It’s a fraught situation. How do cities balance housing needs with historic preservation? What should they do when faced with record housing shortages and lots of vacant old buildings sitting unused? It’s a complex issue, made even more complicated by the costs associated with maintaining and repurposing old buildings. Beyond costs and financial forces, zoning and political pressure impact the use of historic structures. While global and national forces are all at play, every locality is unique. Numerous organizations have written extensively about these issues, most importantly the need for financial incentives that don’t just encourage conversion and conservation efforts, but also make sure that development costs aren’t dumped on renters and potential residents. 

At the national level, there are multiple programs and resources addressing the issue of historic preservation and housing. HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) has “programs [that] support and facilitate the use of historic properties for affordable housing, economic development, and community revitalization. HUD encourages the rehabilitation of historic buildings and the preservation of irreplaceable resources like archaeological sites that convey centuries of human cultural activity.” HUD’s Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation details the intersection of the need for affordable housing and preserving historic buildings, including government programming aimed at addressing the issue, including historic tax credits. Financial incentives like historic tax credits can help offset the costs of maintaining/renovating old buildings. 

Many states have programs to address preservation needs. While it doesn’t have the cultural weight of San Francisco’s picturesque rows of Painted Ladies, Ohio is full of historic houses – former residences of presidents and historical figures like Edison and the Wright brothers. But what about old buildings that don’t end up as museums or historic sites? These buildings have the potential to address housing inequality, but it’s not a simple solution. The cost of maintaining or converting old buildings is a major barrier, and is linked to the issue of historic structures being turned into upscale housing and businesses to justify costs. 

In Ohio, the state government encourages the rehabilitation of historic buildings with tax credits similar to HUD’s, with the plan that “these historic buildings will be a part of our recovery, providing homes for Ohioans and job opportunities during the rehabilitation and long after, when new businesses move into the buildings.”  

While local governments and communities don’t always have access to financial resources to incentivize affordable conversion of historic buildings, they *do* have the ability to influence discussions on zoning and codes, and communities are where NIMBY forces are most active in blocking change. Ultimately, each city has unique resources and issues when it comes to dealing with housing inequality, whether it’s historic single-family homes and NIMBYs preventing new development, old buildings demolished for short term gain, or repurposing historic structures for use only by the wealthy.