A new study concludes that Portland’s 12 historic districts have not significantly increased housing costs or displaced people and have become more racially diverse.

But that could change because of regulations, market forces, demographic and population trends, the report says.

A study released this week by Jon Stover & Associates found there is no evidence that historic district designations impact displacement, home prices, household incomes or tenure, or the overall neighborhood demographics.

The report recommends that the city keep an eye on neighborhood trends and make sure historic preservation regulations are clear and consistent. It also suggests that the city allow additional density and height in nearby zoning districts to ensure the character of historic districts is maintained, while still accommodating demand for more housing.

“It’s a good snapshot of development trends over time in the city,” said Christine Grimando, the city’s director of Planning and Urban Development.

She said the study includes lots of good data and insight into questions about development and historic districts that have bubbled up. 

The City Council commissioned the study in 2021 after the process to designate Munjoy Hill as a historic district raised general questions about the socio-economic impacts of historic preservation.

The city initially hired PlaceEconomics of Washington, D.C., to do that study, but staff terminated the contract when they felt the draft report was missing information, contained inaccuracies, and was not well organized. PlaceEconomics said at the time that they felt the study was sufficient.

Among the items city staff said were missing from the report were assessments of historic district density and what’s allowable under current zoning, information on financial assistance programs to offset the cost of building improvements, and an evaluation of housing impacts according to racial distribution, household income, age, and homeownership status.

The city then hired Jon Stover & Associates, also based in Washington, to finish the study. The city paid about $84,000 total to the two firms, including $40,000 to PlaceEconomics for its draft report. Grimando said $20,000 of that funding was covered by a grant from the Maine Historic Preservation Commission.

NOT AN OUTLIER

Portland adopted a historic preservation ordinance in 1990 that is intended to preserve historic buildings and districts. The districts place tighter restrictions on redevelopment and new construction than other areas of the city.

They are most heavily concentrated on the peninsula, including the West End, India Street, and Munjoy Hill. Many also are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Each building within the district is classified as a landmark, contributing or non-contributing structure, and that classification determines the type and extent of review for alterations and protects against demolition.

The 24-page report concluded that historic districts are successfully preserving historic buildings and neighborhood aesthetics. That’s because the retention and renovation of existing housing have led to increased density.

“One of the things that’s most striking about the findings is how much historic designations don’t stand out as doing anything that’s very much an outlier compared to other development trends in the city,” Grimando said.

The study determined that while housing and rental values on the entire peninsula have risen, most of that change is attributed to larger trends and not specifically to the historic districts. Median gross rents in historic districts have grown at a nearly identical rate as the rest of the city since 1990, the report says.

Similar trends are playing out on a national level because people see these areas as desirable, it states.

While historic housing stock is valued by Portland residents and has a price premium – the median home value on the peninsula in 2020 was more than $100,000 higher than the citywide average – prices are not going up significantly when a historic district is created, the report states.

The study also looked at racial data and found that since 1990, historic districts have become more racially diverse at a similar rate to the city overall. However, historic districts are still slightly less diverse.

According to the report, the non-white population of historic districts grew by 14% between 1990 and 2020, while the citywide non-white population grew by 18% in the same period, according to the report.

David Lloyd, an architect with Archetype Architects who was part of an advisory group that provided input for the report, said he had not yet read the final report but believes the study is necessary to help understand the value of the historic districts and work of the Historic Preservation Board.

“It’s important to look at these review processes and make sure they bring true value to the city,” he said.

Other members of the advisory group could not be reached or did not respond Friday to requests to talk about the new study.

Copy the Story Link