Roundtable discussion focused on the challenges of constructing a strong foundation of data, analysis and theory on which the historic preservation profession of 2030 might rest. It was recognized at the outset of the discussion that the field does not have general research foundations, nor do practitioners have a shared vocabulary of parameters or criteria with which to compare findings. Accordingly, there is little ammunition with which to rebut arguments against protecting historic structures, and rules for basic measurement or evaluation of preservation impacts are scant. Producing factual information to back up intuitive arguments in favor of preservation is a pressing need in the profession.
The absence of a solution poses significant challenges to the field and hampers its evolution towards greater collaboration and effectiveness. For example, one might ask what happened in the neighborhoods where preservation was successful, or unsuccessful, but data on this heading is sketchy at best. Preservationists are skillful when measuring material performance and historical value in older buildings, but the bulk of their arguments in support of investment rest on claims of social good which rely on sociologists, planners, and municipal agencies to substantiate. These efforts might lead to the ability to model development scenarios quickly and accurately, so that investors and policy makers can make decisions based on more complete and nuanced cost-benefit calculations.
It was noted that NYC is behind the curve regarding land use research and analysis. As a result, even simple questions related to the impact of historic district designation on property values of listed structures are difficult to answer quantitatively. Until quantitative comparisons reveal positive impact trends leaning strongly in favor of rehabilitated structures, it seems unlikely that preservation can enhance the persuasiveness of its message. Several respondents emphasized that it must be separated from advocacy and regulation; it must be independent and reliably objective.
Part of the preservation research agenda should be loosening up access to existing city data, coordinating inter-agency data sharing, inserting preservation data into the municipality’s official GIS urban planning map, and establishment of sound data collection standards/mechanisms now. Several respondents noted that a think tank dedicated to the research platform for preservation might be a good idea, as long as the field is prepared to interpret and disclose unfavorable or counter-intuitive results. Effort needs to be given to refining key research questions.
This report is only partial summary of discussions hosted and feedback received by the Preservation Vision: NYC project. Every attempt was made to convey the breadth and content of these exchanges between participants, but brevity demanded that many useful contributions were simplified, combined, or left out altogether. In no case are the assertions and assessments summarized here a reflection of the organizers' opinions or best knowledge; they belong only to the participants and contribute to an open process of deliberation. A final report will provide a more comprehensive and nuanced reflection of these deliberations along with a synthesis of project participants’ visions for the future.
