition of historic structures as a primary variable
with land-use change, propert y value, and developmental
time frame as subsidiary variables to assess the historic
urban quarters of the city in an eort to develop revital-
ization strategies. Baer (1995) identied land-use change
and time frame of construction as key indicators in the
generation of normative guides for structures that merit
future preser vation in an attempt to prevent their “ripen-
ing,” also positing that long-range projections for future
preservation should take place on a broader scale. Over-
“ripening” of a heritage structure can cause dilapidation
to occur. Clark and Laefer (2012) suggests that current
examinations of dilapidation do not provide a holistic
approach for evaluating the health of a large number of
heritage structures that is necessary for urban planning,
historic designation determination, and risk assessment.
Systematic approaches for conducting large-scale build-
ing condition assessments are therefore necessary for
inclusion in the model. Other studies suggest that eco-
nomic valuation (Provins et al. 2008) and the economic
production of heritage structures (Zax 1991) should be
the key ana lytical dev ices for examining heritage districts
as means of preventing structural demolition.
Listokin’s (1997) list of impacts of regional growth on
historic structures reinforces the variables utilized w ithin
these studies. External growth can aect the economic
sustainability, the ability to identify future heritage
resources, the ability for functions to be retained within
these structures, the prevention of demolition, and the
reduction or increase of threats posed to these resources.
Economic sustainability is dependent on valuation and
production of each structure, the identication of future
heritage strictest is primarily dependent on the age of
the structure, function retainment is dependent on land
use-change within the structure and its context, and the
prevention of demolition is heavily dependent on the con-
dition of the structure. All of these conditions must be
monitored in an eort to decipher whether the threats
posed to these resources have increased or decreased.
Based on these precedents, ve explanatory variables
are used to measure historic integrity and structural
viability: time frame of construction (i.e., the age of each
structure and when each was erected), architectural mod-
ication (i.e., the degree to which construction has altered
each structure), land-use change (i.e., the ability of each
structure to retain function and consistency of land use),
physical condition (i.e., the quality of the condition or
appearance of each structure), and assessed value (i.e., the
fair market economic value of each structure). To monitor
these variables on both macro and macro scales, each is
broken down into three measures (Figure 1). Data were
gathered on these ve variables by surveying sixty-six
structures in the historic district of Quakertown.
TME FRAME OF CONSTRUCTION
When a building is being researched for a Historic
Structure Report, the researcher tries to obtain infor-
mation about the building’s age, construction, and
additions/alterations (Reed 1982). e age of the build-
ing is a key factor to determining its integrity, and also
aids in the identication of existing and future historic
resources within the district (Birnbaum and Hughes
2005). Although there is a multitude of ways to inventory
and document a structure, the goal is to create a baseline
of information from a detailed record of the landscape
(Birnbaum 1994). Monitoring buildings’ ages helps deter-
mine the successfulness of an historic distr ict in retaining
antique structures over time. An increase in non-historic
structures or an abundance of structures with potential
for preservation that have not been maintained su-
ciently to merit preservation can indicate high neglect.
e National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National
Park Service 2013) indicates that a property can achieve
signicance if it is at least y years old, embodies dis-
tinctive characteristics of a time period, has signicant
historical associations, or is likely to yield important
information about history. While other criteria are
identied, these four conditions were utilized to deem a
structure “preservation worthy.” e three measu res used
in this model to categorize each building’s age were:
•
Non-Historic—structures ineligible for
preservation
•
Potential for Preservation—structures that, due
solely to age, may merit preservation in the future
•
Preservation Worthy—structures preserved or
that merit preservation primarily based on con-
struction year
LAND-USE CHANGE
Baer (1995) asserts land-use change as a necessary vari-
able to measure when assessing the viability of a heritage
V | • Preservation Education & Research 47
structure. Reorienting new development to allow func-
tions to be retained in historic resources within the
district can sometimes require land-use alteration to
prevent vacancy. Changes in land use within a structure
over time must be monitored to assess its economic sus-
tainability and evaluate redevelopment strategies (Berg
1988). Ravenscro (2000) considers factors that contrib-
ute to understanding the vitality and viability of town
centers, identifying contextual change and current land
use as primary indicators. Stable land use (i.e., a building
designed for commercial use that remained a commercial
structure) indicates a high viability and historic integ-
rity. Adaptive reuse strategies indicate an increase in
vitality, but some integrity is sacriced since renovations
are required to adapt a building’s function. Bullen (2007)
found that while adaptive reuse enhances the long-term
usefulness of a building and is therefore a more sustain-
able option than demolition and rebuildi ng, maintaining
the structural integrity of older buildings is dicult.
is variable can indicate changes to both viability and
historic integrity. It is assumed that a vacant structure
indicates higher neglect. erefore, the measures chosen
to monitor this variable were:
• Vacant—structure currently has no function
•
Alternate Land Use—land use within the struc-
ture changed since its origin, but the structure still
has a function
•
Continuous Land Use—land use within the
structure remained consistent since construction
ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATION
e amount of change required to maintain structural
integrity of each building is used regularly to assess the
historic integrity of individual structures, and is oen
recorded in documents, including National Register
Nomination Forms, Historic Structures Reports, and
Cultural Landscape Reports. Monitoring the degree to
Fig. 1. e theoretical model for measuring regional impacts on historic districts. (Credit: author.)
48 Preservation Education & Research • V |
which an historic structure has been modied over time
aids in determining whether the threats posed to historic
resources within the district are increasi ng or decreasing.
As far back as 1935, this variable was used in the pro-
duction of historic preservation reports. e Olmsted
Brothers’ 1935 plan for the White House grounds used
change in this variable to achieve an overall “emphasis
on preserving the historic aspects of the landscape while
at the same time making it work for present day needs”
(Carr 2005, 151). Lyle Dick (2000) used this variable as a
portion of producing a Commemorative Integrity Report,
and posits that construction changes within sites from
its initial period must be considered. When a structure
is modied, however, maintaining the structural integ-
rity of an older building is dicult, which can decrease
its authentic character (Bullen 2007). While modica-
tion of a heritage structure can increase its long-range
viability, the overall integrity is decreased, if only to a
small degree. Intrusions within historic districts indi-
cate a loss of a structure and redevelopment of a parcel
or land, and therefore an increase in neglect is assumed,
while modied or altered and historically signicant
structures suggest the maintenance or reuse of existing
buildings. Modied structures are assumed to indicate
higher neglect due to their decreased historic integrity.
Measures used to assess this variable included:
• Intrusion—structure demonstrates no visible his-
toric merit
•
Modied—histor ic core and exterior were changed
signicantly
•
Historically Signicant—core shape and exterior
remained relatively constant
BUILDING CONDITION
e city of New Castle in Austra lia (2005) listed demo-
lition by neglect an emerging issue, and haphazard
building conditions of its historic structures were oered
as the primary causal factor. A minimum maintenance
standard in historic areas had not been set. Although
124 potential heritage structures were listed, only 9 were
on the State Register, and the conditions of the others
were deteriorating rapidly. e necessity of monitoring
building conditions had not been conducted adequately,
resulting in severe loss of historic structures. e physi-
cal condition of each structure is not used typically in
historic building surveys but must be examined to assess
neglect in existing historic resources to limit threats of
removal. Since the condition of a structure is the primar y
factor that dictates its viability in the landscape, build-
ing condition is a necessary variable to determine the
ability of planning agency to prevent demolition of his-
toric resources. Cooke (2007) suggests dilapidation is a
primary threat to removal, and should be monitored.
He created a dilapidation checklist to aid in monitoring
building condition. is checklist was used as a method
for delineating the state of each structure sampled.
Doratli, Hoskara, and Fasli (2004) also posit t hat physical
condition of a heritage str ucture is a necessar y variable for
measuring the viability of historic districts. Dilapidated
buildings have been neglected to the point where reha-
bilitation cost is greater than renewal cost. Moderately
decayed buildings can be salvaged, but do indicate that a
process of neglect is occurr ing. To i nventory and measure
the conditions of the buildings su rveyed accurately, three
measures were used:
•
Dilapidated—structure has fallen into a state of
disrepair or deterioration
• Moderately Decayed—structure is stable, but the
process of neglect has begun
•
Well-Conditioned—structure shows little to no
sign of decay
ASSESSED VALUE
Assessed value describes the market value of a struc-
ture, and is used to esti mate economic worth. Monitoring
this variable allows for the economic sustainability
of preserved historic structures to be evaluated. e
assumption here is that non-neglected structures have
higher assessed values. Monitoring changes to this value
provides an indication of whether neglect is occurring in
a structure. e designation of historic districts is used
increasingly as a tool to revive or halt deterioration of
central-city neighborhoods because they tend to increase
land value (Leichenko, Coulson, and Listokin, 2000). e
economic sustainability of an historic district can be a
prime metric for evaluating neglect. e use of heritage
to help spur economic regeneration in tangent areas has
proven to be an eective tool (Montgomery 1998; Provins
et al. 2008; Foster 2013). e proposed model assumes
that a viable historic district will not only have structures
with hig h assessed values within it, but wi ll also positively
inuence the value of properties surrounding the area.
An abundance of structures below market mean there-
fore suggests intense neglect, while the inverse suggests
a healthy and prosperous district. Measures for assessed
value included:
V | • Preservation Education & Research 49
•
Below Market Mean—structure is not economi-
cally viable
•
Within Range of Market Mean—structure is
within range with typical market values of sur-
rounding real estate
•
Above Market Mean—structure is signicantly
economically viable
EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF THE MODEL —
QUAKERTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA
Using Quakertown as a case study, application of the
model was used to va lidate this model empirica lly to both
measure neglect and bridge the gap between regional
growth and local preser vation policy. Many causal mech-
anisms contribute to an historic district’s integrity and
viability, including local leadership, ownership attitudes,
exist ing policies, land-use ma nagement strategies, pol itical
leadership, internal economic needs, grassroots support,
economic conditions, external funding, and reinvention
of civic image. Consequently, multiple drivers contrib-
ute to statistics generated from the model’s application.
STUDY AREA
Bucks County, the regional political boundary
encompassing Quakertown, is a contested landscape
characterized by rapid land consumption and conversion.
e county lies at t he southeastern corner of the state in a n
area suering from threatened farmland, concentrations
of teardowns, and extreme sprawl. From 1985 to 1995,
Pennsylvania lost an area of fa rmland the size of Delawa re
to development while populations declined in inner cities
(Hylton 1995). As of 2007, the state had lost more than 4
million acres of farmland since the 1950s; in the previous
twenty-two years, one-quarter of Pennsylvania’s farm-
land disappeared and statewide population decreased
by 140,000 (Tse-Chuan and Snyder, 2007). To coun-
teract decentralization, the state enacted agricultural
preservation as a primary means of managing growth.
e current Bucks County Comprehensive Plan has
eight principles to guide future land-use decisions.
Principle 1, to protect natural, historic, and scenic
resources, is dependent on simultaneous utilization of
“eective land use planning and preservation methods
to conserve the county’s natural and cultural heritage”
(Bucks County Planning Commission 2011). e primary
tool for the preserving agricultural lands is the purchase
of development rights (PDRs) from owners that allow for
compensation to owners who preserve their farmland for
all or a portion of the land’s developmental value. PDRs
help provide both permanent protection for the land
itself and monetary compensation to the owners. When
landowners enroll t heir properties, the program restricts
real estate development, commercial and industrial uses,
and certain other activities to a mutually agreed on level
while the property remai ns privately owned (Daniels and
Bowers 1997). e program provides a monetary pay-
ment of the dierence between the value of the preserved
land for development purposes and its agricultural value
to the owner. Conservation easements are also placed on
the property, restricting its use to farming and related
purposes. Easement restrictions then run with the land
as it is deeded or sold to others. Other mechanisms such
as Agricultural Security Areas (a form of agricultural
zoning), transfer of development rights, agricultural dis-
tricts, and right-to-farm laws are also utilized in the state
of Pennsylvania, outside Quakertown.
Quakertown Borough is a 2-square-mile historic,
urbanized pocket in the northwest corner of Bucks
County. Quakertown’s mile-long historic district encom-
passes much of the small borough (Figure 2). Originally
named Quaker’s Town, the borough initially served
as hamlet and stagecoach town for commercial traf-
c between Philadelphia and southern counterparts.
Although it was the core of an extensive community of
English and German Quaker religious convert farm-
ers (middle- and upper-class settlers), the village center
remained sma ll until the mid-ninet eenth century. Around
the mid-1800s, the North Pennsylvan ian Railroad arrived
and transformed the hamlet into a thriving, busy vil-
lage, making it a destination in its own right. ereaer,
Quakertown was named and incorporated as a borough
in 1855 (McNealy 2001). Manufacturing and local indus-
tries shipped products around the region through t he rail
corridor, and the borough blossomed into a dense pocket
of industry and worker housing.
Like many other former railroad towns across the
nation, Quakertown was forced to create new economic
engines. Historic growth depended on manufacturing
and industry. Today, the most prominent industries are
construction and healthcare. Quakertown is a bedroom
community and regional shopping and service center for
Bucks County and Philadelphia, but it also generates a
substantial portion of economic revenue from heritage
tourism. Locally, Quakertown implemented a combina-
tion of preservation tactics. First, it uses the Main Street
Program as a framework to retain the town’s traditional
50 Preservation Education & Research • V |
layout and historic character. Second, design guidelines
were established for new development in the borough
to help regulate historic integrity. ird, two forms of
zoning aid preser vation of historic structu res: the historic
overlay district and interim zoning controls, which were
implemented areas of extreme growth to allow a con-
tinuance of contemporary zoning while new plans and
ordinances are adopted.
Regionally, purchase of development rights (PDR)
is the preferred agricultural preservation technique to
help manage growth in the suburbanizing area. Within
a 12-mile radius of the borough there are 13 preserved
farmlands totaling 1,057 acres, dotting Quakertown’s
perimeter. Many states i mplement PDRs, which provide a
monetary payment of the dierence between the value of
the preserved land for development purposes and its agri-
cultural value to an owner (Daniels and Bowers 1997).
In exchange, conservation easements are placed on the
property, restricting use to farming and related purposes.
Method
Peter Nijkamp (1991) states that when evaluation
measurements in conservation planning are conducted,
impacts have to be measured on multiple scales that are
appropriate for meaningful analysis. He posits that the
cultural sector oen faces situations where limited preci-
sion is presented and that ordinal, nominal, or cardinal
scales can be employed to more precisely evaluate more
subjective topics, especially issues such as urban degra-
dation. Using Quakertown’s historic district as a sample,
a clustered, random-spatial sampling method known as
multi-stage area sampling (Montello and Sutton 2006)
was employed to sample sixty-six structures in the his-
toric district. A typical historic building survey used
in historic documentation was adapted to assess each
building, and qualitative data analyses were conducted
on three measurement scales. e ana lytical strategy con-
sists of three levels of analysis: a micro scale that evaluates
each case according to the measures, a macro analysis
Fig. 2. Quakertown, PA historic district. (Credit: author.)
V | • Preservation Education & Research 51
evaluating each case according to the explanatory vari-
ables, and a cross-case analysis that compares overall
neglect rates of each case. ese three scales helped to
identify the correlation as well as identify specic vari-
ables that had the highest impact on neglect.
e model was constructed on these three scales to
determine (1) an inventory of the characteristics of each
structure sampled, (2) which explanatory variables are
contributing primarily to this neglect rate, and (3) the
proportion of the historic built environment undergoing
neglect. e micro analysis assessed each case using the
measures by assigning accepted attributes to each struc-
ture using a nominal sca le (1 = accepted attribute and 0 =
did not accept attribute). Total scores were calculated to
generate an overall inventory of existing conditions. e
macro analysis placed the measures on an ordinal scale
(1’s, 2’s, and 3’s) to evaluate the explanatory variables. e
explanatory variables were evaluated based on a ranking
system where a score of 1 indicated high neglect, 2 indi-
cated moderate neglect, and 3 indicated low neglect for
each measure. Overall scores were assessed for each vari-
able based on the hiera rchical system where higher scores
indicated lower neglect. is allowed for each variable to
be examined in accordance with its individual impact on
overall neglect. ird, a collective scale that examined the
average points per structure, the percentage breakdown
of each measure type using the ordina l scale, and the per-
centage of the historic fabric experiencing neglect (i.e.,
the rate of neglect) was calculated. e rate of neglect,
the prime determinant to test the hypothesis, was cal-
culated by calculating the ratio of the total scores from
all explanatory variables from the macro analysis (actual
condition) to the total of all points possible (assuming
no neglect in occurrence). e overall neglect rate output
was the result of the ratio of the sum of all macro scale
variable tota ls (with measures placed on the ordinal scale)
to the maximum possible totals minus 100 percent.
INITIAL FINDINGS
Although additional research is needed to examine
causality, preliminary results from this study suggest a
correlation between peripheral agricultural preservation
and an historic district’s ability to attract investments
withi n its buildi ngs and decelerate their decay rate (Table
1). Existing literature shows that while the body of knowl-
edge is still small, there is a growing discourse related to
growth management’s linka ge to the preservation agenda.
While Listokin (1997) identies the aforementioned
impacts of growth management on historic areas others,
such as Beaumont (1996) and Reichl (1997), identify that
while regional and state growth control mechanisms
play a key role in the successfulness of keeping historic
areas vital, heritage areas can also help promote growth.
It has also been shown that cities with low-density older
buildings remain a contested area between preservation
and growth where external growth can fuel the demoli-
tion of low-scale internal historic buildings in favor of
more high-density replacements (Avrimi 2012). e case
of Quakertown shows that while some drivers of neglect
are slowed, the process is still occurring within the his-
toric borough.
e micro scale data shows that Quakertown has about
two-thirds (66 percent) of its structures within the age
range that has a potential for historic preservation. Also,
nearly two-thirds of these structures’ (63 percent) land
uses have remained consistent since their initial con-
struction. More than one-half (59 percent) of the historic
structures sampled had been modied signicantly in an
eort to keep them maintained. is resulted in a three-
quarters (74 percent) rate of well-conditioned structures.
Overall, 97 percent of all structures were in a moderate
to well-conditioned state, while 86 percent had some ty pe
of function within them. Nearly one-half (44 percent) of
the structures sampled had an assessed value lower than
the market mean.
While the micro sca le captures an inventory of existing
conditions, the macro variables de ne the impacting var i-
ables. Higher percentages for variables on the macro scale
indicate the va riable more positively contributes to a lower
neglect rate. From high to low, macro-scale variables were
arranged hierarchically as building condition, land-use
change, time frame of construction, architectural modi-
cation, and assessed value. Building condition scored 92
percent, while land-use change scored 84 percent, the two
highest of all explanatory variables. With a macro score of
84 percent, land-use change had the second highest score
even though 14 percent of the buildings were vacant. Use
of a structure varied according to the originally intended
use at origin or whether it underwent adaptive reuse.
While reinvestment within historic structures has led
to a majority of well-conditioned structures, this had
led to a higher rate of alteration of buildings within the
historic district. e time frame of construction variable
scored 74 percent on a macro scale, third in rank for all
explanatory variables. Nearly one-third of the structures
sampled within the historic district were intrusions into
the historic fabric. is was inuenced by the micro
52 Preservation Education & Research • V |
Table 1. Survey results.
VARIABLE OUTCOME
MICRO SCALE
(% of Surveyed Structures Accepting Measure)
Time Frame of Construction
Non-Historic 34%
Potential for Preservation 36%
Preservation Worthy 30%
Land Use Change
Vacant 14%
Alternate Land Use 23%
Continuous Land Use 63%
Architectural Modication
Intrusion 30%
Modied 59%
Historically Signicant 11%
Building Condition
Dilapidated 3%
Moderately Decayed 23%
Well-Conditioned 74%
Assessed Value
Below Market Mean
($74,227-$195.572) 44%
Within Range of Market Mean
($195,573-$438,260) 41%
Above Market Mean
($438,261-$2,140,206) 15%
MACRO SCALE
(Ratio of Outcome Totals to Total Possible)
Time Frame of Construction 74%
Land Use Change 84%
Architectural Modication 63%
Building Condition 92%
Assessed Value 56%
COLLECTIVE SCALE
(Using the Ordinal Scale)
Avg. Points Per Structure Surveyed 11.12
% of 1 Measures 26%
% of 2 Measures 34%
% of 3 Measures 40%
Rate of Neglect
(Ratio of Sum of All Macro Scale Variable Totals to Total Possible minus 100%) 26%
V | • Preservation Education & Research 53
scale’s output, which demonstrated that 34 percent of
the structures were non-historic. In addition, the archi-
tectural modication variable scored 63 percent on the
macro scale and nearly 60 percent of the structures had
been modied considerably on the micro scale, indicating
current, local preservation policies and regional growth
management strategies may be encouraging viability
within the district through new growth in the borough,
but perhaps at the expense of some historic integrity.
Adaptive reuse and renovation of historic structures
were visibly widespread; only 11 percent of the structures
avoided extreme modication, retaining their core shape
with minimal alterations for maintenance. A wealth of
new developments within the historic district, the large
degree of modied heritage structures, and the liberal
amount of altered land uses within the historic structures
suggest that there has been a push toward reinvestment
within the existing structures. We do not know, however
when the major push for this reinvestment occurred.
Other ndings suggest that perhaps a few strategies for
reinvestment may be needed in the near future.
For example, assessed value scored only 56 percent on a
macro scale, t he lowest-ranked explanatory variable. e
overall economic value of each structure was less than its
surroundings, with 44 percent of buildings under market
mean. Most structures were in good condition and held
some function within them. Historic core shape was gen-
erally i ntact in most structu res, and nearly t hree-quarters
of all structures surveyed were historic according to their
time of construction. e economic sustainability of
each structure proved to be somewhat limited, however.
Fieen percent of structures were considerably above
market mean, some worth more than $2 million.
On a collective scale, Quakertown produces a 26 per-
cent rate of neglect within the historic fabric, more than
one-quarter of the historic district’s structures. is indi-
cates that, on average, one out of four heritage buildings i n
Quakertown is undergoing neglect. While 40 percent of
the measures accepted by the buildings surveyed scored
as 3 variables (indicating low neglect), low assessed values
and high percentages of modied structures proved to
be the major origins of the neglect in occurrence. Most
structures, however, are in relatively good condition. e
low economic valuation of many structures and the fact
that one-quarter of the buildings are undergoing some
form of neglect suggest that potential for reinvestment
due to economic return may be in jeopardy in the future.
e 14 percent vacancy rate within the district, which is
above the national average, is a lso cause for concern. Low
assessed values and high vacancy rates are symptomatic
of a decline in reinvestment that can ultimately lead to
dilapidation and demolition.
is suggests that more needs to be done to avoid
demolition by neglect within the district, specically
regarding locating new developments and enhancing
property values. While this gure has no baseline data
against which comparisons can be made, the model does
suggest a process of neglect is occurring in the district.
Application of the model comparing similarly sized cities
with similar local policies and regional growth strategies
would help decipher the rate of neglect that historic dis-
tricts should strive to achieve to be considered healthy
historic areas.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE MODEL
e model presented in this article attempts to create
a framework and method for measuring and monitor-
ing demolition by neglect. Since the model assesses only
structural elements found in historic dist ricts, its primar y
mission is to initiate documentation and monitorization,
in an eort to prevent the proces s of neglect. e d iscourse
and data generated by application of the model achieve
two goals: (1) to place neglect into the forefront of preser-
vation discussions and (2) to provide quanti able metrics
with which to document the process in hopes of limit-
ing its severe impact on the historic built environment.
While the model needs to be employed in other areas
for comparative purposes to determine quantities that
constitute a high neglect rate, initial application suggests
several outcomes. is conceptual model achieves four
primary objectives to bridge the gap between historic
preservation and regional growth management: (1) the
avocation of the sustainability of historic structures so
they remain active and enduring living environments,
(2) the promotion of the preservation of future historic
resources, (3) the explanation of salient factors for the pre-
vention of neglect, and (4) the advancement of exogenous
growth schemes into the evaluation criteria for historic
district impact studies—its most prominent feature.
THE AVOCATION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY
OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES
Conicts between the preservation of the character
of existing historic towns and their ability to incorpo-
rate necessary change forms the central argument for
heritage conservation (Nasser 2003). e sustainability
of heritage structures is heavily dependent on a set of
VARIABLE OUTCOME
MICRO SCALE
(% of Surveyed Structures Accepting Measure)
Time Frame of Construction
Non-Historic 34%
Potential for Preservation 36%
Preservation Worthy 30%
Land Use Change
Vacant 14%
Alternate Land Use 23%
Continuous Land Use 63%
Architectural Modication
Intrusion 30%
Modied 59%
Historically Signicant 11%
Building Condition
Dilapidated 3%
Moderately Decayed 23%
Well-Conditioned 74%
Assessed Value
Below Market Mean
($74,227-$195.572) 44%
Within Range of Market Mean
($195,573-$438,260) 41%
Above Market Mean
($438,261-$2,140,206) 15%
MACRO SCALE
(Ratio of Outcome Totals to Total Possible)
Time Frame of Construction 74%
Land Use Change 84%
Architectural Modication 63%
Building Condition 92%
Assessed Value 56%
COLLECTIVE SCALE
(Using the Ordinal Scale)
Avg. Points Per Structure Surveyed 11.12
% of 1 Measures 26%
% of 2 Measures 34%
% of 3 Measures 40%
Rate of Neglect
(Ratio of Sum of All Macro Scale Variable Totals to Total Possible minus 100%) 26%
54 Preservation Education & Research • V |
interrelated causal factors that involve aspects of his-
toric integrity and viability. As noted, a concentration
on architectural aesthetics can sometimes only delay the
inevitable demolition of a structure. Documentation of
much-needed attributes such as economic worth, altera-
tion proportion, and building function change should
be embedded within current evaluations on building
condition and building age. ese are all necessary com-
ponents for the sustainability of heritage structures and
can be used in information modeling programs such as
Geographic Information Systems to longitudinally evalu-
ate heritage areas. Digital information modeling oers
opportunities to apply the model more easily and per-
form in-depth, causal ana lyses. Vague data on teardowns
of historic structures per formed by the National Trust for
Historic Preservation in 2008 on a national scale are the
only current data that document demolitions of historic
structures (Figure 3). Local Preservation Commissions
or newly formed groups can easily survey districts
periodically to monitor progress alongside cooperative
developments with regional planning commissions. is
allows both for a much better local decision-making
process and for preservation to become a stronger pres-
ence in future planning and design schemas. As a result,
more viable and historically relevant structures may be
salvaged while accommodations for new growth can be
justiably incorporated into existing structures or in
properly located parcels that support the historic built
environment rather than compete with it.
Fig. 3. Areas in the United States experiencing teardowns of historic structures. (Supplied by permission from the National
Trust for Historic Preservation.)
V | • Preservation Education & Research 55
THE PROMOTION OF THE PRESERVATION
OF FUTURE HISTORIC RESOURCES
Decisions about which aged structures should be con-
served have traditionally been based on the interrelated
concepts of integrity, authenticity, and historical value
(Wells 2010); these concepts tend to value the object being
conserved, not t he people who utilize and interac t within
its connes and the functional signicance to its inhabit-
ants. Data generated by the model will enhance one of
the cash cows of the preservation movement—the historic
district—through better protect ion of existing and future
resources based on typical concepts with the inclusion
of aspects of viability. Many growth management strate-
gies call for inventorying and protection of historic areas.
How can this protection be provided without a system
of metrics in place to measure the impacts of growth?
Listokin (1997) argues t hat if preservation is to be applied
more widely, broader and more exible tools need to be
considered. If these new tools are to be applied eec-
tively, they must have quantiable data reinforcing their
impacts. e concept ual model presented will produce, at
minimum, an inventory of structures according to their
age. Archival studies can then dictate their preservation
value more thoroughly. More important, the model can
also provide a foundation on which to begin to designate
structures that have surpassed the point of rehabilitation
or pinpoint exact measures that need to be taken to revi-
talize those structures that merit rehabilitation.
THE EXPLANATION OF SALIENT FACTORS
FOR THE PREVENTION OF NEGLECT
Historic landscapes have a metabolism, and therefore
need to be studied longitudinally. e nature of scien-
tic investigation demands that researchers examine
paradigms and methodologies constantly to keep pace
with shis in the body of knowledge. Preservation can
no longer be bound to sites and unwilling to change with
shiing contexts. Broader understanding and data are
needed to support new claims. Integrity—like viabil-
ity—is dynamic. Both must be adapted and integrated
to allow for continued existence of historic fabric. e
case of Quakertown’s historic district suggests that, as a
means to keep their cities vital and viable, the city has
done relatively well in keeping consistent land uses in his-
toric structures. While vacancy rates are relatively high
in the borough, the overall condition of the historic built
environment has remained satisfactory. e modica-
tion of existing structures for maintenance and growth
purposes appeared necessary for these impacts to occur.
Macro-scaled analyses showed that assessed values and
historic structure alteration were the primary contribu-
tors to neglect while new development was also begi nning
to infringe within the district. Micro-scaled analyses
supported these ndings, showing low amounts of dilap-
idated structures, high modication rates, and high
amounts of intrusions. ese outcomes wil l undoubtedly
change when the model is applied to dierent cities or
districts. e model does serve as a method in which to
evaluate similar factors across cases in an eort to stymie
the onslaught of neglect in the historic built environment.
THE ADVANCEMENT OF EXOGENOUS GROWTH
SCHEMES INTO THE EVALUATION CRITERIA
Historic preservation is intrinsically linked to smart
growth (Rypkema 2002). is lin kage needs to be studied
and quantied. Current research has exposed a multitude
of gaps within this linkage, but none have attempted to
measure speci c impacts of external g rowth ma nagement
strategies on the internal historic built environment.
While there has been some movement toward integra-
tion of local historic preservation into regional growth
management systems, preservation is not seen as a cen-
tral issue (Listokin 1997). e model presented provides
a theoretical link with which to create a set of baseline
data fundamental to regulating contextual change while
monitoring internal impacts. Application of the model
encourages much-needed cooperation between two
elds that strive for similar goals. To measure impacts
of regional growth on historic districts, data generated
must be studied continually and changes in the system
of growth that might contribute to these impacts must
be documented. rough continual feedback produced
by this model, a closer, mutually benecial, and sym-
biotic relationship between growth and preservation
will be realized. As new growth strategies are employed
and impacts measured, regions stressing preservation
as a primary goal can use growth strategies proven to
increase the vitality and viability of historic districts.
For example, regarding Bucks County’s landscape, as
the amount of preserved outskirt farmlands increases or
decreases, would the rate of neglect change over time? If
so, what variables of neglect are primarily impacted by
this increase or decrease?
GALEN NEWMAN
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX (USA)
56 Preservation Education & Research • V |
Galen Newman is an assistant professor in the Department of
Lands cape Architec ture and Urban Pl anning at Texas A&M Uni versity.
Newma n received a bachelor’s degree i n environmenta l design, a mas-
ter’s of landscape archite cture, and a master’s of communit y planning
from Auburn University, while simultaneously serving as a research
and teaching assistant for two years. In 2010 he received his PhD in
plann ing, design, a nd the built env ironment from Clem son University,
where he also served as a graduate assistant professor for three years.
His research concentrated on evaluating the expanding scope of his-
toric preservation philosophy and exploring the connection between
local preservation strategies with regional growth management
schemes to help prevent demolition by neglect of historic structures.
His cur rent research conce ntrations include re gional grow th and man-
agement, formation and reuse of vacant, neglected, and abandoned
space, and digital desig n and graphic representation.
REFERENCES
Alberts, Heike, and Mark Brinda. 2005. “Changing Approaches to
Historic Preservation in Quedlinburg, Germany.” Urban Aairs
Review, 40 (3): 390-401.
Alderson, Caroline. 2006. “Responding to Context: Changing
Perspectives on Appropriate Change in Historic Settings.” APT
Bulletin, 37 (4): 22-33.
Allison, Eric, and Lauren Peters. 2011. Historic Preservation and the
Liveable City. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.
Avrami, Erica. 2012. “A Systems Approach to Historic Preservation
in an Era of Sustainability Planning.” PhD diss., Rutgers University.
Baer, William. 1995. “W hen Old Buildings Ripen for Historic
Preservation: A Predictive Approach to Planning.” Journal of the
American Planning Association, 61 (1): 82-94.
Beaumont, Constance. 1992. “Historic Preservation and Growth
Management.” Historic Preservation Forum, 6: 35-40.
Beaumont, Constance. 1996. Smart States, Better Communities: How
State Governments Can Help Citizens Preserve eir Communities.
Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Berg, Shary. 1988. “Documenting and Preserving a Historic
Landsc ape.” APT Bulletin, 20 (1): 41-49.
Berger, Alan. 2006. Drosscape: Wasting Land in Urban America. New
York: Princeton Architectura l Press.
Birnbaum, Charles. 1994. “Protecting Cultural Landscapes:
Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes.”
National Park Service Productions. Washington, DC: National Park
Service, Preservation Assistance Division.
Birnbaum, Charles, and Mary Hughes. 2005. “Landscape
Preservation in Context.” In Design with Culture: Claiming America’s
Landscape Heritage, edited by Charles Birnbaum and Mary Hughes,
1-18. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Bucks County Planning Commission. 2011. “Bucks County
Comprehensive Plan: Executive Summary.” Retrieved September 23,
2013 from http://www.buckscounty.org/BCCompPlanDra.pdf.
Bullen, Peter A. 2007. “Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of
Commercial Buildings.” Facilities, 25 (1/2): 20-31.
Carr, Ethan. 2005. “e Noblest Landscape Problem: omas C.
Vint and Landscape Preservation.” In Design with culture: Claiming
America’s Landscape Heritage, edited by Charles Birnbaum and Mary
Hughes, 157-78. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Clarke, Julie and Debra Laefer. 2012. “A Systematic Approach for
Large-Scale, Rapid, Dilapidation Surveys of Historic Masonry
Buildings.” International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 8 (2):
290-310.
Collins, Richard, Elizabeth Waters, and A. Bruce Dotson. 1991.
America’s Downtowns: Growth, Politics, and Preservation.
Washington, DC: e Preservation Press.
Cook, Robert. 1996. “Is Landscape Preservation an Oxymoron?” e
George Wright Forum, 13 (1): 42-53.
Cooke, Robert. 2007. Building in the 21st Century. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Daniels, Tom. 1999. When City and Country Collide: Managing
Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Daniel s, Tom, and Deb ora h Bower s. 199 7. Holding our Ground: Protecting
America’s Farms and Farmland. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Dick, Lyle. 20 00. “Commemorative Integrit y and Cultura l Landscapes:
Two National Histor ic Sites in British C olumbia.” APT Bulletin, 31 (4): 29-38.
Doratli, Naciye. 2005. “Revitalizing Historic Urban Quarters: A
Model for Determining the Most Relevant Strategic Approach.”
European Planning Studies, 13 (1/2): 749-72.
Doratli, Naciye, Sebnem Onal Hoskara, and Mukaddes Fasli. 2004.
“An Analytical Methodolog y for Revitalization Strategies in Historic
Urban Quarters: A Case Study of the Walled City of Nicosia, North
Cy prus.” Cities, 21 (4): 329-48.
Fitch, James. 1990. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of
the Built World. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Foster, Robin. 2013. “Battle of the Port: Memory, Preservation, and
Planning in the Creation of the South Street Seaport Museum.”
Journal of Urban History, 39 (5): 890-908.
Francaviglia, Richard. 2000. “Selling Heritage Landscapes.” In
Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America, edited by A. Alanen and
R. Melnick, 44-69. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Goldwy n, Andrea. 1995. Demolition by Neglect: A Loophole in
Preservation Policy. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Hylton, omas. 1995. Save Our Land, Save Our Towns. Harrisburg,
PA: RB Books.
Jackson, John Brinkerho. 1997. Landscape in Sight: Looking at
America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. e Death and Life of Great American Cities. New
York: Random House.
Jigya su, Rohit. 2002. “Monu ments and Sites in eir Setti ng: Conservi ng
Cultural Heritage in Changing Townscapes and Landscapes.” Paper
prepared for the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) Symposium, India.
Leichenko, Robin, Edward Coulson, and David Listokin. 2001.
“Historic Preservation and Residential Property Values: An Analysis
of Texas Cities.” Urban Studies, 38 (11):1973 -87.
Lipman, Frizzell and Mitchell LLC. 2002. “State of Maryland
Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Economic & Fiscal
Impacts; Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Economic
and Fisca l Impacts.” Baltimore: Preser vation Maryland.
V | • Preservation Education & Research 57
Listokin, David. 1997. “Growth Ma nagement and Historic Preservation:
Best Practices for Synthesis.” e Urban Lawyer, 29: 199-213.
Listokin, David, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr. 1998. “e
Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic
Development.” Housing Policy Debate, 9 (3): 431-78.
Longstreith, Richard. 2008. Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature
and Heritage in Preservation Practice. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Lowenthal, David. 1979. “Age and Artifact: Dilemmas of
Appreciation.” In e Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes, edited
by D. W. Meinig, 103-28. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mason, Randall. 2005. Economics and Historic Preservation.
Washington, DC: e Brookings Institution.
McNealy, Terry. 2001. Bucks County: An Illustrative History.
Doylestown, PA: Bucks County Historical Society.
Melnick, Robert. 2000. “Considering Nature and Culture in Historic
Landscape Pres ervation.” In Preserving Cu ltural Landscape s in America,
edited by A. Alanan, 22-43. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mitchell, John. 2001. “e American Dream: Urban Sprawl.”
Retrieved October 23, 2010 from National Geographic
Online Magazine, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/
dat a/.2001/07/01/html/_ 20 010701.3.html.
Montgomery, John. 1998. “Making a City: Urbanit y, Vitality And
Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design, 3 (1): 93-116.
Montello, Daniel, and Paul Sutton. 2006. An Introduction to Scientic
Research Me thods in Geography. ousa nd Oaks, CA: Sage Public ations.
Mostafavi, Moshen, and David Leatherbarro. 1993. Weathering: e
Life of Buildings in Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nasser, Noha. 20 03. “Planning for Urban Heritage Places:
Reconciling Conservation, Tourism, and Sustainable Development.”
Journal of Planning Literature, 17 (4): 467-79.
National Park Service. 2002. “II. National Register Criteria for
Evaluation.” Retrieved September 23, 2011, from http://www. nps.
gov/nr/publications /bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm.
National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2008. “Teardowns by State
and Community: Teardowns Resource Guide.” Retrieved January
12, 2010, from http://www.preser vationnation.org/issues/teardowns/
additional-resources/teardowns_states_and_communities.pdf.
New Castle City Council. 2005. “Productivity Commission Inquir y
onto the Conservation of the Historic Built Environment.” New
Castle, England: City Council Submission, July 29.
Nijkamp, Peter. 1991. “Evaluation Measurement in Conservation
Planning.” Journal of Cultural Economics, 15 (1): 1-27.
Nivala , John. 1997. “Savi ng the Spirit of Our Plac es: A View on Our Built
Environment.” UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 15.
Olson, Richard, and omas Lyson. 1999. Under the Blade: e
Conversion of Agricultural Landscapes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Pagano, Michael, and Ann Bowman. 2000. Vacant Land in Cities:
An Urban Resource. Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy.
Pickerill, Tracy, and Lynne Armitage. 2009. “e Management of
Built Heritage: A Comparative Review of Policies and Practice in
Western Europe, North America and Australia.” Dublin Institute
of Technology, School of Rea l Estate and Construction Economics.
Conference paper, Pacic Rim Real Estate Society, 15th Annual
Conference, Januar y 18-21, 2009, University of Technology Sydney
(UTS), New South Wales, Australia.
Pickerill, Tracy, and Rob Pickard. 2007. “A Review of Fiscal Measures
to Benet Heritage Conservation.” RICS Research Paper Series, 7 (6).
Prideaux, Bruce. 2002. “Building Visitor Attractions in Peripheral
Areas—Can Uniqueness Overcome Isolation to Produce Viability?”
International Journal of Tourism Research, 4 (5): 379-89.
Provins, Allan, David Pearce, Ece Ozdemiroglu, Susana Mourato,
and Sian Morse-Jones. 2008. “Valuation of the Historic Environment:
e Scope for Using Economic Valuation Evidence in the Appraisal
of Heritage-Related Projects.” Progress in Planning, 69 (4): 131-75.
Ravenscro, Neil. 2000. “e Vitality and Viability of Town Centers.”
Urban Studies, 37 (13): 2533-49.
Reed, Paula. 1982. “Documentation of a Historic Structure.” Bulletin
of the Association for Preservation Technology, 14 (4): 19-22.
Reichl, Alexander. 1997. “Historic Preservation and Pro-growth
Politics in US cities.” Urban Aairs Review, 32 (4): 513-35.
Rypkema, Donovan. 2002. “Historic Preservation Is Smart Growth.”
Planning Commissioners Journal, 52.
Shipley, Robert, Steve Utz, and Michael Parsons. 2006. “Does Adaptive
Reuse Pay? A Study of the Busi ness of Building Renovation in Ontario,
Canada.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12 (6): 505-20.
Singleton, Royce, and Bruce Straits. 1999. Approaches to Social
Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stovel, Herb. 2007. “Eective Use of Authenticity and Integrity as
World Heritage Qualif ying Conditions.” City & Time, 2 (3): 21-36.
Trieb, Mark. 2006. “Drosscape: Wasting Land in Urban America, by
Alan Berger” [Book Review]. Landscape Journal, 27 (1): 154-55.
Tse-Chuan, Yang, and R. Snyder Anastasia. 2007. Population Change
in the Northeast, 2000-2005. Durham, New Hampshire: NERCD
Issues Brief.
Wallace Paulette, and Anita Franchetti. 2007. “Heritage at
Risk: Addressing the Issue of the Demolition by Neglect of
Historic Heritage in New Zealand.” Paper prepared for the New
Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Welling ton Sustainable
Management of Historic Heritage, Discussion paper no. 6, August.
Wells, Jeremy C. 2010. “Valuing Historic Places: Traditional and
Contemporary Approaches.” School of Architecture, Art, and Historic
Preservation Faculty Papers. Paper 22. http://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_
fp/22
Yahner, omas, and Daniel Nadenicek. 1997. “Community by
Design: Contemporary Problems—Historic Resolve.” Landscape and
Urban Planning, 39 (2-3): 137-51.
Zax, Leonard. 1991. “Protection of the Built Environment: A
Washington, DC Case Study in Historic Preservation.” BC
Environmental Aairs Review, 19: 651.
