San Francisco is home to “Postcard Row” – a famous block of Victorian houses that appears in all sorts of media, from the titular postcards to shows like Full House. When thinking of buildings worth preserving, a block like "Postcard Row" is inevitably what springs to mind: historic, but also famous, iconic, recognizable. Ask someone what they think of when asked about VIctorian architecture in America, and they’ll likely picture a quaint, colorful San Francisco row house with lacy gingerbread woodwork overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge. This picturesque architecture is worth preserving. 

What complicates preservation, however, is the truth that the entire city of San Francisco is full of similarly gorgeous examples of American Victorian architecture – many with comparable historic value, even if less TV-famous – and using this logic of preservation leads to tensions between the idea of the city as living history and visible beauty, versus the at-times ruthless pragmatism of the city as a place where people need to live. 

San Francisco is not just home to beautiful historic architecture; has also been plagued with a shortage of affordable housing since the 1990s. It’s currently one of the least affordable cities to live in the country. While onerous building codes are partly to blame, the crisis has been exacerbated by NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) interests opposed to multiple-family development, frequently citing the “historic character” of San Francisco's many neighborhoods as a reason to block denser housing. The idea of “historic character” isn’t just used to keep old buildings from being torn down. It’s actively used to prevent new development just in the area, like a proposed 7-storey, 90 unit building in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood replacing a McDonald’s. The building was rejected as being “too tall” and “degrading [to] the historic value” of the neighborhood. 

All too often, “historic character” means allowing only single-family homes, that are far beyond the economic means of many in the city. This data map shows neighborhoods where only single-family housing is allowed in red: 

While historic conservation is a valuable goal, it can’t come at the cost of housing accessibility. The Preservation League of NYS explains the importance of making sure historic preservation benefits all: 

"The League champions historic preservation as a tool to help build more just, sustainable, and resilient communities. But viewing preservation through this lens requires us to consider how to incorporate affordable housing into our work. Communities, whether they are rural or urban, are not equitable if only a certain socioeconomic class can afford to live there."

The issue of historic preservation and housing availability is complex, however, and not well-served by reducing it to the single narrative of NIMBY homeowners opposing development and driving up rents. Plenty of cities are more than willing to knock down old buildings to make room for new developments, although this can cause just as many problems as stubbornly resisting change.  

II: Gateway to The West: The Destruction of Jobbers’ Canyon

While some cities hold on to historic buildings too tightly, others throw them away for short-sighted gain. 

In 1988, ConAgra Brands put pressure on the city of Omaha to assist the corporation with finding space for its headquarters – if ConAgra wouldn't be accommodated by Omaha, so the argument went, then it would just pack up and go to a bigger city, such as Minneapolis or Chicago. In 1989, Omaha responded by demolishing twenty-four buildings comprising the historic district of Jobbers’ Canyon to make space for ConAgra’s new headquarters – headquarters specifically designed to serve ConAgra's needs as a corporation. 

The loss was significant – not just in terms of buildings that could have been repurposed – but an important part of the city’s history and American history. Jobbers’ Canyon, described by a ConAgra CEO as a bunch of “big, ugly buildings,” was once the home to outfitters and suppliers selling goods to people traveling westward. It remains the largest nationally registered historic place lost to demolition. 

These headquarters have since been abandoned, and ConAgra ended up moving to Chicago anyway, twenty-six years later, leaving behind, ironically, more “old, ugly” buildings. A corporation is concerned with profits above all else, and perhaps from a corporation's logic, demolishing a historic district from the 1800s in exchange for twenty-six years of calling Omaha home is a fair trade. From another perspective, Jobbers Canyon is gone forever, sacrificed for short-term financial gain, and replaced by an abandoned corporate campus that was active for a fraction of time of the historic district it replaced. Beyond the loss of significant architecture and working class history, Omaha also lost out on buildings that could have been repurposed for housing and new businesses, left instead with a massive empty campus designed specifically for one corporation's convenience, and difficult to repurpose to a city's current needs.

Of course not every city makes Omaha’s mistakes. Some cities do repurpose old buildings – warehouses and old offices turned into apartments – but in such cases the cost associated with repurposing can translate into high-end housing which fails to address the need for affordable places to live. D.C. and surrounding towns are leading the charge when it comes to converting old commercial buildings into residential developments.

III: Foggy Bottom Luxury: Historical Building Conversions in D.C.

The Wray used to contain office space used by the State Department. Now, well-heeled renters can look out and see the Washington Monument from richly appointed, eco-friendly units that go for $2500 to $4500 per month. D.C. is first in the nation when it comes to office-to-residential conversions, and nearby towns like Alexandria aren’t far behind. These high-end apartments don’t do anything to address housing inequality, though. Developers in D.C. are taking advantage of repurposing historic buildings for housing, but ignore both the history of these buildings and the need for accessible housing with the creation of so many sleek new upscale apartments.

These conversions ostensibly aim to help address the need for new homes, but during a housing crisis that impacts everyone, why are so many new developments luxury developments? Daniel Herriges suggests that construction costs, chaotic supply and demand, zoning and regulations, and cities that make it difficult to build “missing middle” housing. While Herriges is talking about completely new development, all these factors apply to repurposing historic buildings for housing. It’s a complex, difficult process, and developers are eager to recoup costs.  

Even more worrying, other cities like NYC are looking to follow D.C.’s lead in converting office buildings into residential buildings. Spurred on by pandemic shifts, they appear on track to create more housing only attainable by the wealthy. 

In Washington, D.C. old buildings are being converted at an astonishing rate, but the need for affordable housing remains high. How can the nation’s capital, and other cities from coast to coast, effectively use the resource of old buildings to create equitable housing opportunities? 

IV. Historic Housing for All

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 archeological 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.