Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-24 Public Comment - A Sweeney - Attn Community Development BoardFrom:Alison Sweeney To:Agenda Subject:[EXTERNAL]Attn Community Development Board Date:Sunday, January 7, 2024 9:43:01 AM Attachments:Alliance Review.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I hope you all had a wonderful holiday season, Happy 2024. As many anxious residents are awaiting news of the return of the UDC update, I find myselfreading and reading and reading. I would like to suggest that you each take some time to read and consider this publication I'm attaching. Beefing up the NCOD regulations, preventing the teardown of existing homes, anddesignating local historic districts NEED TO BE PART OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM! I think it's time to shift the current growth strategy away from incentivising developers tobuild anything anywhere. It's not helping our housing situation and it's destroying neighborhoods! Time for a new paradigm. According to Brit Fontenot, in a staff presentation to the City Commission last month, only7.5% of our housing dates from before WW2!!! That's a very small amount (as opposed to places like New York city where over half is from before WW2) and it's worth protecting as atangible link to our history and as the relatively affordable housing it's offering. I would argue that it's time to protect mid-century neighborhoods as well. And in case you haven't read it yet, here's a link to my article in Bozeman Magazine:https://bozemanmagazine.com/articles/2024/01/01/119485-zoned-for-tear-down I look forward to working with everyone on real solutions this year. Thanks so much for your time and service, Alison B. Sweeney Bernadette's Handmade JewelryBozeman MT 406-404-5740alison-bernadettes.com Follow us on Will Mandates Create Affordable Housing, Harm Historic Places, or Both? 4 Older Housing and Affordability: Data from Three Cities 11 Affordable Housing at Fort Snelling 21Preservation is a Public Benefit: Defending the Seattle LandmarksPreservation Ordinance 17 3029 How Local Preservation Programs Can Increase the Availability of Low-Income Affordable Housing Housing Basics 25 Multi-Family Housing Preservation and Affordability A Quarterly Journal of the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions 2023, No. 1 33 34 State NewsTools For The On-Line Preservationist: Building Technology Heritage Library 31 Spotlight on a Preservation Organization — Dade Heritage Trust PreservationPreservation CONTACT NAPC AT: tel (757) 802-4141 director@napcommissions.org www.napcommissions.org PO Box 1011 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Stephanie Paul stephanie@napcommissions.org PROGRAM MANAGER Marie Snyder marie@napcommissions.org COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATE Maddie Clites maddie@napcommissions.org NAPC is seeking volunteers to help advance its mission of providing education and technical assistance to local preservationists, particularly those involved in the work of local preservation commissions. Volunteers may serve on a variety of committees and in other capacities that take advan- tage of their individual skills and experiences. Editorial and production work on The Alliance Review, membership recruitment and retention, resources development, education programs and technical assistance are just a few of the possibilities. Join us today to make a difference in the future of preserva- tion by contacting NAPC at 757-802-4141 or director@napcommissions.org. NAPC STAFF: COVER IMAGEIncreased housing density adjacent to historic in Seattle’s Eastlake neighborhood. the All current NAPC members who serve as city staff to preservation commissions are encouraged to distribute articles in The Alliance Review to commission members and other staff and elected officials within your member organization. NAPC can provide additional digital copies of The Alliance Review to members of your commission. Simply email us at director@napcommissions.org with your commission member’s name and email address. 2023 BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Updated:5.7.23NATHAN BEVIL Ohio History Connection Ohio KEVIN BOYD Progressive Majorities Iowa BETSY BRADLEY Goucher College Historic Preservation Program Washington CATHARINE BURNS Community Collaboration LLC North Carolina SARAH CODY Miami-Dade County Florida CORY EDWARDS City of San Antonio Texas KATIE FRIDDLE City of Oklahoma City Oklahoma REBECCA GOODWIN Otero County Colorado BRIANA PAXTON GROSICKI Ethos Preservation Georgia APRIL JOHNSON Housing for New Hope North Carolina CAITLIN MEIVES The Landmark Society of Western New York New York TRUDI SANDMEIER University of Southern California California SCOTT SLAGOR Michigan State Historic Preservation Office Michigan MAGGIE SMITH San Francisco Planning Department California PHIL THOMASON Thomason and Associates Tennessee PAULA MOHR Bentonsport Preservation, LLC Iowa | Chair ABIGAIL CHRISTMAN City and County of Denver Colorado | Vice-Chair COLLETTE KINANE Raleigh Historic Development Commission North Carolina | Secretary MINDY GULDEN CRAWFORD Preservation Pennsylvania Pennsylvania | Treasurer BHAVESH MITTAL City of Plano Texas | Assistant Treasurer The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) is governed by a board of directors composed of current and former members and staff of local preservation commissions and Main Street organizations, state historic preservation office staff, and other preservation and planning professionals, with the Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and Chairs of the board committees serving as the Board’s Executive Committee. OFFICERS BOARD MEMBERS A quarterly journal with news, technical assistance, and case studies relevant to local historic preservation commissions and their staff. CONTACT NAPC AT: BY J. TODD SCOTT, THE ALLIANCE REVIEW EDITORIAL COMMITTEE In this Issue It seems there are lots of conversations going on about the nexus between historic preservation, hous- ing density, and affordable housing. There certainly doesn’t appear to be enough housing for everyone these days, especially in many of our urban areas. We thought it was a good time to explore that nexus between historic buildings and the role they can play in helping to create more housing, maintain high levels of density, and serve as affordable housing for many without having to start from scratch. We begin exploring this with Adrian Scott Fine and his thoughts on new legislative mandates in many places, particularly on the west coast. We get some hard numbers about housing in three key cities from our col- leagues at PlaceEconomics, a national leader in evaluating the economics of historic preservation around the country and the world. Then we dive into a few case studies from around the country, Eugenia Woo discusses recent city council actions in Seattle, Michael Koop highlights a wonderful success story in Minneapolis, and Nick Keeling talks about how using social media might help resolve some roadblocks to using preservation as an affordable housing tool in Cincinnati. We finish up with some basic vocabulary and tips on how local commissions can become involved in housing in their own communities and shine a spotlight on the work that Dade Heritage Trust is doing in south Florida. We hope you enjoy this issue, and as always, we welcome your comments and suggestions. High density historic neighborhoods in Philadelphia. Page 3The Alliance Review | 2023, No.1 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions The affordable housing crisis–compounded by inflation, stagnant wages, and increased investor purchases of rental properties–is urgent. Because of the pervasiveness of this issue, PlaceEconomics has been asked to look at the relationship between older building stock and affordability around the country. Nationally, older housing plays an impor- tant and often overlooked role in affordable hous- ing. According to data from the American Housing Survey, 37% of occupied housing units were built prior to 1970. Overall, 49% of all owner house- holds and 39% of all renter households live in pre- 1970 housing units. However, in the country’s 15 largest metropolitan areas,iii where the housing crisis is most acute, 45% of all renters live in older housing, compared to 41% of all owners. When both mortgage payments and rent are considered, costs for older housing are lower; the median housing costs for housing units constructed prior to 1970 are less than $1,100 By Katlyn Cotton, Alyssa Frystak, Starr Herr-Cardillo, PlaceEconomics Older Housing and Affordability: Data from Three Cities Lack of affordable housing is a crisis affecting nearly every city in America. Accord- ing to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), “no state has an adequate supply of homes affordable and available to its lowest-income renters.”i In their 2022 annual report, NLIHC found that between the first quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2022, median rents for two-bedroom apartments in major metropolitan counties increased 15%ii. This is more than four-and-a-half times greater than the increases between previous years. PlaceEconomics is a private sector research and consulting firm that works at the intersection of historic preservation and economics. Katlyn Cotton is the Director of Communications and Design and acts as project manager and graphic designer. Alyssa Frystak is the Director of Research & Data Analytics in charge of data acquisition, methodology development, and analysis. Starr Herr-Cardillo is the Content Writer, and she handles writing and editing. Older multi-family housing in Buffalo. per month. For more recent construction, in nearly every subsequent decade bracket, median housing costs are higher. To illustrate how these issues are affecting different cities, we have selected three case studies that investigate the relationship between older buildings and affordability.Photo by Starr Herr-CardilloPage 11The Alliance Review | 2023, No.1 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions San Antonio, Texas - Affordable Homes for Low-Income, Hispanic Homeowner House- holds, completed 2018 Protecting areas with a concentration of older housing is important because they’re often home to long-term, low-income, and minority residents. This was true in San Antonio, where PlaceEconomics looked at demographic patterns in areas with older, not just designated, housing. The neighborhoods we evaluated included census block groups where 50% or more parcels contained a residential structure built before 1960. Twenty-two percent of housing units in San Antonio were built before 1960. Only 10% of that stock is protected by historic designation and 90% percent is single family dwellings. In the neighborhoods we evaluated, 81% of households identified as His- panic.iv Households in these neighborhoods were also more likely to be low income.v Around 40% of households in pre-1960 neighborhoods make less than 60% of the Area Median Income, whereas over 20% of households in newer housing make more than 200% of the Area Median Income. Areas with a concentration of older housing stock tended to be areas characterized by longer-term homeownership. Sixty-six percent of households in the neighborhoods we studied owned their homes and close to 60% of those homeowners have lived in their homes for 20 years or longer. Rents in these neighborhoods were also lower. This is important since between 2008 and 2018, median household income in San Antonio increased 1.9% per year, while housing prices increased at 4.7% per year. Three factors typically make older buildings acces- National Annual Rent Increases. National Median Housing Costs. San Antonio Household Income Distribution. San Antonio Gross Rents. San Antonio Value Change. Source: NLIHC’s 2022 Annual ReportSource: PlaceEconomicsSource: PlaceEconomicsSource: PlaceEconomicsSource: PlaceEconomicsPage 12 The Alliance Review | 2023, No.1 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions sible to lower income households: unit size, condi- tion, and location. Buildings are built much larger today than they were 100 years ago. On average, a pre-1960 home in San Antonio is around 700 sf smaller than a home built after 1960. When you consider cost-per-square foot, new construction is priced higher to recover the cost of production. It is nearly impossible to build new and rent or sell cheap without significant subsidy.vi Condition is another factor of affordability. Units outfitted with modern finishes will command a higher price than a property that needs significant repairs, and condition is typically a function of age. However, most of San Antonio’s pre-1960 units are completely habitable. An analysis of property condition data found that 87% of pre-1960 units were in average or fair condition, meaning that at worst, minor repairs were needed but the properties remained fully safe and functional. The third factor, and the one that gets more compli- cated, is location. In most cities, older homes and apartment buildings are densely concentrated near downtowns since they were built before a modern reliance on automobiles. However, in many cities, the land values in these near-downtown neighbor- hoods are rapidly appreciating. In 2018, San Antonio’s pre-1960 properties were valued around $75,000 less than properties built after 1960. But even more important than the current value is the value change, and properties in older neighbor- hoods in San Antonio saw property values grow faster than the rest of the city. The surge in value of pre-1960 properties can be attributed to rising land value. In pre-1960 proper- ties, while the total value changed 46%, land values alone increased 68% over that timeframe.vii Alarm- ingly, between 2008-2018, 90% of the single- family assessed land value increase of the entire city was attributable to land value hikes in pre-1960 properties. The rising gulf between the land value and the improvement valueviii of older properties in hot-market neighborhoods puts older properties at risk. If low-income homeowners struggle to afford improvements and maintenance, that further dimin- ishes the value of the “improvement” and makes them more vulnerable to demolition. When land value significantly outweighs improvement value, the chances of the property being bought, demolished, and replaced by a new home at a much less afford- able price point is high. This played out in the data: between 2008 and 2018, San Antonio lost an average of three units of pre-1960 housing every week. The data from this study tell a clear story in San Antonio: older housing is providing affordable housing, but that housing is at risk. The problems facing San Antonio are not to- tally unique–many cities with hot real estate markets are seeing housing costs soar and older properties disappear. The data from San Antonio suggest that these two phenomena are related. Chicago, Illinois – Micro-Analysis, 2021 PlaceEconomics conducted a microstudy in the Chicago neighborhood of Andersonville to illustrate the common issues putting the city’s most iconic hous- ing type at risk. Chicago’s 2- to 4-flat building typeix has long been the workhorse of the city’s residential housing stock. Approximately 26% of the city’s residential property types are 2- to 4-unit buildings, 90% of which are more than 75 years old.x Histori- cally, this building type provided affordable housing to immigrant and working-class families. However, 2- to 4-flats are being threatened in multiple ways: The first occurs in strong markets or gentrifying areas where development pressure is high. In these neighborhoods there’s been a surge to convert these inherently multi-unit buildings to single family homes, stripping the buildings of their original function and eliminating units, thereby de- creasing the affordability of the area. Alternatively, flat-type buildings in strong markets are being torn down and replaced with luxury versions of what was once there. In weaker market areas that have suffered from widespread systemic disinvestment for decades, deterioration puts small-scale multi-family buildings at risk of demolition. These factors (decon- version, luxury replacement, and disinvestment) not Page 13The Alliance Review | 2023, No.1 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions 1300 block of West Winnemac Avenue, Andersonville neighborhood, Chicago. only alter the character of Chicago neighborhoods, but they make finding affordable housing options difficult, ultimately forcing middle- and working-class residents out of neighborhoods. Three adjacent properties in Andersonville serve as a perfect case study to illustrate this phenomenon. The properties analyzed include: a 3-flat apartment building built in 1909; a 5-unit apartment building built in 1966; and a 3-unit condominium building built in 2018 that replaced an existing 3-flat. Us- ing data from the Cook County Assessor’s Office, we obtained the 2020 estimated market value for each building and calculated the estimated value per square foot.xi As demonstrated in the attached graph, the value per square foot of the 2018 build- ing is 3 times greater than the 1909 building. This has drastic implications for the future affordability of the neighborhood. The same pattern emerges when looking at rent levels. Estimated monthly rents for units in these three buildings are as follows: $1,950 for a 1,700 sf unit in the 1909 building, $1,250 for an 800 sf unit in the mid-century building, and $4,100 for a 1,700 sf unit in the new building. When calculated on a per-square-foot basis, the units in the new building rent for twice as much as those in the 1909 build- ing. Based on local value to rent ratios, rents in the previous 3-flat building can be assumed to be significantly less than the new building. Examining this case at the micro scale provides an understanding of what happens at the block-level when one older residential building is replaced with new construction. If we extrapolate, it’s clear that at the citywide and even neighborhood scale, the loss of older, affordable housing represents a significant loss of naturally occurring affordable housing. Over time, if this pattern repeats, it leads to displacement and gentrification that changes the feel of the neigh- borhood and affects who is able to live there. As this micro-analysis illustrates, preservation of older housing is an important way to retain affordability. Unfortunately, land values and existing zoning laws make it virtually impossible to build smaller, afford- able multi-family housing without generous subsidies, which makes preserving those that do exist that much more important.xii Buffalo, New York – Affordability in Local Historic Districts, 2022 Buffalo is not what most would consider an unaf- fordable city, but like cities across the country, it has seen a dramatic rise in housing costs over the past several years. Between 2015 and 2020, median home values in Buffalo have jumped more than Photo credit: Alyssa FrystakChicago Estimated Market Values.Source: PlaceEconomicsSource: Cook County AssessorChicago Estimated Rents. Page 14 The Alliance Review | 2023, No.1 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions 30%, from $68,800 to $101,000. Meanwhile, the poverty rate remains high (28%) relative to the rest of the country (11%), and affordable housing options are critical. There’s a common assumption that the regulation, design review, and increased property values that come with local historic designation makes those districts exclusionary and unaffordable. Our analysis in Buffalo demonstrated that historic preservation does not preclude affordability. Local historic districts in particular offer a higher percentage of afford- able housing for both homeowners and renters than National Register districts and the rest of Buffalo. Households in Buffalo’s local historic districts are also more likely to be lower-income than households in National Register districts, which have no regulation. Fifty percent of households in local districts make less than $50,000, compared to 38% in National Register districts. Buffalo’s local historic districts are not only diverse in income, but in race. Forty percent of the population living in local districts are Black, higher than the share living in National Register districts and the rest of the city. Buffalo’s historic districts also remain accessible to both renters and homeowners. Interestingly, the percentage of renters in local historic districts is significantly higher (11%) than the rest of the city. Local historic designation has been used strategically by neighborhoods in Buffalo. Facing the legacies of institutionalized racism, poverty, widespread vacan- cy and systematized demolition, residents have used historic designation to ward off unwanted demolition and take advantage of preservation incentives. A great illustration of this is Hamlin Park, a majority African American neighborhood and historic district on Buffalo’s east side that remains largely affordable today. In the 1980s, Hamlin Park was threatened by widespread demolition, and the Hamlin Park Tax- payers Association fought successfully for a demoli- tion moratorium. Building on this grassroots activism, residents pushed to designate Hamlin Park as a lo- cal historic district in 1998. Since then, Hamlin Park has also been listed as a National Register Historic District so that owners can take advantage of state and federal historic preservation tax credits. The neighborhood’s continued existence, and its inherent affordability, is owed to the gumption and foresight of the community. “The cost of maintaining an older house on a fixed income is scary,” says Stephanie Barber Geter, a longtime Hamlin Park resident and Chair of the Restoring Our Communities Coalition (ROCC). She and advocates from Preservation Buffalo Niagara speak about the community benefits of designating neighborhoods, such as access to incentives like the New York Historic Homeownership Rehabilitation Credit. That incentive requires the home be located within a qualified census tract or a census tract Buffalo Household Income. Source: PlaceEconomicsBuffalo Racial Distribution. Source: PlaceEconomicsHomes in Hamlin Park, Buffalo. Photo credit: Starr Herr-CardilloPage 15The Alliance Review | 2023, No.1 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions that is at or below the state median family income.xiii If the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income is less than $60,000 and the credit amount is more than the taxes owed, the excess credit becomes a refund– making the state credit an impactful tool for lower income homeowners. The data and stories from Buffalo paint a hopeful picture. When historic preservation is used by the community for the community, diversity and affordability are maintained. Conclusion There is no maxim that will be true of historic preser- vation and housing affordability in every city. Historic preservation is not inherently an affordable housing tool, but it can and should be part of the solution. These case studies are intended to provide data and anecdotes for the possible contributions of older hous- ing–designated or not–to affordability. It is impossible to build our way out of the affordable housing crisis, and older housing is already contributing to afford- ability in many cities. Therefore, the preservation of existing, older, and historic housing must be part of any affordable housing strategy. _______________________________________________ i“The Affordable Home Crisis Continues, But Bold New Plans May Help.” https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/03/affordable- housing-near-medata-bold-solutions-funding/584779/ ii “Out of Reach,” National Low Income Housing Coalition Annual Report 2022, https://nlihc.org/oor iii The top 15 largest metro areas according to the US Census American Housing Survey are: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, San Francisco, Phoenix, Riverside (CA), Detroit, Seattle. iv San Antonio is a majority Hispanic city, with more than 65% of residents identifying as Hispanic. v The neighborhoods we evaluated were census block groups where 50% or more parcels contained a residential structure built before 1960. vi See the Chicago case study for an example of this. vii In technical real estate terms, land value is determined by the eco- nomic principle of highest and best use of land which produces the highest net return in any term, over a period of time. Factors affecting land value include its physical attributes, accessibility to economic activities, neighborhood amenities, present and future land use, sup- ply and demand, and proximity to transport linkages. viii Improvement value refers to the value of the building or structure alone. ix https://www.architecture.org/learn/resources/buildings-of- chicago/building/two-and-three-flats/ x Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University, “Housing Units by Property Type,” Housing Market Indicators Data Portal. xi Due to the nature of the available assessment records and the difference in the type of unit (apartment versus condominium) being compared, a margin of error is to be expected. For the two older buildings, we calculated the value per square foot using the total square footage and value of the whole building. However, for the new construction example, the value per square foot was calculated using the square footage and estimated market value of only one condo unit. xii In Chicago at least, city leaders have taken action to limit the loss of existing small-scale, multi-family housing by implementing anti- deconversion ordinances and teardown taxes in select pilot areas. Hopefully, these programs will prove successful and eventually be adopted throughout the city. The anti-deconversion ordinance is “designed to reduce displacement of low- to moderate-income residents and maintain the existing character and housing stock, specifically two- to eight-unit buildings, that often provide naturally occurring affordable housing units.” https://www.chicago.gov/city/ en/depts/doh/provdrs/housing_resources/news/2020/december/ mayor-lightfoot-and-department-of-housing-introduces-ant--deconv. html The teardown tax is a pilot ordinance that charges a fee of at least $15,000 when developers tear down an existing building. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-12-14/chicago- slows-gentrification-with-taxes-on-teardowns xiii https://www.tax.ny.gov/pit/credits/historic_rehab_credit.htm County Treasurer and Tax Collector. Page 16 The Alliance Review | 2023, No.1 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions HAWAI’IA blue-ribbon panel of cultural historians, architects and archaeologists is being convened to serve as Honolulu’s first historic preservation commission. More than 30 years after the Honolulu City Council unanimously passed legislation to create the historic preservation board, Mayor Rick Blangiardi has become the first mayor to name commissioners to the panel, which will create an inventory of Oahu’s historic sites and seek to protect them. The commissioners, who will serve staggered terms, will need to be confirmed by the city council. Most large cities in America appointed historic preservation commissions decades ago. By last year, Honolulu was the only large destination city in America without a historic preservation commission. Maui, Kauai and Hawaii Island have long had their own historic preservation boards. Historic preservation on Oahu was instead left to the perennially overworked and understaffed State Historic Preservation Division, which provides oversight statewide on thousands of local, state and federal projects. Honolulu’s historic preservation commission has had a tortured political history. In 1993, amid widespread public concern that many of the city’s iconic buildings and sites were at risk of destruction, the Honolulu City Council unanimously passed an ordinance to establish the historic preservation commission. Real estate developers didn’t like the idea and said it would inhibit construction. Mayor Frank Fasi vetoed the measure and when the council overrode his veto, Fasi sued to block establishment of the commission. Subsequent mayors also chose not to staff the commission, and the measure hung in limbo. During those years, a number of historic sites on Oahu were bulldozed or allowed to fall into ruins. civilbeat.org ILLINOIS Chicago Landmarks Commission will consider landmark status for Promontory Point, which would effectively protect the lakefront site from development or demolition. Promontory Point, a limestone peninsula giving Burnham Park and Hyde Park residents a scenic community greenspace along Lake Michigan, has been threatened by both erosion and development proposals. Built 85 years ago and designed by former Chicago Parks Department architect Alfred Caldwell, it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2018. The point was named one of Chicago’s “most endangered” sites in 2022 by Preservation Chicago, a nonprofit advocating for historic sites. Community members have written more than 600 letters urging the city to consider making Promontory Point a landmark. A national defense bill passed in December mandates that Chicago residents, not the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will decide how the point should be restored. Preservation Chicago plans to advocate for a final proposal that preserves the limestone revetments along the point. The Army Corps of Engineers must fund up to 65% of whatever renovations the city council approves, the Sun-Times previously reported, even if the corps may have otherwise chosen a cheaper steel and concrete remodel. If the city parks district opposes landmark status for Promontory Point, an additional public hearing will take place before the city council votes. chicagosuntimes.com MASSACHUSETTS The Boston Landmarks Commission has posted a study report on the proposed designation of the interior of the Ayer Mansion in Back Bay as a landmark. The Frederick Ayer Mansion is architecturally significant at the local, state, regional, and national levels as the last surviving example of a complete and in situ residential commission by the famed American artist, designer, and craftsman Louis Comfort Tiffany. It is one of only three remaining examples of a Tiffany-designed interior and the only known example of Tiffany’s exterior stone mosaics on a residential building in the United States. New York architect Alfred J. Manning worked in concert with Tiffany to design the building and its decorative scheme. It has further significance at the local level as a unique example of Moorish and Byzantine eclectic architecture in Boston. While the exterior of the mansion is protected by the landmark district guidelines of the Back Bay Architectural District, the interior remains vulnerable to change. Although a Massachusetts Historical Commission Preservation Restriction exists for the property covering both exterior and interior features, landmark designation would provide additional protection and guidance and would acknowledge the importance of this interior and this singular property’s outstanding historical, architectural, and artistic significance. boston.gov NEW YORKThe Seaport Coalition won a lawsuit against the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission for “violating its mandate” in approving the Howard Hughes Corporation’s 250 Water St. tower. The decision invalidates the project’s certificate of appropriateness and stops construction of a tower inside the low-scale South Street Seaport Historic District, a billion-dollar project which, the plaintiffs argued, would “overwhelm and dominate” the South Street Historic District. The lawsuit challenged, among other issues, L.P.C. validating the developer’s attempt to link funding for the Seaport Museum to the development. The coalition argued that linking a nonprofit to a for-profit developer is “a tactic often used to provide political cover for city planning commissioners and electeds to provide community benefits.” he L.P.C. rejected previous high-rise proposals for the 250 Water St. parking lot “at least four times.” The decision agreed with the plaintiffs that allowing the application for the Hughes Corp. tower project to be “consolidated” with that of funding for the cash-strapped Seaport Museum created an “impermissible quid pro quo [that] influenced L.P.C. to consider the potential benefits for the museum in approving the tower, rather than considering the appropriateness of the tower on its own merits.” In a press release, the Seaport Coalition said, “If the 250 Water St. approval were to go unchallenged, it would demonstrate to developers that the L.P.C. is now ‘open for business’ to Page 34 The Alliance Review | 2023, No.1 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions offers of neighborhood amenities in return for a building that is clearly alien to our historically valuable sites and ‘overrides’ historic preservation safeguards embedded in the New York City Landmarks Law. thevillagesun.com OREGON A decision by the Astoria Historic Landmarks Commission to approve design plans for the expansion of the Owens-Adair, an affordable housing complex near downtown, was upheld by the city council. In a divided 3-2 vote city council denied an appeal by neighboring property owners to the historic landmarks commission’s January decision. Design plans for the building had to go before the commission to determine whether the proposed building design was compatible with adjacent historic buildings and suitable for the location. The decision came after the commission asked the applicant to revise the design plans during the first public hearing in December. The neighbors argued that the commission and council should consider concerns about the potential for the construction of a subgrade parking garage to disrupt the foundation of their properties. They also said they support affordable housing at this location, but they were concerned about the design and related seismic and parking issues. dailyastorian.com TENNESSEEA bill to create a new “Tennessee Monuments and Memorials Commission” to review any petitions to remove or relocate historical memorials on public property advanced recently in the legislature. The measure would create a new nine-member volunteer commission appointed by the governor, Senate and House speakers to review any requests to remove memorials. The new entity would take over the duties of the current 24-member Tennessee Historical Commission in reviewing waivers under the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act. The 2013 act generally prohibits the removal of historic memorials on public property; however, waivers can be sought to remove historical monuments — a mechanism that has been used in recent years to remove a bust of Ku Klux Klan founder Nathan Bedford Forest from the state capitol and reject efforts by Nashville Parks officials to remove a statue of a confederate soldier from Centennial Park. The commission has made controversial decisions both in favor and against removing Confederate memorials, but the law creating it specifies its decisions may be reviewed by Davidson County Chancery Court. The new bill does not contain any appeals language and it’s unclear how parties could appeal the proposed new commission’s decisions. If enacted, the Historical Commission would continue to review the waivers it has received to date — and to retain its other duties, including maintaining state historic sites, erecting historic markers and preserving historic cemeteries. tennesseeoutlook.com Page 35The Alliance Review | 2023, No.1 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions The Alliance ReviewNational Alliance of Preservation Commissions PO Box 1011 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Name Commission/Organization Address City State Zip Phone/Fax E-mail How did you hear about NAPC? Become part of the national network of local preservation, historic district, and landmark com- missions and boards of architectural review. Organized to help local preservation programs succeed through education, advocacy, and training, the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is the only national nonprofit or- ganization dedicated to local preservation commissions and their work. NAPC is a source of information and support for local commissions and serves as a unifying body giving them a national voice. As a member of NAPC, you will benefit from the experience and ideas of com- munities throughout the United States working to protect historic districts and landmarks through local legislation, education, and advocacy. You can also join online at http://napcommissions.org/join JOIN NAPC TODAY MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES $20.00 • Student $35.00 • Individual Membership $50.00 • Commissions: Municipal/county population less than 5,000* • Local nonprofit organizations $100 • Commissions: Municipal/county population of 5,000 to 50,000* • Regional or statewide nonprofit organizations $150 • Commissions: Municipal/county population greater than 50,000* • State Historic Preservation Offices • Federal Agencies• National nonprofit organizations PROFESSIONAL NETWORK$150 PROFESSIONAL NETWORK • Consultants /Consulting Firms• Businesses/Companies • Other Professional Services In addition to receiving all NAPC membership benefits, Professional members are listed in the NAPC Professional Network Directory at http://napcommissions.org/directory. * Membership includes all commission members and staff. Please provide complete list of mem- bers with names, phone numbers and email address for additional digital copies. Half of all premium membership dues support NAPC’s student internship and Forum scholarship programs $250 CHAIRS CIRCLE $500 FOUNDERS CIRCLE PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP Please return this form with payment to NAPC: PO Box 1011, Virginia Beach, VA 23451