What is it about?

A B S T R A C T Population and land use out-migrations from urban to peripheral areas can result in non-functional, unmaintained historic structures which deteriorate to the point where removal is cheaper than removal – or demolition by neglect. The increasing rate of neglected historic structures is a growing concern. There is a need for research investigating connections between urban growth management and its effect on neglect. This paper applies Newman’s (2013) conceptual model of measuring neglect to Geographic Information Systems, comparing rates of neglect in historic Doylestown, Quakertown, and Bristol boroughs in Pennsylvania, USA utilizing different amounts of peripheral agricultural preservation. Comparisons are made examining descriptive statistics on existing conditions, a Polychoric correlation evaluating relationships between drivers of neglect, and a cross-comparative GIS spatial analysis. Results indicate as amounts of peripheral preserved farmlands increase, neglect can be lowered.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Gauging the Relationship between Contextual Growth and Structural Neglect *Dr. GALEN NEWMAN 1,Dr.MICHELLE MEYER 2, Dr.BOAH KIM 3andDr.RYUN JUNG LEE 4 1, 3, 4Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, USA 2Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University, USA E MAIL: gnewman@arch.tamu.edu E mail:mmeyer@lsu.edu , E mail: boah.kim@gmail.com E mail: ryunjunglee@gmail.com A B S T R A C T Population and land use out-migrations from urban to peripheral areas can result in non-functional, unmaintained historic structures which deteriorate to the point where removal is cheaper than removal – or demolition by neglect. The increasing rate of neglected historic structures is a growing concern. There is a need for research investigating connections between urban growth management and its effect on neglect. This paper applies Newman’s (2013) conceptual model of measuring neglect to Geographic Information Systems, comparing rates of neglect in historic Doylestown, Quakertown, and Bristol boroughs in Pennsylvania, USA utilizing different amounts of peripheral agricultural preservation. Comparisons are made examining descriptive statistics on existing conditions, a Polychoric correlation evaluating relationships between drivers of neglect, and a cross-comparative GIS spatial analysis. Results indicate as amounts of peripheral preserved farmlands increase, neglect can be lowered. CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2018) 2(2), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3669 www.ijcua.com Copyright © 2017 Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved. 1. Urban Dynamics and Heritage Neglect Forrester (1969) theorizes that the city is a living organism whose form takes its shape as the result of a combination of external forces. Further, actions and interactions of cultures are a product of the desires, necessities, and values of a city’s actors and give meaning to its form (Newman, 2015). This theory presupposes that comprehension of the built environment must be considered in conjunction with the understanding of both exogenous and endogenous factors and their causal relations(Ben-Hamouche, 2013).Listokin(1997) takes this theory a step further, positing that growth management and preservation of the built environment are fundamentally connected; he also states that these connections are, however, not fully understood. Local policies do not conserve built heritage fully (Pickerill & Pickard, 2007). For example, evidence from historic areas in Germany has shown that contextual economic and political changes significantly impact historically preserved buildings (Alberts & Brinda, 2005). Historic preservation has a primary objective to protect structures and districts of historic prestige from alteration, degradation, and demolition (Ben-Hamouche, 2013). Historic urban areas require high levels of support to retain structural viability, safeguard the integrity of heritage structures, and stimulate local economies. Urban spatial change is largely tied to alterations in contextual land uses, threatening many elements within the historic built environment. Simultaneously, many urban fringe areas (such as farmlands), the settings of historic urban buildings, are also threatened. As such, regulations now go beyond local preservation policies and include larger scaled contextual approaches for heritage management (Collins, Waters, & Dotson, 1991). Centrifugal development has effected many urban historic buildings, in many cases resulting in their removal. Urban sprawl can create a uniform spatial form across cities and destroy much structural heritage in its wake (Treib, 2008; Yahner & Nadenicek, 1997). Urban expansion can accelerate the loss of historic buildings because of a lack of utility, a process referred to as demolition by neglect (DBN). DBN is the removal of a historic building or structure due to prolonged vacancy and extreme maintenance issues (Leatherbarrow & Mostafavi, 1993). The capabilities of historic preservation policies to assist in retaining historic character and function in heritage buildings is highly dependent on the examination of process and changes within urbanized areas and their surrounding contexts (Alderson, 2006; Cook, 1996). Since urban contexts are constantly in flux, form and function rarely coincide in any environment for an extended period of time (Jackson, 1997). Contemporary historic preservation theory gives priority to form through the pursuit of historic integrity. An unfortunate outcome of this position is that if a historic building loses its function in contemporary society, it can also eventually be removed. Luckily, adaptive reuse and rehabilitation efforts have increased recently, leading to small upsurges in historic structure retainance in some localities (Newman, 2015). Many U.S. historic structures are policed on a unit-by-unit basis and are then analyzed based on whether or not they appear as they once did at a given historical time (or based on their historic integrity). Jigyasu (2002), notes that historic structures have two fundamental dimensions: historic integrity, and a relationship to the contextual environment with which they interact. A vital approach to the preservation of historic buildings lies with the ability to managing the individually with local policy (internally) and successful management of regional land use changes (externally). Therefore, the examination of the individual structure and its dynamic setting must occur if neglect can be fully understood. (Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998; Pickerill & Armitage, 2009). The shift toward a more dynamic management of historic structures must focus on adaptive reuse, rehabilitation, and land use management. American historic preservation can differ from European approaches due to a stronger emphasis on local regulations in the U.S., while many European cities practice an area-based approach (Doratli, 2005). Area-based strategies can increase non-government funding, allow for greater expansions in historic districts, increase private sector investment in historic regeneration projects, and increase heritage rehabilitation in marginalized neighborhoods (Pickerill & Armitage, 2009). In the U.S., broader heritage management approaches are typically regulatory or incentive-based. Regulatory measures, such as state regulated monetary penalties, generally involve punishment for allowing neglect to occur or continue. South Dakota statutes makes willful neglect a misdemeanor; in West Virginia, local landmark commissions enforce standards for the maintenance of landmarks; San Francisco, California can assess a $500 per day penalty to owners who allow neglect to occur (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2008). Listokin (1997) theory suggests that local polices, when used in a singular approach, will not adequately result in conserved built heritage in the long-term (Alberts & Brinda, 2005; Pickerill & Pickard, 2007). Contemporary research reinforces this position, but shows a separation between historic preservation and external land use management (Avrami, 2012). Historic buildings are just one component within a larger, ever-changing system; if both aims are focused to align to one goal, only then will the system be mutually beneficial properly

Perspectives

Gauging the Relationship between Contextual Growth and Structural Neglect *Dr. GALEN NEWMAN 1,Dr.MICHELLE MEYER 2, Dr.BOAH KIM 3andDr.RYUN JUNG LEE 4 1, 3, 4Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, USA 2Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University, USA E MAIL: gnewman@arch.tamu.edu E mail:mmeyer@lsu.edu , E mail: boah.kim@gmail.com E mail: ryunjunglee@gmail.com A B S T R A C T Population and land use out-migrations from urban to peripheral areas can result in non-functional, unmaintained historic structures which deteriorate to the point where removal is cheaper than removal – or demolition by neglect. The increasing rate of neglected historic structures is a growing concern. There is a need for research investigating connections between urban growth management and its effect on neglect. This paper applies Newman’s (2013) conceptual model of measuring neglect to Geographic Information Systems, comparing rates of neglect in historic Doylestown, Quakertown, and Bristol boroughs in Pennsylvania, USA utilizing different amounts of peripheral agricultural preservation. Comparisons are made examining descriptive statistics on existing conditions, a Polychoric correlation evaluating relationships between drivers of neglect, and a cross-comparative GIS spatial analysis. Results indicate as amounts of peripheral preserved farmlands increase, neglect can be lowered. CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2018) 2(2), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3669 www.ijcua.com Copyright © 2017 Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved. 1. Urban Dynamics and Heritage Neglect Forrester (1969) theorizes that the city is a living organism whose form takes its shape as the result of a combination of external forces. Further, actions and interactions of cultures are a product of the desires, necessities, and values of a city’s actors and give meaning to its form (Newman, 2015). This theory presupposes that comprehension of the built environment must be considered in conjunction with the understanding of both exogenous and endogenous factors and their causal relations(Ben-Hamouche, 2013).Listokin(1997) takes this theory a step further, positing that growth management and preservation of the built environment are fundamentally connected; he also states that these connections are, however, not fully understood. Local policies do not conserve built heritage fully (Pickerill & Pickard, 2007). For example, evidence from historic areas in Germany has shown that contextual economic and political changes significantly impact historically preserved buildings (Alberts & Brinda, 2005). Historic preservation has a primary objective to protect structures and districts of historic prestige from alteration, degradation, and demolition (Ben-Hamouche, 2013). Historic urban areas require high levels of support to retain structural viability, safeguard the integrity of heritage structures, and stimulate local economies. Urban spatial change is largely tied to alterations in contextual land uses, threatening many elements within the historic built environment. Simultaneously, many urban fringe areas (such as farmlands), the settings of historic urban buildings, are also threatened. As such, regulations now go beyond local preservation policies and include larger scaled contextual approaches for heritage management (Collins, Waters, & Dotson, 1991). Centrifugal development has effected many urban historic buildings, in many cases resulting in their removal. Urban sprawl can create a uniform spatial form across cities and destroy much structural heritage in its wake (Treib, 2008; Yahner & Nadenicek, 1997). Urban expansion can accelerate the loss of historic buildings because of a lack of utility, a process referred to as demolition by neglect (DBN). DBN is the removal of a historic building or structure due to prolonged vacancy and extreme maintenance issues (Leatherbarrow & Mostafavi, 1993). The capabilities of historic preservation policies to assist in retaining historic character and function in heritage buildings is highly dependent on the examination of process and changes within urbanized areas and their surrounding contexts (Alderson, 2006; Cook, 1996). Since urban contexts are constantly in flux, form and function rarely coincide in any environment for an extended period of time (Jackson, 1997). Contemporary historic preservation theory gives priority to form through the pursuit of historic integrity. An unfortunate outcome of this position is that if a historic building loses its function in contemporary society, it can also eventually be removed. Luckily, adaptive reuse and rehabilitation efforts have increased recently, leading to small upsurges in historic structure retainance in some localities (Newman, 2015). Many U.S. historic structures are policed on a unit-by-unit basis and are then analyzed based on whether or not they appear as they once did at a given historical time (or based on their historic integrity). Jigyasu (2002), notes that historic structures have two fundamental dimensions: historic integrity, and a relationship to the contextual environment with which they interact. A vital approach to the preservation of historic buildings lies with the ability to managing the individually with local policy (internally) and successful management of regional land use changes (externally). Therefore, the examination of the individual structure and its dynamic setting must occur if neglect can be fully understood. (Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998; Pickerill & Armitage, 2009). The shift toward a more dynamic management of historic structures must focus on adaptive reuse, rehabilitation, and land use management. American historic preservation can differ from European approaches due to a stronger emphasis on local regulations in the U.S., while many European cities practice an area-based approach (Doratli, 2005). Area-based strategies can increase non-government funding, allow for greater expansions in historic districts, increase private sector investment in historic regeneration projects, and increase heritage rehabilitation in marginalized neighborhoods (Pickerill & Armitage, 2009). In the U.S., broader heritage management approaches are typically regulatory or incentive-based. Regulatory measures, such as state regulated monetary penalties, generally involve punishment for allowing neglect to occur or continue. South Dakota statutes makes willful neglect a misdemeanor; in West Virginia, local landmark commissions enforce standards for the maintenance of landmarks; San Francisco, California can assess a $500 per day penalty to owners who allow neglect to occur (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2008). Listokin (1997) theory suggests that local polices, when used in a singular approach, will not adequately result in conserved built heritage in the long-term (Alberts & Brinda, 2005; Pickerill & Pickard, 2007). Contemporary research reinforces this position, but shows a separation between historic preservation and external land use management (Avrami, 2012). Historic buildings are just one component within a larger, ever-changing system; if both aims are focused to align to one goal, only then will the system be mutually beneficial properly

Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs
Girne American University

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Gauging the Relationship between Contextual Growth and Structural Neglect, Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, October 2017, Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs (JCUA), DOI: 10.25034/ijcua.2018.3669.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page