Does housing really become less affordable within conservation districts? Actually, no

Cambridge Day has published as an Op Ed  Open Letter to City Council on the question of conservation district impacts on property value and rental price increases. In this analysis not only is Cambridge specific data explored (a comparison of conservation district and non-conservation district price increases since 2015) but so too are a range of U.S. studies as well as a nationwide U.K. study. 

This "Open Letter" was written in response a Cambridge City Council Policy Order coming up for a vote that contends that historic preservation (Conservation Districts) increase rents and should not be allowed. This order is based largely on a Sept. 10 Cambridge Chronicle op-ed, itself a reprise of a Feb. 27 blog post by a local political activist, claiming “Conservation Districts Make Housing Less Affordable.”  

 The longer "Open Letter" study is here:  op_ed_conservation_districts_10.16.20-final.a__.pdf 
 
This study analyzes both Cambridge property value and rent increases between 2015 and today and was able to show that Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) have LOWER rents and property value increases than those areas of the city that lie outside Conservation Districts (nearly 10% lower indeed). In this letter/study the larger national and UK literature delineated by a local pro-development blogger is based on a deeply flawed analysis of the cited literature.  The issue here is coming to a head with a push against historic preservation in Cambridge in an effort to enable developers to build what they want. Cambridge is one of the earliest cities in the country (1630) and one of the top five most dense cities in the U.S. with a population over 100K, we have lost 18% of our tree canopy in the last 10 years and the city is adding nearly 30% more residents. Where will they go? Allowing developers to tear down historic buildings in East Cambridge, (a one-time working-class neighborhood (where many of our ethnic emigres once lived) is not only bad civic policy but also is environmentally bad because historic preservation and sustainability are natural partners. Preservation and reuse of historic buildings reduces resource and material consumption, puts less waste in landfills, and consumes less energy than demolishing buildings and constructing new ones.

 Sadly, with so much industry moving in with an array of employees with salaries far higher than long-time residents, they are forcing others out  (including our one time large African American population). Basically, very few can afford to live here anymore. But the answer is NOT build more and more housing (supply and demand does not work in a place like Cambridge with two big universities) and destroying our rich heritage of historic architecture to build massive housing developments everywhere will destroy the very reason many people want to move here - to say nothing of our need to preserve this history for the next generation. 

Since this "Open Letter" appeared, Mr. Crowe has responded with another blog at lorencrowe.com 

Here too, each of the cases he cites again are incorrect to use in addressing the East Cambridge NCD situation

• The New York City study he cites (in this blog and the earlier one) is about an historic district and NOT a conservation district (the two are very different).
• The Connecticut study he cites is again about an historic district and NOT a conservation district (the two are very different).
• The Tucson study he cites also is about an historic district and NOT a conservation district (the two are very different).
• The Tennessee Study is also about an historic district and not a conservation district.
• The Nashville Study (whose link is not corrected on Cambridge Day, takes up various sites, but for Tennessee specifically it addresses Historic Districts NOT Conservation Districts. Again, HISTORIC and CONSERVATION districts very different. More over, the study that he cites specifically did NOT control for prior historic value which is why this difference is so important.
• The UK study is of interest to us because it is nationwide. Again, as here in the U.S. conservation districts do NOT on average increase property values. If Mr. Crowe prefers only wants to look at U.S. cases, that is fine, but, he and others are urged to reread these studies, and to note that historic districts are different than conservation districts.

 
Here is the key issue: historic districts have prior historic (and other value) which is in large measure why they are approved to become historic districts, so the fact that property values in HISTORIC Districts may be higher  is based on their prior value and not a priori necessarily on new value.
 
Mr. Crowe and others are encouraged to reread the CHC guidelines for historic and conservation districts here. They are also encouraged  to relook at the actual analysis of Cambridge property value and rental increases in conservation districts vs non conservation districts – as delineated in my study.

Since this blog, Dan Eisner has responded as well on the East Cambridge Planning Team list serve arguing that the “Open Letter”  UK study conclusions were based on an incomplete citation. However, the sentence immediately following the one Eisner cited on p.69 reads as follows: “…in the short-run, designation has a neutral effect on property price….It is, however, difficult to separate the determinants of the long run appreciation trend within conservation areas… without an analysis of quantity adjustments, which are outside the scope of this report. We note that from the results presented it is not possible to conclude on the (non-)existence of demand or supply driven price spillover effects of conservation areas to the wider housing market area." 

​In short:

• The district designation remains “neutral” (the positive and negative effects cancel each other out).
• “Quantity adjustment” refers to processes wherein a market surplus may promote a decline in stock or, market shortages may promote a quantity increase. Since conservation districts by definition change over time (with buildings being added and others removed), it is not possible to ascertain potential long-term impacts. 
• As noted in the quote it is also not possible to determine long term results without knowing why people are choosing to live in a specific area. For East Cambridge is it because they WANT to reside in a conservation district, or because, to again quote you on ECPT list serve “East Cambridge literally borders Boston….It’s two miles from downtown. You can walk to Red Sox, Celtic, and Bruins games from your neighborhood. And of course, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of jobs.“  In a nutshell that is why the argument about conservation increasing rents is bogus. It is other factors that are at play. .
• The final sentence of the quote on p.69 regarding future impacts is important: “the even broader potential benefits to potential visitors, future generations and those who value heritage directly and irrespectively of a physical contact remain outside the scope of our analysis.” 

 
Finally  it is not correct that a Neighborhood Conservation District would put upward pressure on this neighborhood’s prices; based on all the other studies of conservation districts, it would do the reverse.  You and others have yet to provide any contradictory evidence of this.

Suzanne Preston Blier