Historic preservation and economic development... it's the right thing to do

Today, the National Trust for Historic Preservation will release its list of threatened resources. See "Preservation Group Lists 11 Sites in Need" from the Post, and the press release from the Trust, "America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places." From the article:

The organization is supporting legislation recently introduced in Congress that would provide financial incentives to owners of older and historic homes and commercial properties to make the structures more energy-efficient. ...

The trust has typically used arguments such as historic significance or the prospect of economic revitalization to save endangered locations. This year, the group is highlighting the environmental benefits of restoring existing infrastructure and buildings, citing studies showing that 35 to 50 years may be needed before an energy-efficient new building saves the amount of energy lost in demolishing an existing structure.

In my opinion, the best writer-thinker in the preservation field is appraiser and economist Don Rypkema. His website has two different blogs, one focuses on domestic issues, and Heritage Strategies is about international issues.

I have links to a number of his papers on this blog:

-- Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation: The Missed Connection
-- Culture, Historic Preservation and Economic Development in the 21st Century
-- Economic Power of Historic Preservation (Paper)
-- Profiting Through Preservation (report/New York State)
-- and on DC specifically, he wrote a "vision policy paper" for consideration during the Comprehensive Plan re-write process in 2005/2006, "Historic Preservation's Role in DC's Future."

The funny thing is that the National Trust's primary promotional thrust these days is around sustainability and greening. Don't get me wrong, that is incredibly important.

But at the same time, during a national economic crisis and the continued decline of most center cities, historic preservation is both:

(1) a jobs development tactic; and (2) the only real sustainable strategy for center city revitalization. (I am not going to address the second point in this particular entry as regular readers know that it is, fundamentally, all I write about.)

The Economic Power paper discusses the economic impact of preservation in detail. But the basic point is this:

in new construction, half the cost of a project is for materials (usually sourced from non-local sources) and half for labor; while in rehabilitation of "old" buildings, 80% of the cost of the project is labor and 20% on materials.

So if you want to put people to work on construction projects, preservation projects make a lot of sense.

In this entry in the Heritage Strategies blog, "Not only are the French smarter, so are the Norwegians" Don discusses the difference between the Norwegian stimulus package and the U.S. equivalent. According to the entry, the Norwegian stimulus package is based on four principles:

• The measures must have a speedy effect on the labor market
• The measures must have specific target objectives
• The measures must be limited in time
• The measures shall strengthen the Government in its policies for the environment and income distribution.

I happen to think this is an excellent set of principles. But others could have a different list. The trouble in the US is that there is no set of principles upon which we are encumbering 3 generations to repay.

And how did Norway commit their stimulus money to be consistent with these principles?

• Measures for increased energy efficiency $183,529,000
• Repair and development of railway system $198,976,000
• CO2 cleaning $147,129,000
• Footpaths/sidewalks and bicycle roads $ 76,471,000
• Nature management and Cultural Heritage $ 52,000,000
• Environment research on sea wind turbines $ 11,471,000
• Charging stations for electric cars $ 7,647,000
• Bio Energy $ 7,647,000

The Cultural Heritage portion of that was around $34,000,000 and was divided as follows:

• Rehabilitation and maintenance of privately owned, protected property $11.6 Million
• Technical and industrial heritage, vessels and centers $6.9 Million
• Rock art, archeology, and universal access $3.8 Million
• Fire safety for historic wood buildings, medieval and important churches $11.8 Million

Why did they do this? Because they learned in the last recession that: a) it worked putting people back to work and training workers for the future; and b) it met the principles they established.

Virtually all the line items in the Norwegian stimulus package are long term investments. Almost none in the US stimulus package are.

Chris Argyris spent his academic career studying and working to make more effective, learning and action in organizations. This webpage discusses the basic points:

-- that people have an espoused theory of how they respond and act;
-- which usually differs from how they act in specific situations;
-- that single loop learning doesn't question the basic principles of an approach;
-- and double loop learning does.

From chris argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning:

Single-loop learning seems to be present when goals, values, frameworks and, to a significant extent, strategies are taken for granted. The emphasis is on ‘techniques and making techniques more efficient’ (Usher and Bryant: 1989: 87) Any reflection is directed toward making the strategy more effective. Double-loop learning, in contrast, ‘involves questioning the role of the framing and learning systems which underlie actual goals and strategies (op. cit.).

This graphic from the website shows the difference between the two forms of learning. In short, in double loop learning there is a feedback and consideration loop (feedback loop is the term used in systems theory), and there is no feedback loop in single loop learning.

I think we are a single loop society, one where for the most part, our organizational systems, especially political and governance institutions, are resistant to learning and improving.

A columnist in the Philadelphia Inquirer was lamenting a kind of backwardness on the part of Philadelphians in "Obsession with the past obscures Phila.'s future," but I think she wasn't looking broadly enough. Note that the headline doesn't accurately reflect the two sentences in her column that I found most relevant. She wrote:

One of Philadelphia's great problems, I've noted before, is Philadelphians. People don't leave enough or get away to somewhere exotic, like, say, Maryland. People don't know how to do things differently - or better - due to a lack of knowledge and contrast.

But I think this is a "condition" endemic to the country, and is one that is present in many other places across the United States.

The "rational planning" model is supposed to have a feedback loop. So in theory with each planning iteration, we should get more capable and better, ever evolving and improving results should be obtained.

But that's not happening.

How we deal with historic preservation is but one example of the problem.