Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20

Journal of the American Planning Association

ISSN: 0194-4363 (Print) 1939-0130 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and SilencesBetween Preservation and Planning

Jennifer Minner

To cite this article: Jennifer Minner (2016) Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences BetweenPreservation and Planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 82:2, 72-87, DOI:10.1080/01944363.2016.1147976

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1147976

Published online: 21 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 653

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Problem, research strategy, and fi ndings: Historic preservation and plan-ning often operate together in the United States within local planning departments, sharing some common roots and a “fragile, uneasy alliance” (Birch & Roby, 1984). Over time, developments in both preservation and planning brought these disciplines and professions closer together, including shared concern for sustainability and common ground in community economic develop-ment, revitalization, land use planning, and urban design. Simultaneously, areas of tension and potential confl ict emerged. Some preservation-oriented scholars and practitioners call for the expansion of preservation’s sphere of infl uence and concern, while others caution of negative effects. In this literature review, I identify areas of confl uence and friction, as well as silences and gaps, focusing especially on planning and preservation literature since the 1980s. Takeaway for practice: Few scholars have identifi ed what planners and preserva-tionists (and those who do both) can learn from one another, with some important exceptions. Planning scholarship can benefi t from understanding how preservation has changed in tandem and in relation to planning. Preservationists can gain much from incorporating contemporary planning theory, especially with regard to participation and building an equity agenda for preserva-tion that builds from preservation’s strengths and recent advances toward recognizing a wider, more representative set of historic resources. Both planners and preservationists

Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences Between Preservation and Planning

Jennifer Minner

Historic preservation today is widely accepted as compatible with the aims of planning and even integral to it. The APA’s Sustaining Places Initiative includes historic preservation as a strategy in comprehensive

plans for achieving the principle of a “livable built environment” ( Godschalk & Anderson, 2012; Godschalk & Rouse, 2015).1 The Congress of New Urbanism, a dominant voice in urban design and planning, recognizes historic preservation as one means of furthering economic vitality and environmental sustainability (Congress of New Urbanism, 2015). The National Trust for Historic Preservation has endorsed smart growth (Benfi eld, 2010) and is actively pursuing sustainability-oriented research through its Preservation Green Lab. Signs of alliance and common cause abound. This is a signifi cant shift from the 1980s, when Birch and Roby (1984) wrote of a “fragile, uneasy alliance” and planners’ ambivalence toward historic preservation, where each profession pursued “distinct goals, served different populations, and experi-enced dissimilar patterns of organizational growth” (p. 194). Since the 1980s, historic preservation has grown as both a specialization in urban planning and as a separate professional practice with varying degrees of separation from planning practice (Ryberg-Webster & Kinahan, 2014).

The seeming unity in the goals of the two professions, however, may conceal tensions and silences. In this article, I review literature on historic preservation in the United States and its evolving relationship with urban

can benefi t from stronger alliances in which scholars and practitioners engage in deeper dialogues and exchange. This interdiscipli-nary collaboration can unite leadership and vision with regard to equity and social justice, with deeper place-based knowledge to improve the social, environmental, and economic health of communities. Keywords: historic preservation, commu-nity economic development, land use planning, urban design, equity

72

About the author: Jennifer Minner (j.minner@cornell.edu) is an assistant professor of land use planning at Cornell University. She serves as a member of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission in New York, and served as chair of the Olympia (WA) Heritage Commission.

Journal of the American Planning AssociationVol. 82, No. 2, Spring 2016DOI 10.1080/01944363.2016.1147976© American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 72RJPA_A_1147976.indd 72 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

Minner: Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences 73

planning. I ask: How have planning and preservation evolved together? In what areas do their practices coincide and overlap? What are areas of tension and friction that practitioners and scholars need to examine and resolve in new ways? Where are there silences and gaps in the literature? The international literature offers considerable areas of potential exchange and comparative research that responds to these questions. However, to limit the scope of this review article, I only incorporate references from the substantial body of international heritage conservation where it intersects with the practice of planning and preservation in the United States. I further narrow the review by focusing on literature published after the 1984 Birch and Roby article.

First, I briefl y describe historic preservation in the United States and review literature on the shared origins and evolution of preservation and planning in the 20th century and its relevance to the present state of relations between the two professions. I discuss two areas of confl uence and tension in following sections: 1) the identifi cation of historic assets as a method of community economic development and 2) areas where preservation intersects with physical and spatial aspects of planning and design. I discuss intersections between preservation and physical planning at three scales: land use planning at the scale of the region and community; urban design at the scale of district, streetscape, and block; and at the scale of individual buildings. In a third section, I focus on gaps in the literature on equity. I propose an equity agenda for preservation that expresses a commitment be-yond the inclusion of more groups and histories, to a focus on the distribution of preservation’s benefi ts and costs.

I conclude that preservation research and practice could gain much from responding to and incorporating contemporary planning research and theory. Planners and planning research could benefi t from deeper consideration of the built environment—its physical, social, and cultural aspects—through collaboration with preservation scholars and practitioners. Both planners and preservationists could benefi t from deeper dialogues and interdisciplinary ex-change and collaboration. Pooling the respective strengths of planning and preservation could lead to deeper place-based knowledge that would improve the social, environ-mental, and economic health of communities.

The Entwined Evolution of Preservation and Planning in the United States

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 created the National Register of Historic Places and a framework of fi nancial support to State Historic Preserva-

tion Offi cers (SHPOs), which in turn provide incentives, grants, and technical support to local communities.2 His-toric preservation in the United States operates according to the principal of federalism; local governments have the ability to adopt preservation and planning ordinances in accordance with enabling legislation at the state level or as established by home rule authority.

Local ordinances provide the fi nest grain of preserva-tion regulation, which is potentially much stricter than protection for properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It is at the local level that decision makers may choose to prevent the demolition of historic resources, review the alteration of historic landmarks, and regulate new infi ll development in historic districts. Local elected offi cials enact preservation ordinances that are typically administered within local planning departments.3

However, preservation in the United States is not simply a program of government agencies. Preservation also comprises a network of citizen advocates and nonprofi t organizations, such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, state and local historic societies and preserva-tion groups, and other nonprofi t organizations that advo-cate for the preservation of historic places. Private actors also undertake preservation by investing in older and historic buildings in reaction to market forces, government incentives and regulation, and social and cultural values rooted in local context and community.

Both planning and preservation are place based and oriented toward action. The practice and theory of urban and regional planning has evolved considerably since its origins as a nascent profession focused on managing the externalities and terrible conditions of the Victorian city (Birch, 2011). Planning evolved from physical and sometimes utopian schemes aimed at reforming social and economic conditions (Fainstein & Campbell, 2012; Fishman, 2011) to the advocacy, equity, and progressive planning that reacted against physical planning solutions (Clavel, 1986; Davidoff, 1965; Krumholz, 1982; Krumholz & Forester, 1990). Planning theory and practice grew richer through scholarship on the dynamics of communication and public participation (Arnstein, 1969; Forester, 1982; Healey, 2012; Innes & Booher, 2010), as well as scholarship on power relations (Flyvbjerg, 1998) and social justice (Fainstein, 2010; Manning Thomas, 2012).

Preservation has also gone through signifi cant transformation in practice and theory. Several histories illustrate the shared origins of preservation and planning in managing urban development and change in the face of industrialization and rapid urbanization (Birch & Roby, 1984; Holleran, 1998; Mason, 2009; Page & Mason, 2004). Many of the earliest forms of preservation were

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 73RJPA_A_1147976.indd 73 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

74 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2016, Vol. 82, No. 2

aimed at creating patriotic shrines and house museums; however, experiments in historic preservation were also tied to early-twentieth-century zoning and planning innovations (Holleran, 1998; Stipe, 2003). These included building height limits in Boston (MA) and Baltimore (MD; Holle-ran, 1998) and design guidelines for new buildings in Santa Fe (NM) based on real and romanticized historic fabric (Wilson, 1997). Early preservation efforts share some similarities to the City Social or Settlement House move-ments (Wirka, 1996) in incrementalist approaches to improvement of community fabric (Talen, 2006). Histories of preservation often discuss women’s leadership in the early development of preservation (Howe & Goodman, 2003; Taylor, 2013; Tomlan, 2015) in contrast to many planning histories that overlook the role of women in the early devel-opment of the planning profession (Wirka, 1996).

A common narrative about historic preservation is that it was predominantly a grassroots force that developed out of resistance to the excesses of urban renewal in the mid-twen-tieth century (Mallach, 2011). This is reinforced by the writings of Jane Jacobs that defend older neighborhoods in the great American cities of New York (NY) and Boston from urban blight removal campaigns (Jacobs, 1961) and tout the virtues of older downtowns in cities such as San Francisco (CA), Chicago (IL), and San Antonio (TX; Jacobs, 1958). Many of her observations, once rejected by promi-nent planning scholars such as Lewis Mumford, have now been widely accepted and still resonate with both preserva-tionists and planners. More than 50 years later, researchers are now using statistical and spatial analyses to test the associations between old buildings and valued aspects of urban life, such as walkable environments and economic vitality (Powe, Mabry, Talen, & Mahmoudi, this issue; Preservation Green Lab, 2014; Sung, Lee, & Cheon, 2015).

Recent historical research also depicts a more complex picture of preservation and its relationship to planning, urban renewal, and market forces during the twentieth century. Ryberg-Webster (2013a) describes how preserva-tionists in Philadelphia (PA) retained a narrow view of what counted as “historic” and identifi es how “midcentury planners, facing market constraints, combined demolition and redevelopment, conservation and stabilization, and pristine historic restorations” (Ryberg-Webster, 2013a, p. 194). Scarce resources led local planners to innovate with preservation as an urban renewal strategy. Like plan-ning, preservation has evolved both in tension with market forces and in cooperation with local growth coalitions and real estate interests. Early preservationists were concerned with preserving sacred, patriotic sites, such as Mount Vernon, from the ravages of real estate speculation ( Murtagh, 2006), but the scope and mechanisms for

historic preservation broadened over the course of the 20th century to include community-based organizations as well as for-profi t rehabilitation companies (Greenfi eld, 2004).4

Market-based preservation began before the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (e.g., see Morley, 2004),5 but accelerated during the 1970s and 1980s (Greenfi eld, 2004; Ryberg-Webster, 2011; Silver & Crowley, 1991). In 1974, the restructuring of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funding into Community Devel-opment Block Grants resulted in the use of federal funding to encourage inner-city reinvestment (Wojno, 1991). New federal policies of accelerated tax depreciation starting in 1976 and the adoption of investment tax credits after 1981 created newfound interest in downtown investment ( Abbott, 1993; Birch, 2002). Both planners and developers began to rediscover central business districts as places where small area plans, festival marketplaces, and downtown waterfront planning created “individualized experiences” to attract shoppers and tourists to the central business district as a distinct urban destination (Abbott, 1993). Local government planning also began to focus on community development at the neighborhood scale and saw an increasing role for community-based organizations such as community development corporations and neighborhood groups (Birch & Roby, 1984). This con-verged with preservationists’ growing focus beyond indi-vidual landmarks and increasingly on historic districts and main streets (Birch & Roby, 1984; Hurley, 2010).

During this period, community-based organizations in Pittsburgh (PA) and Cincinnati (OH) had contrasting outcomes in incorporating preservation as a strategy for stabilizing low-income neighborhoods (Ryberg-Webster, 2011). In Pittsburgh, the Manchester Community Corpo-ration worked successfully as an intermediary to support property owners in acquiring and rehabilitating affordable housing, while in Cincinnati, the Mount Auburn Good Housing Foundation acquired properties for communal ownership and management, ultimately failing to manage the fi nancial burden of a large portfolio of rental housing (Ryberg-Webster, 2011).

The 1980s and 1990s brought critiques that historic preservation was a form of gentrifi cation that displaced low-income and minority residents (Fein, 1985; Smith, 1998; Zukin, 1987). Since the 1980s, the defi nition of and explanations for gentrifi cation have grown more complex, but remains an important area of research (Cohen, 1998; Lees, Slater, & Wyly, 2010) and continues to surface as an issue associated with historic preservation (Rypkema, 2012). The documentary The Flag Wars (Independent Television Service, 2003) movingly depicted confl icts between African-American residents and members of the

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 74RJPA_A_1147976.indd 74 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

Minner: Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences 75

lesbian, gay, bisexual, trandgender, and queer community in a historic district in Columbus (OH). High-profi le debates have been waged in other cities, such as Austin (TX; Chusid, 2006). In his book Triumph of the City, Glaeser (2011) accuses historic preservation, along with other zoning regulations and constraints on development, of threatening affordability by reducing overall housing supply. Talen, Menozzi, and Schaefer (2015) caution of potential threats to socioeconomic and racial diversity in neighborhoods recognized by the APA’s Great Neighbor-hoods program, where both planning and preservation have had a hand in urban revitalization.

Some case studies of historic preservation efforts illustrate the potential for preservation to address gentrifi -cation (Greenfi eld, 2004; Hodder, 1996). For example, Hodder (1996) describes three stages in historic preserva-tion in Savannah (GA). First, there were efforts between 1955 and 1973 to use preservation as part of an urban development agenda, which began to displace residents. During a second phase from 1974 to 1979, preservationists adopted an explicitly social agenda for preservation to maintain racial and socioeconomic diversity. In a third stage, African-American community members led efforts to preserve and interpret Savannah’s historic African- American community.

Research on the relationship between preservation and gentrifi cation has been limited. Coulson and Leichenko’s (2004) analysis of Fort Worth (TX) examines the concen-tration of properties listed on the National Register of Historical Places, or recognized by the Texas Historical Commission or by a local historic commission. They fi nd these concentrations of historically designated properties had no statistically signifi cant effect on neighborhood demographics and fi nd no evidence of its contribution to gentrifi cation. An early study in Washington (DC) also fi nds little evidence of displacement (Gale, 1991). Another analysis in Baton Rouge (LA) identifi es threats to low-income residents and suggests that preservation efforts should be paired with initiatives to preserve affordable housing (Zahirovic-Herbert & Chatterjee, 2012). McCabe and Ellen (this issue) test preservation’s role in accelerating neighborhood change in New York City, and conclude that there are no statistically signifi cant differences in racial composition attributable to historic district designations, but there is evidence of decreasing socioeconomic diversity.

By the 1990s, some preservationists began elevating the importance of expanding historic preservation practices to represent the diverse histories of indigenous, immigrant, racial, ethnic, class, gender identity, and sexual orientation groups that comprise an increasingly diverse populace. This era of scholarship focuses on preserving African-American

history (A. Lee, 2004), as well as fi nding new means of interpreting the underrepresented histories of the working class, women, and ethnic and racial minorities in the urban landscape through public art, public history, and archaeol-ogy, in addition to historic preservation (Dubrow, 1998; Dubrow & Goodman, 2003; Hayden, 1995; Hurley, 2010). There were also calls for the population of profes-sional preservationists to become more diverse and repre-sentative (A. Lee, 2004), a continual struggle that is shared with the fi eld of planning (Sweet & Etienne, 2011).

In 1996, the infl uential nonprofi t group Municipal Art Society published History Happened Here: A Plan for Saving New York City’s Historically and Culturally Signifi cant Sites, calling for preservation practice to move beyond a focus on buildings deemed signifi cant solely based on their architec-tural design, and to embrace a focus on cultural values and social history (Kaufman, 1996, 2009). The report encour-aged an appreciation for “place attachment” and a new sensitivity to “cultural value,” recognizing a much broader set of sites, including those associated with everyday life, and representing places not as a point in time, but with layers of meaning that have accrued over time. The report called for new partnerships with community-based organizations and urged additional tools of preservation other than reliance on landmarking and other forms of regulation.

The 1990s and early 2000s included a paradigmatic shift that began to embrace “intangible heritage,” or the living cultural practices and traditions of indigenous communities that move preservation beyond a longstand-ing focus on material artifacts of the past (United Nations Educational, Scientifi c, and Cultural Organization, 2016). Intangible heritage has long been excluded from preserva-tion practice because it embodies social values outside of the traditional emphasis on architecture or the representa-tion of Eurocentric histories (Australia ICOMOS, 2000; A. Lee, 2004; Parker, 1993; Stipe, 2003). In this special issue, Buckley and Graves use the concept of intangible heritage in an overview of San Francisco’s efforts to preserve sites of cultural importance associated with ethnic and social minorities.

This widening of concern in preservation is both a theoretical and a practical outcome of new ways of seeing historic resources, including the preservation of places of community history whose signifi cance is not solely derived from architectural design, but a wider set of social and cultural values (Appler & Rumbach, this issue; Kaufman, 2009; Tomlan, 1998). This paradigm shift includes scholarly efforts to recognize the historical and social signifi cance of everyday places (Wilson & Groth, 2003). Broadening concern is also refl ected in the Census of Places that Matter, which focuses on identifying and interpreting

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 75RJPA_A_1147976.indd 75 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

76 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2016, Vol. 82, No. 2

sites of cultural and social history that may not qualify as landmarks according to established preservation criteria (City Lore & Municipal Art Society, n.d.). This census is a part of the Place Matters initiative, which was established by two nonprofi ts, The Municipal Art Society and City Lore, in 1998. Preservationists, public historians, and archaeologists are also addressing once-narrow interpreta-tions of southern plantations through the preservation and interpretation of enslaved workers’ quarters (Clark, Williams, Legg, & Darville, 2011; Stipe, 2003) and sites such as slave trading markets, internment camps, and other sites of conscience that tell stories of discrimination and violence that are integral to American history (Page, 2015).

Preservation has further expanded with the practice of cultural landscape preservation. This type of preservation involves the close study and management of the interac-tions between nature and culture to preserve landscapes that range from designed gardens to working agricultural farmland (Alanen & Melnick, 2000; Birnbaum & National Park Service, 1994; Longstreth, 2008). In one collection of essays on cultural landscape preservation (Longstreth, 2008), scholars focus on a broad spectrum of sites from the rural to urban: from an agricultural island in Washington State to urban landscapes such as Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo and New York City’s Cross-Bronx Expressway.

In an emphasis on the relationship between nature and culture, cultural landscapes represent one area of substan-tial overlap with the environmental movement. However, preservation enjoys a much longer history that is tied to the environmental movement (Cosgove, 2006; Gilderbloom, Hanka, & Ambrosius, 2009; Holleran, 1998; Minner, 2011) and environmental control ( Costonis, 1989). Preservationists forged yet another connection to environmentalism through the concept of embodied energy, which is used to describe the value of already expended energy resources in historic buildings (Jackson, 2005; Tomlan, 2015). Recent preservation litera-ture has also drawn connections to sustainability (Carroon, 2010; van Oers & Roders, 2012). Preservationists have made the case for the value of preserving existing buildings as a form of sustainability (Young, 2012), called sustainable design and preservation “natural allies” (Chusid, 2010, p. 170), and claimed that the “greenest building is the one that is already built” (Elefante, 2012, p. 62). Preservation promotes a conservation ethic that embraces the value of thrift, in which the existing built environment is a resource to be stewarded instead of wasted (Minner, 2013).

The broadening of preservationists’ attention has coincided with the continual movement of the 50-year threshold typically used to assess whether buildings possess historical signifi cance.6 A larger proportion of each

community’s building stock that dates from the mid-20th century is becoming newly eligible for historic designation, refl ecting the aging of a building stock from the postwar construction boom. New challenges have surfaced in preserving modern architecture constructed with once experimental materials and architectural systems and in an era when energy conservation was not integral to design (Prudon, 2008). Preservation of some mid-20th century buildings has proven controversial and diffi cult for some policymakers and the public to support (Bowen, 2007; Goldberger, 2008; Longstreth, 2000, 2012; Shapiro, 2007). Some preservationists even feel challenges when faced with preserving the modern architecture associated with the urban renewal era (Longstreth, 2012).

A 1995 JAPA article articulates perceived threats to planning with preservation’s expansion (Baer, 1995). The author notes the growing number of historic designations in U.S. cities, and encourages examination of the tradeoffs between preservation and economic development. He calls for planners to take a systematic look at the buildings likely to become eligible for preservation protections:

Preservationists have not looked at the long-term effect of their goals for historic preservation. Nor have plan-ners addressed historic preservation in their long-range plans, despite considerable activity in the fi eld of preservation….We can forecast the architectural style and number of structures that will ripen for preserva-tion long before the event. We can also estimate the effects of saving different percentages of the stock from the past and incorporate the implications of these effects into our plans. (Baer, 1995, p. 82)

The article draws a distinction between the concerns of preservationists and planners and asserts that the lifespan of buildings is a threat to planning efforts. A critical re-sponse (Robins, 1995) illuminates troubling assumptions in Baer’s (1995) article, questioning the ability of planners to accurately predict what future generations will deem historically or culturally signifi cant. Similar to Baer, Lowenthal (2004) questions the accumulation of history as a potential encumbrance rather than merely a resource for future generations. In this issue, Avrami also questions the sustainability of a growing number of protected landmarks.

Concerns over the quantity of recognized historic resources seem diffi cult to reconcile with the desire among some preservationists to better represent the underrepre-sented groups and places of community value that had previously been ignored (Kaufman, 2009). The shift to include more historic resources within preservation’s sphere of concern has been accompanied by suggestions that

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 76RJPA_A_1147976.indd 76 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

Minner: Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences 77

preservation activities encompass more than simply desig-nating landmarks and conserving them as artifacts. In fact, Mason (2006) identifi es two distinct approaches to preser-vation. One is based on preservation’s roots in “connoisseur-ship and craft approaches to conserving artwork” (Mason 2006, p. 25). A competing paradigm for preservation is “urbanistic” and “looks outward, seeking to connect historic preservation to the work of other fi elds and disciplines, such as planning, design, and education, in pursuit of solutions that address broader social goals” (Mason, 2006, p. 25). Recent trends in preservation literature and practice suggest a shift to the more urbanistic approach and offer important arguments for an “expanded conception of preservation that would address ecological, cultural, interpretive, social, political and moral concerns” (Hohmann 2008, p. 126).

Community Planning With Historic Assets

Central to preservation practice and its relationship to planning is the idea that historic buildings, landscapes, sites, and districts can be viewed as community assets. Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) use the term “asset-based community development” to contrast grassroots community economic development with early methods that focused on defi cits and problems. They encourage community economic develop-ment that builds from community assets, from the inventory of skills and knowledge among community members (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993) to the physical attributes of neighborhoods as assets (Green & Haines, 2012). This is similar to how Kapp, Armstrong, and Florida (2012) identify historic resources as a fundamental resource for the reinven-tion of the postindustrial city (Kapp et al., 2012) and urban revitalization (Ryberg-Webster & Kinahan, 2014). Richard Florida counts architecture among the cultural, built, and natural amenities that are territorial assets that enhance the quality of place, making them more attractive for the creative class (Florida, 2014). Historic resources can be catalysts for economic growth that enhance real estate values and quality of life, contribute to state and local economies, infl uence the location of businesses, and encourage heritage tourism (Allison & Peters; 2011; Carr & Servon, 2009; Facca & Aldrich, 2011; Mason, 2011; Phillips & Stein, 2013; Zahirovic-Herbert & Chatterjee, 2012).

The addition of historic resources to national, state, or local registers is often a primary vehicle for historic preserva-tion. However, historic resource inventories (also called “historic resource surveys” or “cultural resource surveys”) provide another tool for the identifi cation of historic resources that are community assets (Parker & U.S. Depart-

ment of the Interior, National Park Service, 1985). Examples of community-wide survey efforts include SurveyLA, a massive effort in Los Angeles (Bernstein & Hansen, this issue), and the creation and implementation of a participa-tory online tool in Austin to engage residents in identifying historic resources (Minner, Holleran, Roberts, & Conrad, 2015). The intent in both of these efforts is to include the public in the process of identifying historic assets, possibly widening the range of resources included in historic resource inventories, which are used to support local government decision making and long-range planning. Engaging the public in historic resource surveys provides an opportunity for interaction with preservation. Historical surveys are also a means for members of the public with deep knowledge of local history to contribute information to preservation planning. In essence, the historical resource survey provides an opportunity for public participatory mapping, an area of substantial practice in planning (Sieber, 2006; Talen, 2000) that has received limited attention in preservation ( Bertron, 2013b; Minner et al., 2015).

Much of the scholarship on historic assets and community economic development and revitalization is focused on urban contexts (Ryberg-Webster & Kinahan, 2014); however, historic resources also abound in small towns and suburban and rural communities (Murtagh, 2006; Pender, Marré, & Reeder, 2012). The ability to identify assets in the entire continuum of urban to rural settlements is a potentially powerful planning tool. In 1977, the National Trust for Historic Preservation created the National Main Street Center, which has implemented a community-based method of revitalizing the traditional centers in small towns across the country (Robertson, 2004). There has also been movement toward the survey of suburban resources as potential historic assets (Ames & McClelland, 2002).7 In addition, National Heritage Areas, such as the Erie Canal Heritage Corridor, bring together multiple jurisdictions, often rural and small-town jurisdic-tions, to protect and promote economic development and preservation of landscapes deemed nationally signifi cant. The contribution of preservation outside of inner cities and within suburban and rural communities is an underevalu-ated aspect of preservation and its relationship to planning (Avrami, this issue; Murtagh, 2006).

Three Scales of Intersection in Physical and Spatial Dimensions of Planning

In the movement from an emphasis on the conserva-tion of artifacts to an urbanistic and community-based movement, preservation increasingly looks beyond the

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 77RJPA_A_1147976.indd 77 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

78 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2016, Vol. 82, No. 2

technical and material aspects of the built environment to the social and economic (Mason, 2006). Preservation’s evolution has parallels to the bifurcation of “design- oriented physical planning and policy-oriented socioeco-nomic planning” (Gleye, 2015, p. 3). A communicative turn in planning recognizes the socially constructed nature of knowledge and the need for communication and collab-orative process rather than merely applying technical solutions to problems (Healey, 2012; Innes & Booher, 2010). Even so, planning and design movements from the 1980s and 1990s, such as new urbanism and smart growth, have called for a return to the physical form and design of communities (Hack, 2012). Planning is not simply return-ing to earlier practices focused on physical design; atten-tion to the social and economic conditions of communities remain central to planning theory and practice.

In this section, I briefl y discuss areas of intersection between preservation and the physical and spatial aspects of planning. The three scales of intersection include 1) land use and comprehensive planning at the scale of region and community; 2) urban design situated at the scale of neigh-borhoods, districts, and streetscapes; and 3) the smallest physical unit where preservation and planning comingle, at the scale of the building.

In the fi rst area of intersection—land use planning at the scale of region and community—preservation and planning exhibit both areas of substantial policy agreement and friction. Smart growth has become a dominant move-ment within planning (Ingram, Carbonell, Hong, & Flint, 2009; Porter, 2008; Randolph, 2012; Ye, Mandpe, & Meyer, 2005); the APA (2012) issued offi cial policy guid-ance that accepts smart growth as a fundamental concept for planning. The National Trust for Historic Preservation also actively endorses and promotes smart growth because it supports reinvestment in downtowns and other devel-oped areas, curbs sprawl, and preserves farmland and open space (Benfi eld, 2010; Tomlan, 2015). Hon (2009) and Jacobs (1958, 1961) point to the value of older buildings that enhance downtowns and commercial districts with architectural qualities and diversity associated with places that have evolved over time. The retention of older and historic buildings with vibrant businesses may attract desired infi ll and make new, higher-density development more palatable (Hon, 2009).

The relationship between policies that encourage compact development and historic preservation also exhibits signifi cant tensions. Planning policies that require or encourage denser development often use upzoning, which involves modifying zoning regulations to increase allowable density in new construction. Upzoning can encourage demolition and new construction rather than

continued use and retrofi tting of existing buildings (Cha-lana, this issue; Frey, 2008; Hon, 2009). Rents in older commercial buildings may be cheaper and more adaptable for smaller businesses (S. Brand, 1994, Jacobs, 1961; Powe et al., this issue), and redevelopment pressure can threaten affordability. Smart growth policies may also encourage replacement of older residential buildings that have long provided affordable housing to low-income and minority communities (Mueller, 2010; Tretter, 2013).

School siting policy is an area of considerable policy agreement between preservation and planning. Both the National Trust for Historic Preservation (Beaumont & Pianca, 2002; Kuhlman, 2010) and the U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency (2011) have argued against school district policies that mandate or encourage large facilities, which are then built on the suburban fringe. The National Trust for Historic Preservation encourages the preservation of smaller, older school facilities to preserve walkable central city neighborhoods. Several planning articles have focused on the importance of school siting, noting that it is an area of convergence between smart growth, transporta-tion, and historic preservation policies (Ewing & Green, 2003; Gurwitt, 2004; MacDonald, 2010). Yu (2015) adds to these critiques with research on safety consideration: Child pedestrian fatalities are much higher when schools are sited on major arterials and highways, and are lower along street segments that have lower speeds and connected sidewalks. There is growing support for traditional means of siting schools within walkable areas, as well as the main-tenance of existing neighborhood schools.

In contrast to this level of consensus, rightsizing initia-tives have created friction between preservation and urban policymakers in communities that are losing population (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2014; Bertron, 2013a; Bertron & Rypkema, 2012; Mallach, 2011). Right-sizing is “the process through which legacy cities address signifi cant physical and social changes to undergo a reduc-tion to an optimal size” (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2014). A survey of local governments on rightsizing initiatives points to a lack of integration between preservation and planning, despite a considerable inventory of historic resources within many communities (Bertron & Rypkema, 2012; Markowicz, 2013). The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency that advises the President and Congress on historic preser-vation policy, has organized a Rightsizing Task Force and has called for assistance from the APA, among other organi-zations and agencies, to produce preservation planning toolkits. Within the context of vacant and abandoned buildings, planning support systems and spatial analysis methods may aid in identifying either areas where there is

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 78RJPA_A_1147976.indd 78 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

Minner: Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences 79

risk of abandonment (Hillier, Smith, Culhane, & Tomlin, 2003) or areas that may be ripe for surveys of historic resources (Bertron & Mason, 2012).

In a second area of intersection, urban design and preservation share common ground as areas of expertise within planning. Preservation has expanded from a focus on individual landmarks to historic districts and cultural landscapes, bringing it closer to a form of urban design that shapes scale, massing, and architectural features at the scales of neighborhood and district. Within the APA, the two professions are grouped together in the Urban Design and Preservation Division (Gleye, 2015).

Seemingly embraced by many planning practitioners, new urbanism has been a dominant voice in planning and urban design (Birch, 2011). The Congress of New Urbanism’s charter asserts that “preservation and renewal of historic buildings, districts, and landscapes affi rm the continuity and evolution of urban society” (Congress of New Urbanism, 2015). In fact, the appreciation for early-20th century urban fabric inspired new urbanism and transit-oriented development (Fishman, 2012). New urbanist designs and plans often calibrate new infi ll so that it is compatible with existing historic architecture and urban fabric (Anderson, 2008).

New urbanism is not the only form of design that has synergistic properties with preservation, suggesting additional intersections between preservation and design movements relevant to planning. Everyday urbanism (Chase, Crawford, & Kaliski, 2008) emphasizes design tactics based on an appreciation for existing urban fabric as an asset. This form of design seems quite complementary to scholarship in urban history and preservation that embraces the historical signifi cance of “vernacular” land-scapes (see, for example, research in the journal Buildings & Landscapes). Tactical urbanism (Lydon, 2011), which encourages both sanctioned and unsanctioned temporary activities to enliven underused or forgotten public spaces, can be compatible with and include forms of preservation. These design movements share an ethic with preservation-ists that celebrates and encourages discovery of places.8 This is a legacy in design that can be traced to Kevin Lynch (1972), who encourages designing with cities as “temporal collage” and to incorporate everyday landmarks that infl u-ence people’s cognitive maps of urban space into design and planning (Lynch, 1960).

The role of local historic preservation commissions in reviewing building alterations and additions and infi ll in historic districts provides another point of interaction both at the scale of urban design and that of the individual building or site. Standards for local historic districts often have requirements for new construction to be compatible

with the scale and massing of historic buildings (Cox, 2002). These constraints on design have been critiqued for limiting the creativity and expression of contemporary architecture (Baer, 1998; Ouroussoff, 2011). In contrast, Semes (2009) argues that the U.S. Secretary of the Inte-rior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, federal standards often used to inform local historic preservation and design review processes, are too strict in enforcing architecture that is contemporary in style. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards call for new additions to historic buildings to be “compatible, but differentiated” (Grimmer & Weeks, 2015). Semes (2009) argues for a new traditional approach in which contemporary architects work with traditional design methods and styles when working with historic fabric. Both of these viewpoints critique the design out-comes of current preservation regulations, with one end of the spectrum calling for additional artistic license and change while the other calls for fl exibility to design new buildings that look old. I believe offi cials on planning commissions and local historic preservation boards are likely to fi nd these design disputes familiar problems in the design review process for both new buildings in historic districts and alterations to historic landmarks.

At the scale of the building and in the aggregation of individual buildings, or building stock, collaboration between preservationists, planners, and other allied fi elds such as architecture and civil engineering can help to deepen planning knowledge of buildings and inform sustainability efforts (Stein, 2010). Interdisciplinary col-laboration can take the form of environmental accounting studies that quantify the materials, energy, and waste associated with construction, operations, maintenance, and demolition (Kohler & Hassler, 2002; Preservation Green Lab, 2011). Scholars can undertake additional studies to understand the potential for retrofi tting to reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions (Bullen & Love, 2011; Moffatt & Kohler, 2008).9 There may be new creative opportunities to build on preservationists’ knowledge of historic building types and construction methods to design new buildings that are more climatically responsive.

In scaling from individual buildings to broader consid-erations of the building stock, there is a risk that data will be divorced from the spatial and contextual aspects of the built environment (Moffat & Kohler, 2008). Preservation and planning can benefi t from expanding tools of both spatial analysis and participatory mapping, and by support-ing deliberative communication and joint fact-fi nding to draw on local knowledge that can help to understand and shape actions of the many private, public, and nonprofi t actors involved in the continued and adaptive use of the built environment.

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 79RJPA_A_1147976.indd 79 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

80 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2016, Vol. 82, No. 2

As communities plan for a future challenged by cli-mate change, preservation and planning must grapple with climate mitigation and adaptation at each of the aforemen-tioned scales, from the policies and land use at the scale of region and community, to design in downtown districts and neighborhoods, to the design and performance of individual buildings and building stock. The challenge of sustaining urban communities will take interdisciplinary expertise and collaboration at every scale of the built envi-ronment, as well as a deep knowledge of the communities in which both professions work.

Equity Planning and Preservation

Any discussion of the creation and stewardship of sustainable communities would be incomplete without discussion of equity. Equity has become central to planning discourse since Norm Krumholz’s groundbreaking work in Cleveland (Cleveland City Planning Commission, 1975; Krumholz, 1982; Krumholz & Forester, 1990). One of the most widely cited articles in planning literature focuses on the triumvirate “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities,” in which “equity” is one of the three Es of sustainability (Campbell, 1996). Equity has received considerable atten-tion in recent planning scholarship (Brand, 2015; Brenman & Sanchez, 2012; Doussard, 2015; Linovski & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2013; Metzger, 1996; Zapata & Bates, 2015). This attention includes critiques that equity is the missing dimension in many sustainability plans (Saha & Paterson, 2008; Schrock, Bassett, & Green, 2014) and calls to elevate equity relative to economy and environment (Agyeman, 2013).

The focus on equity, its application to the provision of local government services (Lucy, 1981), and its emphasis in socially just planning (Fainstein, 2010) is one of the most signifi cant developments within planning theory and practice. Further, the concept of equity has direct relevance to preservation scholarship and practice. Yet in my review, I could not fi nd a commensurate body of preservation literature on equity. This leads to the question of what might constitute an equity preservation agenda.

Inclusion would be an important element of equity preservation. Preservation has been moving toward greater inclusion and a growing diversity in the kinds of historic resources deemed historically signifi cant (Tomlan, 1998). There have been local, state, and federal efforts to survey historic resources associated with ethnic and cultural groups that seek to better represent groups underrepre-sented in preservation efforts (Donofrio, 2012; Kaufman, 2009; T. Lee, 2012). The widening of preservation’s sphere

of engagement to focus on underserved and excluded groups is an important step that implies the potential for greater equity in terms of whose histories are emphasized in preservation. Participatory survey efforts such as SurveyLA (Bernstein & Hansen, this issue) also suggest that preserva-tion is moving toward the inclusion of more voices in the identifi cation of historic resources. There should be system-atic evaluation of these efforts toward representation, inclusion, and public participation.

A case study of preservation in San Diego (CA; Saito, 2009) shows that some groups receive fewer benefi ts from preservation efforts than more advantaged stakeholders. This suggests the need to understand who benefi ts from preservation. Are low-income and underserved populations benefi ting from access to historic landmarks and to en-hanced public spaces? These are questions worthy of more attention.

An equity preservation agenda would focus not only on improving access to preservation, but attending to the distribution of its costs and benefi ts. Fainstein (2010) argues that planning must assess the distribution of costs and benefi ts of planning projects, avoiding urban develop-ment whose impacts are unevenly distributed. Schweitzer and Valenzuela (2004) write of equity in transportation as related to “distributive justice: who gets what, when, and, to some degree, how” (p. 384). They describe perceptions of injustice as “arising from the imbalance of benefi ts and costs received for either individuals or groups” (Schweitzer & Valenzuela, 2014, p. 384). Their framework for evaluat-ing transportation equity could be applied to preservation to assess the impacts of preservation activities, positive and negative.10 Rising costs associated with housing and dis-placement are potential risks of preservation activity for low-income communities (Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998; Smith, 1998). However, preservation may also yield benefi ts such as the provision of affordable housing, in-creased quality of life, and benefi ts to affordability through tax abatements or the slowing of rising costs associated with new construction (Listokin et al., 2006). There ap-pears to be little research that systematically assesses the distribution of risks and benefi ts of preservation.

Addressing equity issues may require preservation to continue to expand beyond traditional concepts and boundaries related to historic signifi cance and to recon-nect concerns for the historic city to the broader commu-nity (Bandarin & van Oers, 2014; van Oers & Roders, 2012). Equity preservation can build from current prac-tices that benefi t low-income and minority communities. For example, preservation incentives can act as a bridge in areas where the new construction of affordable housing is otherwise economically infeasible (Ceraso, 1999; Listokin

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 80RJPA_A_1147976.indd 80 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

Minner: Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences 81

et al., 2006; Ryberg-Webster, 2013b; Rypkema, 2002; Tomlan 2015; Wood, 2014) and where residents would be well served by transit and amenities (Appler, 2015).11 Retrofi tting multifamily apartments has the potential to offer greater benefi ts to existing residents at lower cost than new development (Mueller, 2010; Mueller & Stiph-any, 2012). Several articles in this special issue (Andrews et al.; Powe et al.) encourage collaboration between preser-vation and planning to protect existing building stock, which is substantially beyond the scope of most preserva-tion activities. Ordinary commercial building stock often incubates small businesses that are owned by—and that serve—immigrants, ethnic and racial minorities, and low-income populations (Davis, 1997; Linovski, 2012; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2000, 2002). Preservation has the potential to offer insights into the adaptive and continued reuse of ordinary building stock. Preservationists could expand the successful Main Streets program and strategies to other areas and types of building stock. Continuing to broaden preservation’s scope of work in this manner will require new partnerships, dialogue, and leadership toward equitable distribution of efforts and outcomes for historic preservation.

Preservation and Planning: Toward Pooling Respective Strengths

In this literature review, I examine the evolution of historic preservation and planning from the fragile, uneasy alliance of the 1980s to recent movements that have transformed both professions. I fi nd substantial areas of convergence and opportunity. Preservation provides useful methods of identifying historic and cultural assets, which is useful for long-range planning and community and economic development efforts. The potential for historic preservation to contribute to urban revitalization is central to the existing literature; however, the role of preservation in the context of rural and suburban communities is un-derstudied. In addition, the potential for participatory methods of surveying and mapping historical assets re-mains largely in its infancy within many communities.

The physical and spatial aspects of planning share signifi cant overlaps at multiple scales: that of land use planning at the scale of the region and community; urban design at the scale of district, streetscape, and block in urban design; and at the scale of individual buildings and aggregated as building stock. At each scale, there is both synergy and potential; there is also tension and friction. In comprehensive land use planning, there remain areas of agreement and opportunity as well as

largely underexamined tensions with regard to smart growth. Planning and preservation show remarkable policy agreement in the siting of schools. Rightsizing remains an area of friction over policies that encourage demolition and overlook the role historic preservation can perform in communities that are losing population. At the scale of urban design, there is much complemen-tarity between preservation and design movements, although there is sparse literature in this area. With regard to the scale of buildings and building stock, there is much that interdisciplinary collaboration between preservation and planning could gain in the interest of sustainable communities.

In a third section, I apply a legacy of equity planning to preservation. I believe pursuit of an equity preservation agenda would transform the fi eld and has the potential to provide profound contributions to the development of sustainable and equitable communities. An equity agenda could build from the widening of the preservationists’ sphere of infl uence and evaluations of the distribution of access to preservation and its risks and benefi ts for low-income and minority populations. Armed with an equity agenda, preservation could more powerfully assist planning in ameliorating inequities while stewarding the historic and cultural assets upon which our communities are built.

AcknowledgmentsI am deeply thankful for the advice and assistance of Jeffrey Chusid, Michael Manville, Michael Holleran, and four anonymous reviewers for their invaluable contributions to the development of this article. I would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor for the opportu-nity to contribute to the dialogue on preservation and planning and for their role in elevating preservation-related research.

Notes1. Birch and Roby (1984) note that the third edition of the Urban Land Use Planning, considered a defi nitive text of land use planning, did not mention historic preservation. By the fi fth edition of Urban Land Use Planning (Berke, Godschalk, Kaiser, & Rodriguez, 2006), there were still sparse, but multiple references to historic preservation. While Birch and Roby report that historic preservation joined the ranks of APA divisions, only to be suspended in 1982 for “nonperformance” (p. 194); now urban design and preservation are again united under the banner of one APA division. 2. Other important federal legislation related to historic preservation includes, but is not limited to, the Transportation Act of 1966’s 4(f ) rule and the Federal Environmental Protection Act, which provide processes of review aimed at mitigating potential adverse impacts to historic resources resulting from federally funded projects.3. Local governments that have committed to historic preservation can become Certifi ed Local Governments (CLGs). CLGs are offi cially recognized by a SHPO. Once recognized, CLGs must appoint a local historic preservation commission, maintain an inventory of historic resources, and facilitate public participation in preservation (U.S.

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 81RJPA_A_1147976.indd 81 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

82 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2016, Vol. 82, No. 2

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, n.d.). There were approximately 1,900 CLGs as of 2015 (Asbrock, 2015; National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offi cers, n.d.).4. A case study from Providence (RI) illustrates change in both theories of what to preserve and in response to gentrifi cation (Greenfi eld, 2004). In the 1960s, preservationists identifi ed single-family houses in the College Hill neighborhood for preservation and supported the urban renewal tactic of “spot clearance” of commercial, institutional, and multifamily buildings to stabilize the neighborhood. These tactics were successful in raising property values and drawing White, middle-class residents to a predominantly African-American neighborhood. Alarmed by the growing displacement of African-American residents, some preservation advocates aligned with affordable housing interests in the 1970s and 1980s and fought for preservation of multifamily homes on the grounds of historic signifi cance. Commenting on the activity of preservationists in the 1990s on issues of “land use, the well-being of cities, social diversity, and the construction of an inclusive history,” Greenfi eld (2004) provocatively asks: “Will preservationists be able to combine their socially responsible goals with economic growth, or will they, like their nineteenth-century predecessors, fi nd themselves locked in a battle against the market?” (p. 129).5. This included the case of Larimer Square in Denver (CO), where entrepreneurialism spurred the construction of a Wild West heritage and combination of urban renewal and preservation to spur tourism (Morley, 2004). 6. The 50-year threshold comes from the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. For a property to be deemed eligible as a historic property, it must be at least 50 years old, unless it meets criteria for exceptional signifi cance. Many local governments have also adopted this 50-year threshold in local preservation ordinances.7. Some local governments have conducted historical surveys and designated historic districts that are associated with suburban develop-ment. For example, the City of Olympia (WA) Historic Preservation Offi ce discusses suburban landscape features such as curvilinear streets and architectural forms such as ranch and split-level homes (City of Olympia Heritage Commission, 2008). 8. See for instance, Jason Roberts’s (2012) Ted talk, “How to Build a Better Block.”9. Methods used to study the lifespan and adaptability of building stock range from assessments of building performance and potential for energy retrofi ts by building typology, to life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost models, to material fl ow analysis (MFA). LCA techniques provide a method of quantifying environmental impacts of buildings and provide support in decisions about reinvestment or demolition and redevelopment. An LCA analysis was central to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s recent report comparing renovation of existing building stock with new construction (Preservation Green Lab, 2011). Material fl ow accounting is another method used in industrial ecology to understand the fl ow of materials between natural systems and the economy (Mingming, 2010). MFA and LCA are related to other systems of environmental accounting, such as calculations of embodied energy and carbon, or ecological, footprint. However, this literature appears to remain largely marginal in planning research and has only recently been incorporated into preservation research efforts. These accounting systems can easily be critiqued for what remains outside the models. LCA does not presently incorporate social equity concerns, and it would be diffi cult to include all of the social and political considera-tions that go into the decision of adapting existing buildings versus new construction, such as the value of retaining an existing stock of afford-able housing or the contributions of building stock to the character and

quality of urban fabric. In addition, the LCA process is information intensive, requiring detailed information about building components, and subject to error when particular materials or assemblies differ from assumptions.10. Similarly, Lake (2015) argues for the centrality of justice not only as a primary objective in urban planning, but as the primary process or subject of planning. Although justice is distinct from the concept of equity, his central thesis relates to recent attention to equity in planning. 11. Affordable housing projects in historic buildings often use the Rehabilitation Tax Credit (Ryberg-Webster, 2013a), among other federal, state, and local forms of aid that are applied in conjunction with affordable housing incentives such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and New Markets Tax Credit (Tomlan, 2015). With regard to means of increasing housing supply, Manville (2013) and Bullen and Love (2009) describe how Los Angeles’ (CA) 1999 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, which implemented exemptions from minimum parking requirements and fl exibility in changes of use, resulted in increased housing supply and decreased vacancies among downtown commercial and industrial buildings.

ReferencesAbbott, C. (1993). Five downtown strategies: Policy discourse and downtown planning since 1945. Journal of Policy History 5(1), 5–27. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (2014). Managing change: Preservation and rightsizing in America. Retrieved from http://www.achp.gov/RightsizingReport.pdfAgyeman, J. (2013). Introducing just sustainabilities: Policy, planning, and practice. London, UK: Zed Books.Alanen, A., & Melnick, R. (2000) Preserving cultural landscapes in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Allison, E. W., & Peters, L. (2011). Historic preservation and the livable city. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Ames, D., & McClelland, L. (2002). Historic residential suburbs: Guidelines for evaluation and documentation for the National Register of Historic Places. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.American Planning Association. (2012). Policy guide on smart growth. Retrieved from https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/smartgrowth.htmAnderson, C. (2008). The “new urbanism” in Montgomery. Alabama Heritage, 88, 7–8. Andrews, C. J., Hattis, D., Listokin, D., Senick, J. A., Sherman, G. B., & Souder, J. (this issue). Energy-effi cient reuse of existing commercial buildings. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2).Appler, D. (2015). Affordable housing in National Register districts: Recognizing the advantages of historic urban neighborhoods in Louis-ville and Covington, Kentucky, USA. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17549175.2015.1056209 Appler, D., & Rumbach, A. (this issue). Building community resilience through historic preservation. Journal of the American Planning Associa-tion, 82(2).Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225Asbrock, A. K. (2015). Evaluating the certifi ed local government program: Assessing the role of the National Park Service in local government preserva-tion (Unpublished master’s thesis). Savannah College of Art and Design, Savannah, GA.Australia ICOMOS. (2000). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of social signifi cance. Retrieved from http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 82RJPA_A_1147976.indd 82 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

Minner: Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences 83

Avrami, E. (this issue). Making historic preservation sustainable. Journal of the American Planning Association, Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2).Baer, W. C. (1995). When old buildings ripen for historic preservation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(1), 82–94. doi:10.1080/01944369508975621Baer, W. C. (1998). The impact of “historical signifi cance” on the future. In M. A. Tomlan (Ed.), Preservation of what, for whom? A critical look at historical signifi cance (p. 73–84). Ithaca, NY: The National Council for Preservation Education.Bandarin, F., & van Oers, R. (Eds). (2014). Reconnecting the city: The historic urban landscape approach and the future of urban heritage. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Beaumont, C. E., & Pianca, E. G. (2002). Historic neighborhood schools in the age of sprawl: Why Johnny can’t walk to school. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.Benfi eld, K. (2010, June 8). Guest post: Dick Moe’s legacy for history, community, and sustainability. Smart Growth America. Retrieved from http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/2010/06/08/guest-post-dick-moes-legacy-for-history-community-and-sustainability/ Berke, P. R., Godschalk, D. R. Kaiser, E. J., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2006). Urban land use planning (5th ed.). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Bernstein, K., & Hansen, J. (this issue). SurveyLA: Linking historic resources surveys to local planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2).Bertron, C. (2013a). Rightsizing right. Forum Journal 27(4), 23–33. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.eduBertron, C. (2013b). Survey forth! Innovative survey methodolo-gies. Forum Journal, 27(4), 34–35. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.eduBertron, C., & Mason, R. (2012). Character study project: Developing a new type of historic resource survey. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania School of Design. Retrieved from https://www.design.upenn.edu/sites/default/fi les/Character_Study_Project.pdfBertron, C., & Rypkema, D. (2012). Historic preservation and rightsiz-ing: Current practices and resources survey. Washington, DC: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.Birnbaum, C. A., & National Park Service. (1994). Protecting cultural landscapes: planning, treatment and management of historic landscapes. Preservation Briefs, 36. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/36-cultural-landscapes.htmBirch, E. L. (2002). Having a longer view on downtown living. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), 5–21. doi:10.1080/01944360208977188.Birch, E. L. (2011). From CIAM to CNU: The roots and thinkers of modern urban design. In T. Banerjee & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), Companion to urban design (pp. 9–27). London, UK: Routledge.Birch, E. L., & Roby, D. (1984). The planner and the preservationist: An uneasy alliance. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(2), 194–207. doi:10.1080/01944368408977175Bowen, T. S. (2007). Aging moderns still prove controversial. Architec-tural Record, 195(6), 9.Brand, A. (2015). The politics of defi ning and building equity in the twenty-fi rst century. Journal Planning Education and Research, 35(3), 249–264. doi:10.1177/0739456X15585001Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Brenman, M., & Sanchez, T. W. (2012). Planning as if people matter: Governing for social equity. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Buckley, J. M., & Graves, D. (this issue). Tangible benefi ts from intangible resources: Using social and cultural history to plan neighbor-hood futures. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2).Bullen, P. A., & Love, P. E. D. (2009). Residential regeneration and adaptive reuse: Learning from the experiences of Los Angeles. Structural Survey, 27(5), 351–360. doi:10.1108/02630800911002611Bullen, P. A., & Love, P. E. D. (2011). A new future for the past: A model for adaptive reuse decision-making. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 1(1), 32–44. doi:10.1108/20441241111143768Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312. doi:10.1080/01944369608975696Carr, J. H., & Servon, L. J. (2009). Vernacular culture and urban economic development: Thinking outside the (big) box. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1), 28–40. doi:10.1080/01944360802539226Carroon, J. (2010). Sustainable preservation: Greening existing buildings. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Ceraso, K. (1999). Eyesore to community asset: Historic preservation creates affordable housing and livable neighborhoods. Shelterforce Magazine, 106. Retrieved from http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/106/ceraso.htmlChalana, M. (this issue). Planning for preservation in Seattle’s Pike/Pine Neighborhood Conservation District. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2).Chase, J., Crawford, M., & Kaliski, J. (Eds). (2008). Everyday urbanism (expanded ed.). New York, NY: Monacelli Press.Chusid, J. (2006). Preservation in the progressive city: Debating history and gentrifi cation in Austin. Next American City, 12, 23–27. Retrieved from http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=242872Chusid, J. (2010). Natural allies: Historic preservation and sustainable design. In S. Moore (Ed.), Pragmatic sustainability: Theoretical and practical tools (pp. 170–186). New York, NY: Routledge.City Lore and Municipal Art Society. (n.d.). Census of places that matter. Place Matters. Retrieved from http://www.placematters.net/City of Olympia Heritage Commission. (2008). Mid-twentieth century Olympia: A context statement on local history and modern architecture, 1945–1975. Olympia, WA: City of Olympia.Clark, C., Williams, P. S., Legg, M., & Darville, R. (2011). Visitor responses to interpretation at historic Kingsley Plantation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 16(2), 23–33. Retrieved from http://www.interpnet.com/nai/docs/Publications/JIR-v16n2.pdfClavel, P. (1986). The progressive city: Planning and participation 1969–1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Cleveland City Planning Commission. (1975). Cleveland policy planning report. Cleveland, OH: City Planning Commission. Retrieved from https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/40857Cohen, J. (1998). Combining historic preservation and income class integration: A case study of the Butcher’s Hill neighborhood of Baltimore. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3), 663–697. doi:10.1080/10511482.1998.9521311Congress of New Urbanism (2015). The charter. Retrieved from http://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/charter-new-urbanism Cosgrove, D. (2006). Modernity, community and the landscape idea. Journal of Material Culture, 11(1–2), 49–66. doi:10.1177/1359183506062992 Costonis, J. (1989). Icons and aliens: Law, policy and environmental change. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Coulson, N. E., & Leichenko, R. M. (2004). Historic preservation and neighbourhood change. Urban Studies, 41(8), 1587–1600. doi:10.1080/0042098042000227028

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 83RJPA_A_1147976.indd 83 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

84 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2016, Vol. 82, No. 2

Cox, R. (2002). Design review in historic districts. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the Ameri-can Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338. doi:10.1080/01944366508978187Davis, T. (1997). The Miracle Mile revisited: Recycling, renovation, and simulation along the commercial strip. In A. Adams & S. McMurry (Eds.), Exploring everyday landscapes: Perspectives in vernacular architecture VII (pp. 93–114). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. doi:10.2307/3514387. Donofrio, G. (2012). Preservation by adaptation: Is it sustainable? Change Over Time, 2(2), 106–131. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cot/summary/v002/2.2.donofrio.htmlDoussard, M. (2015). Equity planning outside city hall: Rescaling advocacy to confront the sources of urban problems. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(3), 296–306. doi:10.1177/0739456X15580021Dubrow, G. L. (1998). Feminist and multicultural perspectives on preservation planning. In L. Sandercock (Ed.), Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history (pp. 57–77). Berkeley: University of California Press.Dubrow, G. L., & Goodman, J. B. (2003). Restoring women’s history through historic preservation. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Elefante, C. (2012). The greenest building is…one that is already built. Forum Journal, 27(1), 62–72. Ewing, R., & Greene, W. (2003). Travel and environmental implications of school siting. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from http://atfi les.org/fi les/pdf/SchoolSitingTravelEPA.pdfFacca, A. E., & Aldrich, J. W. (2011). Putting the past to work for the future. The Public Historian, 33(3), 38–57. doi:10.1525/tph.2011.33.3.38Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Fainstein, S., & Campbell, S. (2012). Readings in planning theory (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Fein, D. (1985). Historic districts: Preserving city neighborhoods for the privileged. New York University Law Review, 60(1), 64–103.Fishman, R. (2011). Urban utopias in the twentieth century. In S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory, third edition (pp. 27–57). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Fishman, R. (2012). New urbanism. In B. Sanyal, L. Vale, & C. Rosan (Eds.), Planning ideas that matter: Livability, territoriality, governance, and refl ective practice (pp. 65–90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Florida, R. (2014). The creative class and economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 28(3), 196–205.Forester, J. (1982) Planning in the face of power. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(1), 67–80. doi:10.1080/01944368208976167Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Frey, P. (2008). Building reuse: Finding a place on American climate policy agendas. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Retrieved from http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/additional-resources/buillding_reuse.pdfGale, D. E. (1991). The impacts of historic district designation planning and policy implications. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(3), 325–340. doi:10.1080/01944369108975503Gilderbloom, J. I., Hanka, M. J., & Ambrosius, J. D. (2009). Historic preservation’s impact on job creation, property values, and environmental sustainability. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 2(2), 83–101. doi:10.1080/17549170903056821Glaeser, E. L. (2011). Triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Gleye, P. (2015). City Planning versus urban planning: Resolving a profession’s bifurcated heritage. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(1), 3–17. doi:10.1177/0885412214554088Goldberger, P. (2008). The modernist manifesto: Why buildings from our recent past are in peril, and why saving them is so crucial. Preservation, 60, 30–35.Godschalk, D. R., & Anderson, W. R. (2012). Sustaining places: The role of the comprehensive plan (PAS 567). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service.Godschalk, D. R., & Rouse, D. C. (2015). Sustaining places: Best practices for comprehensive plans (PAS 578). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service.Green, G. P., & Haines, A. L. (2012). Asset building and community development (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Greenfi eld, B. (2004). Marketing the past: Historic preservation in Providence, Rhode Island. In M. Page & R. Mason (Eds.), Giving preservation a history: Histories of historic preservation in the United States (pp. 163–184). New York, NY: Routledge.Grimmer, A. E., & Weeks, K. D. (2015). New exterior additions to historic buildings: Preservation concerns. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior-additions.htmGurwitt, R. (2004). Edge-ucation: What compels communities to build schools in the middle of nowhere? Governing. Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/topics/education/Edge-Ucation.htmlHack, G. (2012). Shaping urban form. In B. Sanyal, L. J. Vale, & C. D. Rosen (Eds.), Planning ideas that matter: Livability, territoriality, govern-ance, and refl ective practice (pp. 33–63). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Hayden, D. (1995). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Healey, P. (2012). Traditions in planning thought. In S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (3rd., pp. 214–233). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hillier, A., Smith, T. E., Culhane, D. P., & Tomlin, C. D. (2003) Predicting housing abandonment with the Philadelphia neighborhood information system. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(1), 91–106. doi:10.1111/1467-9906.00007Hodder, R. (1996). Savannah’s changing past: Historic preservation planning and the social construction of a historic landscape, 1955 to 1985. In M. C. Sies & C. Silver (Eds.), Planning the twentieth-century American city (pp. 361–382). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Hohmann, H. (2008). Mediating ecology and history: Rehabilitation of vegetation in Oklahoma’s Platt historic district. In R. Longstreth (Ed.), Cultural landscapes: Balancing nature and heritage in preservation practice (pp. 109–128). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Holleran, M. (1998). Boston’s “changeful times”: Origins of preservation & planning in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Hon, L. D. (2009). Why urban density needs preservation to succeed. AIA Seattle Forum, 2(2), 16–17.Howe, B. J., & Goodman, J. B. (2003). Restoring women’s history through historic preservation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Hurley, A. (2010). Beyond preservation: Using public history to revitalize inner cities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Independent Television Service. (2003). Flag wars. New York, NY: Zula Pearl Films. Ingram, G. K., Carbonell, A., Hong, Y., & Flint, A. (2009). Smart growth policies: An evaluation of programs and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Innes, E., & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduc-tion to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 84RJPA_A_1147976.indd 84 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

Minner: Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences 85

Jackson, M. (2005). Embodied energy and historic preservation: A needed reassessment. APT Bulletin, 36(4), 47–52. Jacobs, J. (1958). Downtown is for the people. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2011/09/18/downtown-is-for-people-for-tune-classic-1958/Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and the life of great American cities. New York, NY: Random House. Kapp, P. H., Armstrong, P. J., & Florida, R. (2012). SynergiCity: Reinventing the postindustrial city. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Kaufman, N. (1996). History happened here: A plan for saving New York City's historically and culturally signifi cant sites. New York, NY: Municipal Art Society of New York Committee on Historical and Cultural Land-marks.Kaufman, N. (2009). Place, race, and story: Essays on the past and future of historic preservation. New York, NY: Routledge.Kohler, N., & Hassler, U. (2002). The building stock as a research object. Building Research & Information, 30(4), 226–236. doi:10.1080/09613210110102238Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward fi nding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications.Krumholz, N. (1982). A retrospective view of equity planning: Cleveland 1969–1979. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 163–174. doi:10.1080/01944368208976535Krumholz, N., & Forester, J. (1990). Making equity planning work: Leadership in the public sector. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Kuhlman, R. (2010). Helping Johnny walk to school: Policy recom-mendations for removing barriers to community-centered schools. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.Lake, R. (2015). Justice as subject and object of planning (Guest lecture in the City and Regional Futures Colloquium). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Lee, A. (2004) From historic architecture to cultural heritage: A journey through diversity, identity and community. Future Anterior, 1(2), 15–23.Lee, T. (2012). Cultural diversity in historic preservation: Where we have been, where we are going. Forum Journal, 27(1), 20–34. Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (Eds.). (2010). The gentrifi cation reader. New York, NY: Routledge. Linovski, O. (2012). Beyond aesthetics: Assessing the value of strip malls in Toronto. Journal of Urban Design, 17(1), 81–99. doi:10.1080/13574809.2011.646247Linovski, O., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2013). Evolution of urban design plans in the United States and Canada: What do the plans tell us about urban design practice? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(1), 66–82. doi:10.1177/0739456X12454174Listokin, D., Crossney, K., Cander, A., McManus, T., Camp, M., Downs, D.,…Bloustein, E. J. (2006). Best practices for effecting the rehabilitation of affordable housing. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC. Listokin, D., Listokin, B., & Lahr, M. (1998). The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3), 431–478. doi:10.1080/10511482.1998.9521303Longstreth, R. (2000). Critique: What to save? Midcentury modernism at risk. Architectural Record, 188, 59–61. Longstreth, R. (Ed.). (2008). Cultural landscapes: Balancing nature and culture in preservation practice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Longstreth, R. (2012). I can’t see it; I don’t understand it; and it doesn’t look old to me. Forum Journal, 27(1), 35-45.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2000). Revisiting inner-city strips: A framework for community and economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(2), 165–181. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2002). Regeneration of urban commercial strips: Ethnicity and space in three Los Angeles neighborhoods. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19(4), 334–350. Lowenthal, D. (2004). The heritage crusade and its contradictions. In M. Page & R. Mason (Eds.), Giving preservation a history: Histories of historic preservation In the United States (pp. 19–44). New York, NY: Routledge.Lucy, W. (1981). Equity and planning for local services. Journal of the American Planning Association, 47(4), 447–457. doi:10.1080/01944368108976526 Lydon, M. (2011). Tactical urbanism handbook, Vol. 1. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tactical_urbanism_vol.1 Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press.Lynch, K. (1972). What time is this place? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.MacDonald, N. (2010). School siting: Contested visions of the com-munity school. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 184–198. doi:10.1080/01944361003595991 Mallach, A. (2011). Demolition and preservation in shrinking U.S. industrial cities. Building Research & Information, 39(4), 380–394. doi:10.1080/09613218.2011.573743Manning Thomas, J. (2012). Social justice as responsible practice: Infl uence of race, ethnicity, and the civil rights era. In B. Sanyal, L. Vale, & C. Rosan (Eds.), Planning ideas that matter: Livability, territoriality, governance, and refl ective practice (pp. 359–379). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Manville, M. (2013). Parking requirements and housing development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 79(1), 49–66. doi:10.1080/01944363.2013.785346.Markowicz, M. A. (2013). Making the connections: Historic preserva-tion in Detroit’s rightsizing. Forum Journal, 27(4), 14–22. Mason, R. (2006). Theoretical and practical arguments for values-centered preservation. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, 3(2), 21–48. Retrieved from http://npshistory.com/newsletters/crm/journal-v3n2.pdf Mason, R. (2009). Once and future New York: Historic preservation and the modern city. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Mason, R. (2011). Economics and historic preservation: A guide and review of the literature. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/fi les/reports/2005/9/metropolitanpolicy-mason/20050926_preservation.pdf McCabe, B. J., & Ellen, I. G. (this issue). Does preservation accelerate neighborhood change? Examining the impact of historic preservation in New York City. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2).Metzger, J. T. (1996) The theory and practice of equity planning: An annotated bibliography. Journal of Planning Literature, 11(1), 112–126. doi:10.1177/088541229601100106Mingming, H. (2010). Dynamic material fl ow analysis for strategic construction and demolition waste management in Beijing. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(3), 440–456. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00245.xMinner, J. (2011). Enduring debates and multiple values in the contro-versial restoration of an early twentieth-century Texas landscape. Journal of Preservation Education and Research, 4, 39–52.Minner, J. (2013). Landscapes of thrift and choreographies of change: Reinvestment and adaptation along Austin’s commercial strips (Doctoral

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 85RJPA_A_1147976.indd 85 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

86 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2016, Vol. 82, No. 2

dissertation). UT Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2152/21045Minner, J., Holleran, M., Roberts, A., & Conrad, J. (2015) Capturing volunteered historical information: Lessons from development of a local government crowdsourcing tool. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 4(1), 19–41. doi:10.4018/ijepr.2015010102 Moffatt, S., & Kohler, N. (2008). Conceptualizing the built environ-ment as a social-ecological system. Building Research & Information, 36(3), 248–268. doi:10.1080/09613210801928131Morley, J. M. (2004). Making history: Historic preservation and civic identity in Denver. In M. Page & R. Mason (Eds.), Giving preservation a history: Histories of historic preservation in the United States (pp. 283–312). New York, NY: Routledge.Mueller, E. (2010). Old apartments and new plans: Reconciling planning and housing goals in two Texas cities. Community Development, 41(1), 121–140. Mueller, E., & Stiphany, K. (2012). Creative inclusive corridors: Austin’s Airport Boulevard (Class report). Austin: University of Texas, Austin.Murtagh, W. (2006). Keeping time: The history and theory of historic preservation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offi cers. (n.d.). The Historic Preservation Fund: Why full funding matters in your neighborhood! Retrieved from http://www.ncshpo.org/historicpreservationfundpage2.shtml Ouroussoff, N. (2011, May 23). Cronocaos, by Rem Koolhaas, at the New Museum. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/arts/design/cronocaos-by-rem-koolhaas-at-the-new-museum.html?_r=0Page, M. (2015). Sites of conscience. Preservation, (Fall), 22–29. Retrieved from https://savingplaces.org/stories/sites-of-conscience#.VsI8omgrKhcPage, M., & Mason, R. (Eds.). (2004). Giving preservation a history: Histories of historic preservation in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.Parker, P. (1993). Traditional cultural properties: What you do and how we think. CRM, 16. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/history/crmjournal/CRM/v16SpecialIssue.pdfParker, P. L., & U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (1985). Guidelines for local surveys: A basis for preservation planning bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb24/Pender, J., Marré, A., & Reeder, R. (2012). Rural wealth creation: Concepts, strategies and measures (ERR-131). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/365520/err131_1_.pdfPhillips, R. G., & Stein, J. M. (2013). An indicator framework for linking historic preservation and community economic development. Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 1–15. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9833-6Porter, D. R. (2008). Managing growth in America’s communities (2nd ed.).. Washington, DC: Island Press.Powe, M., Mabry, J., Talen, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (this issue). Jane Jacobs and the value of older, smaller buildings. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2).Preservation Green Lab. (2011). The greenest building: Quantifying the environmental value of building reuse. Seattle, WA: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Green Lab. Retrieved from http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/lca/The_Greenest_Building_lowres.pdfPreservation Green Lab. (2014). Older, smaller, better: Exploring sources of character and urban vitality data. The Blog for Preservation Leadership Forum. Seattle, WA: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation

Green Lab. Retrieved from http://www.preservationnation.org/informa-tion-center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/oldersmallerbetter/report/NTHP_PGL_OlderSmallerBetter_ReportOnly.pdfPrudon, T. H. M. (2008). Preservation of modern architecture. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Randolph, J. (2012). Environmental land use planning and management (2nd ed.).. Washington, DC: Island Press.Roberts, J. (2012). How to build a better block. TEDxAustin. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iciuh5pbnsIRobertson, K. A. (2004). The main street approach to downtown development. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 21(1), 55–73.Robins, A. W. (1995). Historic preservation and planning: The limits of prediction. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(1), 95–98. doi:10.1080/01944369508975622Ryberg-Webster, S. (2011). Preservation at the grassroots: Pittsburgh’s Manchester and Cincinnati’s Mt. Auburn neighborhoods. Journal of Planning History, 10(2), 139–163. doi:10.1177/1538513210381848Ryberg-Webster, S. (2013a). Historic preservation’s urban renewal roots: Preservation and planning in midcentury Philadelphia. Journal of Urban History, 39(2), 193–213. doi:10.1177/0096144212440177Ryberg-Webster, S. (2013b). Preserving downtown America: Federal rehabilitation tax credits and the transformation of U.S. cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 79(4), 266–279. doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.903749Ryberg-Webster, S., & Kinahan, K. L. (2014). Historic preservation and urban revitalization in the twenty-fi rst century. Journal of Planning Literature, 29(2), 119–139. doi:10.1177/0885412213510524Rypkema, D. D. (2002). Historic preservation and affordable housing: The missed connection. Washington, DC: Trust for Historic Preservation.Rypkema, D. D. (2012). Economics and historic preservation. Forum Journal, 27(1), 45–54.Saha, D., & Paterson, R. G. (2008). Local government efforts to promote the “three Es” of sustainable development survey in medium to large cities in the United States. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(1), 21–37. doi:10.1177/0739456X08321803Saito, L. T. (2009). From “blighted” to “historic”: Race, economic development, and historic preservation in San Diego. California Urban Affairs Review, 45, 166–187. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1078087408327636Schrock, G., Bassett, E., & Green, J. (2015). Pursuing equity and justice in a changing climate: Assessing equity in local climate and sustainability plans in U.S. cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(3), 282–295. doi:10.1177/0739456X15580022Schweitzer, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2004). Environmental injustice and transportation: The claims and the evidence. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(4), 383–398. doi:10.1177/0885412204262958Semes, S. (2009). The future of the past: A conservation ethic for architec-ture, urbanism, and historic preservation. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Shapiro, K. (2007). From modernism to McDonald’s: Ideology, contro-versy, and the movement to preserve the recent past. Journal of Architectural Education, 61(2), 6–14. doi:10.1111/j.1531-314X.2007.00145.xSieber, R. (2006) Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.xSilver, C., & Crowley, J. M. (1991). Revitalizing the urban South: Neigh-borhood preservation and planning since the 1920s. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(1), 69–84. doi:10.1080/01944369108975473

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 86RJPA_A_1147976.indd 86 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM

Minner: Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences 87

Smith, N. (1998). Comment on David Listokin, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr’s “The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development”: Historic preservation in a neoliberal age. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3), 479-485. doi:10.1080/10511482.1998.9521304Stein, C. (2010). Greening modernism: Preservation, sustainability, and the modern movement. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Stipe, R. (Ed). (2003). A richer heritage: Historic preservation in the twenty-fi rst century. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Sung, H., Lee, S., & Cheon, S. (2015). Operationalizing Jane Jacobs’s urban design theory: Empirical verifi cation from the great city of Seoul, Korea. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(2), 117–130. doi:10.1177/0739456X14568021Sweet, E. L., & Etienne, H. F. (2011). Commentary: Diversity in urban planning education and practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 332–339. doi:10.1177/0739456X11414715Talen, E. (2000). Bottom-up GIS. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(3), 279–294. doi:10.1080/01944360008976107Talen, E. (2006). Connecting new urbanism and American planning: An historical interpretation. Urban Design International, 11(2), 83–98. doi:10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000166 Talen, E., Menozzi, S., & Schaefer, C. (2015). What is a “Great” neighborhood? An analysis of APA’s top-rated places. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(2), 121–141. doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1067573Taylor, L. (2013). Ima Hogg and the historic preservation movement in Texas, 1950–1975. Southwestern Historical Quarterly, 117(1), 1–25.Tomlan, M. (1998). Preservation of what, for whom? Ithaca, NY: National Council for Preservation Education. Tomlan, M. (2015). Historic preservation: Caring for our expanding legacy. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Tretter, E. (2013). Contesting sustainability: “SMART growth” and the redevelopment of Austin’s eastside. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1), 297–310. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01166.xUnited Nations Educational, Scientifi c, and Cultural Organiza-tion. (2016). What is intangible heritage? Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00002

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (n.d.). Become a CLG. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/clg/become-clg.htmlU. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). School siting guidelines. Retrieved from http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100DYFK.TXTvan Oers, R., & Roders, A. P. (2012). Historic cities as model of sustainability. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 4–14. doi:10.1108/20441261211223298Wilson, C. (1997). The myth of Santa Fe: Creating a modern regional tradition. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Wilson, C., & Groth, P. (2003). Everyday America: Cultural landscape studies after J. B. Jackson. Berkeley: University of California Press.Wirka, S. M. (1996). The City Social movement: Progressive women reformers and early social planning. In M. C. Sies & C. Silver (Eds.), Planning the twentieth century American city (pp. 55–75). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wood, E. B. (2014). Making the affordable housing–historic preserva-tion connection. Forum Journal, 29(1), 21–30.Wojno, C. T. (1991). Historic preservation and economic develop-ment. Journal of Planning Literature, 5(3), 296–306. doi:10.1177/088541229100500305 Ye, L., Mandpe, S., & Meyer, P. B. (2005). What Is “smart growth”—Really? Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), 301–315. doi:10.1177/0885412204271668Young, R. A. (2012). Stewardship of the built environment: Sustainability, preservation and reuse. Washington, DC: Island Press. Yu, C.-Y. (2015). How differences in roadways affect school travel safety. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(3), 203–220. doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1080599Zahirovic-Herbert, V., & Chatterjee, S. (2012). Historic preservation and residential property values: Evidence from quantile regression. Urban Studies, 49(2), 369–382. Zapata, M., & Bates, L. (2015). Equity planning revisited. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(3), 245–248. doi:10.1177/0739456X15589967Zukin, S. (1987). Gentrifi cation: Culture and capital in the urban core. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 129–147.

RJPA_A_1147976.indd 87RJPA_A_1147976.indd 87 07/03/16 5:27 PM07/03/16 5:27 PM