The Landscape of Urban Preservation: A Spatial Analysis of Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits in Richmond, Virginia

Abstract

Historic preservationists tout the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit (RTC) as one of the nation's most successful urban revitalization programs, but minimal research exists on the local use of this private‐sector, market‐responsive tool. Using geocoded data on RTC investments in Richmond, Virginia that occurred between 1997 and 2010, the research explores the city's RTC geography, finding that these investments are most intense in the central city, but have centrifugally diffused outward over time. The research shows that RTC investments are contributing to Richmond's postindustrial transformation, offer a measure of resiliency in the recently volatile real estate market, and function as a de facto housing policy without directly resulting in gentrification. The research offers policymakers improved understanding about the urban geography and spatial effects of RTCs and outlines potential policies that can capitalize on and further encourage these private‐sector investments.

The Price of Preserving Neighborhoods: The Unequal Impacts of Historic District Designation

“…McCabe (2018) drew attention to the importance of this nascent literature on preservation and neighborhood change. Recent work examining neighborhood change following historic preservation includes Kinahan (2018), McCabe and Ellen (2016), Talen et al (2015), Koster et al (2014), and Ryberg-Webster (2015). Alternatively, historic preservation may follow, rather than lead to, demographic change in neighborhoods (Noonan & Krupka, 2010).…”

Historic preservation in declining city neighbourhoods: Analysing rehabilitation tax credit investments in six US cities

“…Mallach (2011) and Verderber (2009) discuss conflicts between preservation and demolition, while Mallach and Brachman (2013) anecdotally include preservation as a component of revitalisation. Other studies focus on preservation in specific legacy cities (Ryan and Campo, 2013; Ryberg-Webster, 2015a).…”

“…The RTC is a federal incentive with no local approvals. Therefore, it is not a tool that local governments can directly employ as part of a targeting programme, although cursory evidence suggests that RTCs support revitalisation (Ryberg-Webster, 2013, 2015a). Owing to their age and current conditions, legacy cities have a large stock of historic resources suffering from neglect, deferred maintenance and abandonment.…”

“…Little research exists on the federal RTC, including Ryberg-Webster’s (2015a) analysis of RTC activity in Richmond, Virginia and Ryberg-Webster’s (2013) comparison of RTC activity in ten downtowns, showing its strong contribution in housing production. Cohen’s (1998) case study in Baltimore indicates potential for using RTCs as part of mixed-income neighbourhood development strategies.…”

“…The National Park Service (NPS), housed within the US Department of the Interior, claims that the 20% federal historic rehabilitation tax credit (RTC) is ‘the nation’s most effective Federal program to promote community revitalization and encourage private investment through historic preservation’ (NPS, 2015: 1). Yet, few empirical studies address preservation incentives, including the RTC (Ryberg-Webster, 2013, 2015a) and none examine disaggregated, neighbourhood activity across multiple cities. RTC impact studies aggregate data to the state and national levels (e.g.…”