Page numbers in italics represent figures or tables.
abandonment. See housing abandonment
Abell, Baltimore: demographic characteristics, 58–60; vacancy in, 153
advocacy. See preservation advocacy/organizations
affordability. See housing affordability
AMI. See average median income
average median income (AMI), 177
Baltimore: Abell, 58–60, 153; anomalies in, 42–45, 43, 44; Beechfield, 57, 57–58; Broadway East, 129; Brooklyn, 55–57, 56, 153; Butcher’s Hill, 57, 57–58; Canton, 33, 55–57, 56, 58, 62, 153; Charles Village, 58–60, 153; Cheswolde, 58–60, 153; clarification on, 54–60; code enforcement in, 137, 138–45; corruption allegations in, 132, 133; data methods for, 205–9; demographic characteristic correlation in, 52–54; demolition and stabilization relationship in, 125–27; Downtown, 42–43, 43; Druid Heights, 129; Easterwood, 193; educational attainment changes in, 56, 56–58, 57; educational attainment in HDs in, 29, 30; educational attainment in never-designated districts in, 29, 30, 36–37, 37; federal funding in, 134–35, 138–45; Franklin Square, 143–44; growth paradigm in, 145–48; highway wars impacting, 25; Holcomb on preservation in, 26–28; Hopkins on preservation in, 31–35; housing abandonment in, 115–17, 130, 154–55; housing inspector decline in, 142–43; Irvington, 57, 57–58; Kernewood, 58–60, 153; as legacy city, 21; local designation in, 33–35; MFI/MHI in HDs in, 30–31, 31; MFI/MHI in never-designated districts in, 30–31, 31, 37–38, 38; Mill Hill, 55–57, 56, 153; Mondawmin, 129; Morrell Park, 55–57, 56, 153; Northwood, 43–45, 44; NSAs, 28–31, 148–54, 205–8; Oaklee, 55–57, 56; Philadelphia similarities to, 199; population decline in, 24, 114–15, 224n1; preservation advocacy motives in, 3; proliferation of preservation in, 25–26; property liens in, 140–41, 227n37; pro-preservation position in, 26–28; qualitative approach for, 208–9; quantitative approach for, 205–8; research conclusions on demographic characteristics in, 61; research conclusions on HD designation in, 62–64; research conclusions on vacancy, abandonment, and demolition in, 154–55; research questions regarding, 201–4; research trends in, 22–24; revitalization examples in, 33; tax sale certificates held by, 134, 139–40; top-down process in, 21, 67; UDAGs for, 133–34; Union Square, 57, 57–58, 59, 130–48; Upton, 129; Urban Institute report on racial inequality in, 119, 120; vacancy and demographic characteristic correlation in, 151–54, 152; vacancy and educational attainment correlation in, 152, 152–54; vacancy and MFI/MHI correlation in, 151–52, 152; vacancy rates of HDs in, 148–50, 149; vacancy rates of never-designated districts in, 148–50, 149; violent crime crisis in, 124–25; White population of HDs in, 29, 29; White population of never-designated districts in, 29, 29, 36. See also Project CORE; vacant buildings
Baltimore HD clusters: defining Baltimore, 35–36; demographic characteristics of pre-designation, 39–42, 40, 41; demographic characteristics of 2000s, 60–61; educational attainment in, 36–37, 37; HTC Program median investment among, 49–50, 50; MFI/MHI in, 37–38, 38; vacancy rates of, 150, 150–51; White population in, 36
Baltimore Commission for Historic and Architectural Preservation (CHAP): Baltimore Heritage complementing, 32; Demolition by Neglect Ordinance, 142; Executive Session on vacancy, deterioration, and demolition by neglect, 130–48; files, 209; founding of, 25; Goodman as commissioner of, 145–47; Holcomb of, 26–28, 125–27, 208–9; Norman as commissioner of, 140, 146–47; oversight from, 26; on rehabilitation projects, 47; tension within, 146–47; Whitely on, 134
Baltimore Historic Tax Credit (HTC) Program, 219n27; eligibility under, 47; investment protection from, 27–28; investment ranges of, 49–52, 50; investment variations of, 23–24; median investment of, 49–50, 50; purpose of, 45–46; redevelopment projects facilitated by, 47–48; rehabilitation encouraged by, 46–47
Bankoff, Simeon, 218n11; on landmarking, 76–78; preservation ethic coined by, 13
Bedford Corners district, 73–74
Bedford-Stuyvesant (Bed-Stuy), 224n52; Bedford Corners district in, 73–74; Black population changes in, 97–98, 98; Brady as resident of, 73–74; Brookland real estate developer in, 164–65; CB3 landmarks committee in, 101–4, 157, 163–69; close call in, 220n6; crime rates in, 89–91, 90; Dakota as resident of, 101–3, 223n51; development pressure in, 163–69; Dixon Advisory USA in, 165, 168, 229n11; educational attainment changes in, 104–6, 105; focus on, 66–67; landmarking in, 70, 101–4; LPC warning to residents of, 166–68; median rent in, 109; Muncey as resident of, 101, 164; preservation advocacy in, 70, 101–4; rent affordability in, 110; Restoration Plaza in, 101, 164; SROs, 167; Stuyvesant Heights landmark district in, 73–74; Walker as resident of, 101, 103–4; White population changes in, 98–99, 99
Bedford Union Armory: AMI regarding, 177; BFC Partners, 177, 183, 184–85, 186; Brooklyn Paper on, 183, 185; Brooklyn Reader on, 182–83; as city-owned property, 176; City Planning Commission approving, 181–82; Cumbo on, 179–81, 182–83, 186, 187, 189–90; Curbed on, 180–81; EDC partners, 177–78, 186; Guardian on, 177–78; housing affordability regarding, 178–84, 185, 187–88; Legal Aid Society on, 184; NYCEDC intentions for, 176–77; political division over, 178–79; Politico on, 180; redevelopment of, 175–88; Supreme Court ruling on, 184; as Trojan horse, 173; Tully Costa on, 176, 179; undermining by, 158
Bed-Stuy. See Bedford-Stuyvesant
Black butterfly pattern, 119, 120
Black population: Black butterfly pattern of Baltimore, 119, 120; Central Brooklyn changes in, 97–98, 98; Central Brooklyn majority as, 66–67; housing affordability paradox for, 12–13; in Northwood, Baltimore, 44–45; working-class White population compared to, 23
blight removal program, 117–21
Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, 22
bottom-up process, 21, 67
Broadway East, Baltimore, 129
Brookland real estate developer, 164–65
Brooklyn, Baltimore: demographic characteristics, 55–57, 56; vacancy in, 153
Brooklyn, New York: Boerum Hill, 22; East New York, 221n13; educational attainment changes in, 104–6, 105; gentrification momentum in, 65–67; housing price index in, 108; J’ouvert celebrations in, 232n50; median rent in, 109; Philadelphia similarities to, 199. See also Central Brooklyn
built environment: defense of, 67–68; as social process, 3–9
Butcher’s Hill, Baltimore, 57, 57–58
Canton, Baltimore: Butcher’s Hill Baltimore compared to, 58; demographic characteristics, 55–57, 56; gentrification in, 62; revitalization in, 33; vacancy in, 153
CB3 landmarks committee. See Community Board 3 landmarks committee
CDBGs. See Community Development Block Grants
Central Brooklyn: Black population as majority in, 66–67; bottom-up process in, 21, 67; commitment to historic preservation in, 70–71; context of development pressure in, 156–63; crime rates in, 80–81, 89–91, 90; data methods for, 209–12; defense of built environment in, 67–68; demolition eviction in, 171; educational attainment changes in, 104–6, 105; Hispanic and Latinx population in, 100; housing price index in, 108; housing price trajectory in, 106–11, 108, 109, 110; interview contacts in, 209–11; median rent in, 109; MFI/MHI in, 109–10; motivation to sell property in, 162–63; preservation advocacy motives in, 3; racial demographic characteristic changes in, 97–100, 98, 99; rent affordability in, 110; research conclusions on development pressure in, 188–90; research conclusions on landmarking in, 111–13, 112; research questions regarding, 201–4; shelter poverty in, 109–10. See also Bedford-Stuyvesant; Crown Heights; Crown Heights North; Crown Heights South; Prospect Heights
CHAP. See Baltimore Commission for Historic and Architectural Preservation
Charles Village, Baltimore: demographic characteristics, 58–60; vacancy in, 153
Cheatham, Marvin “Doc,” 193
Cheswolde, Baltimore: demographic characteristics, 58–60; vacancy in, 153
CHNA. See Crown Heights North Association
CHSA. See Crown Heights South Association
code enforcement: failure of Baltimore, 137; responses to issues with Baltimore, 138–45
Community Board 3 (CB3) landmarks committee: Dakota of, 101–3, 223n51; development pressure addressed by, 163–69; on LPC warning, 166–68; Muncey of, 101, 164; role of, 157; as volunteer-based organization, 101; Walker of, 101, 103–4
Community Board 8: Tyus of, 69, 162–63, 188, 189, 197, 230n19; Witherwax of, 158–62, 188, 189, 190
Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs), 196; benefits of, 228n46; comparisons of RTC, LIHTC and, 7, 7–8; spending of, 143–44
context of preservation, 8–9
corruption allegations, 132, 133
“creative class,” 54
Crown Heights: crime rates in, 89–91, 90; focus on, 66–67; housing price index in, 108; median rent in, 109; rent affordability in, 110
Crown Heights North: Black population changes in, 97–98, 98; Brown-Puryear as resident of, 69, 91–95, 197; Crown Heights South compared to, 172; educational attainment changes in, 104–6, 105; Elkins House in, 94–95, 96, 223n41; evolution of, 73; HD designation of, 222n27; influx of new resident concerns in, 95; landmarking in, 69–70, 91–97; LPC surveys on, 92–93; neglect in, 93; preservation advocacy in, 69–70, 91–97; Spellen as resident of, 69, 92, 93, 94, 95–97, 223n43; threat to, 93–94; Tyus as resident of, 69, 162–63, 188, 189, 197, 230n19; White population changes in, 98–99, 99; Young as resident of, 69, 91–95, 197
Crown Heights North Association (CHNA): Brown-Puryear of, 69, 91–95, 197; founding of, 69, 91–92; PHNDC compared to, 196–97; role of, 157; Spellen of, 69, 92, 93, 94, 95–97, 223n43; Tyus of, 69, 162–63, 188, 189, 197, 230n19; Young of, 69, 91–95, 197
Crown Heights South: crime rates in, 90; Crown Heights North compared to, 172; development pressure in, 169–88; district boundaries in, 173; housing price index in, 108; landmarking in, 157–58, 169–75; Lubavitcher Jew population in, 173; Tyus on, 230n19. See also Bedford Union Armory
Crown Heights South Association (CHSA), 169–75, Tully Costa of, 157, 169-75
data. See research/data; research/data conclusions
demographic characteristics: Abell Baltimore, 58–60; Baltimore pre-designation cluster, 39–42, 40, 41; Baltimore 2000s cluster, 60–61; Beechfield Baltimore, 57, 57–58; Black butterfly and White L patterns of Baltimore racial, 119, 120; Brooklyn Baltimore, 55–57, 56; Butcher’s Hill Baltimore, 57, 57–58; Canton Baltimore, 55–57, 56; Central Brooklyn changes in racial, 97–100, 98, 99; Charles Village Baltimore, 58–60; Cheswolde Baltimore, 58–60; Chicago, 99–100; correlation of Baltimore, 52–54; Downtown Baltimore, 42–43, 43; Irvington Baltimore, 57, 57–58; Kernewood Baltimore, 58–60; Mill Hill Baltimore, 55–57, 56; Morrell Park Baltimore, 55–57, 56; Northwood Baltimore, 43–45, 44; NSAs and, 28–31; Oaklee Baltimore, 55–57, 56; quantitative approach for Baltimore, 205–8; research conclusions on Baltimore, 61; Union Square Baltimore, 57, 57–58; vacancy correlation to Baltimore, 151–54, 152. See also Black population; educational attainment; median family/household income; White population
demolition: by ad hoc programs, 118–19; of Chicago public housing projects, 99–100; in Detroit, 117–18; Elkins House saved from, 96; Elkins House scheduled for, 94–95; Hackworth on, 118–19; Mallach on, 118–19; by Maryland Stadium Authority, 118, 123, 124; NTPs on, 128–29, 129; plan for vacant buildings, 226n22; Project CORE for blight removal and, 117–21; stabilization in relation to, 125–27; support for, 32–33
demolition by neglect: Cahill concerned about, 132–33, 136–38; Fox concerned about, 133, 137–38; Goodman addressing concerns about, 145–47; Huppert responding to concerns about, 138–43, 147–48; Miles responding to concerns about, 143–45; Norman addressing concerns about, 146–47; research conclusions on Baltimore, 154–55; in Union Square Baltimore, 130–48; Whitely concerned about, 132–36, 137–38
Demolition by Neglect Ordinance, 142
deterioration: Cahill concerned about, 132–33, 136–38; Fox concerned about, 133, 137–38; Goodman addressing concerns about, 145–47; Huppert responding to concerns about, 138–43, 147–48; Miles responding to concerns about, 143–45; Norman addressing concerns about, 146–47; in Union Square Baltimore, 130–48; Whitely concerned about, 132–36, 137–38
development pressure: in Bed-Stuy, 163–69; context of Central Brooklyn, 156–63; in Crown Heights South, 169–88; gentrification in relation to, 194; landmarking for mitigating, 156–57; research conclusions on Central Brooklyn, 188–90
Druid Heights, Baltimore, 129
Easterwood, Baltimore, 193
East New York, Brooklyn, 221n13
educational attainment: Baltimore changes in, 56, 56–58, 57; in Baltimore HD clusters, 36–37, 37; in Baltimore HDs, 29, 30; in Baltimore never-designated districts, 29, 30, 36–37, 37; in Baltimore pre-designation clusters, 39–42, 40, 41; Central Brooklyn comparison of changes in, 104–6, 105; in Downtown Baltimore, 43, 43; in Northwood Baltimore, 44, 44–45; vacancy rates correlation to Baltimore, 152, 152–54
Elkins House: demolition scheduling of, 94–95; LPC designating, 96; restoration of, 223n41
enduring neighborhood effect, 52–53
Executive Session, CHAP, 130–48
federal expenditure, 7, 7–8
federal funding: problems with Baltimore, 134–35; responses to issues with Baltimore, 138–45
Franklin Square, Baltimore, 143–44
Furman Center. See New York University Furman Center
gentrification: assumption, 9; Bankoff on, 77–78; in Canton Baltimore, 62; Central Brooklyn racial demographic characteristics as evidence of, 97–100, 98, 99; Chadotsang on, 75; Clarke on, 178; designation in relation to, 21–22; development pressure in relation to, 194; in Downtown Baltimore, 42–43; fear of, 1–2; Holcomb on, 28; Hopkins on, 32; momentum of Brooklyn New York, 65–67; Spellen on, 96–97; Tully Costa on, 169; Veconi on, 83
HDC. See Historic Districts Council
HDs. See historic districts
Hispanic/Latinx population, 100
historical significance, 11–13
historic districts (HDs): Crown Heights North designated as, 222n27; educational attainment changes in Baltimore, 56, 56–58, 57; educational attainment in Baltimore, 29, 30; MFI/MHI in Baltimore, 30–31, 31; National Trust for Historic Preservation on, 11; NRHP defining, 10; as NRHP districts, 218n9; NSAs within, 28; quantitative approach for Baltimore, 205–8; research conclusions on designating Baltimore, 62–64; vacancy rates in Baltimore, 148–50, 149; White population in Baltimore, 29, 29. See also Baltimore HD clusters; specific districts
Historic Districts Council (HDC), 76–78
historic preservation: alternative theories of, 14–15; background on formalizing, 9–14; embrace of, 199–200; institutionalization of, 5; introductory overview of research on, 15–20; purpose and impacts of, 1–3; research questions on, 201–4; as social process, 3–9. See also specific topics
Hogan, Larry: Project CORE announced by, 118; on purpose of Project CORE, 124
Holcomb, Eric: on gentrification, 28; as informant on CHAP, 208–9; on Project CORE, 125–27; on pro-preservation position in Baltimore, 26–28; on revitalization, 28
Hopkins, Johns, 218n10; on gentrification, 32; on preservation in Baltimore, 31–35; on Project CORE, 125–27; on revitalization, 32, 33
housing abandonment: Cohen on, 115–17; research conclusions on Baltimore, 154–55; scope of, 130. See also vacant buildings
housing affordability: regarding Bedford Union Armory, 178–84, 185, 187–88; in Central Brooklyn, 110; in East New York Brooklyn, 221n13; household income and, 224n57; paradox, 12–13; preservation maintaining, 88; shortage of, 158
housing inspector decline, 142–43
housing prices: Central Brooklyn trajectory of, 106–11, 108, 109, 110; increases in, 2; relationship between designation and, 14–15
HTC Program. See Baltimore Historic Tax Credit Program
incarceration: of Pugh, 227n33; over vacant buildings, 142
kaleidoscopic approach, 212
Kernewood, Baltimore: demographic characteristics, 58–60; vacancy in, 153
landmarking: Bankoff on, 76–78; in Bed-Stuy, 70, 101–4; for character preservation, 87; conceptual model of, 112, 112–13, 191, 192; context of New York City, 71–79; in Crown Heights North, 69–70, 91–97; in Crown Heights South, 157–58, 169–75; development pressure mitigated by, 156–57; property rights given away through, 74; in Prospect Heights, 68–69, 79–89; research conclusions on Central Brooklyn, 111–13, 112; speculative development restrained with, 159–60; technical and political aspects of, 76; as tool of local residents, 67–68; Witherwax on, 158–60
Landmarks Conservancy, 76–77
Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC): Chadotsang on, 72–73, 74–76; community reception of, 73; creation of New York City, 71–72; Elkins House designated by, 96; influence of, 11; passivity and guilt of, 83; procedures of, 72–73; Prospect Heights petitions to, 87–88; on resource designation, 220n9; surveys on Crown Heights North, 92–93; warning from, 166–68
legacy cities: assets of, 8–9; defining, 21
liens. See property liens
LIHTC. See Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), 7, 7–8
LPC. See Landmarks Preservation Commission
Lubavitcher, Jewish population, 173
Maryland Department of Legislative Services report, 121–22
Maryland Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program, 47–48
median family/household income (MFI/MHI): in Baltimore HD clusters, 37–38, 38; in Baltimore HDs, 30–31, 31; in Baltimore never-designated districts, 30–31, 31, 37–38, 38; in Baltimore pre-designation clusters, 39–42, 40, 41; in Central Brooklyn, 109–10; in Downtown Baltimore, 43, 43; in Northwood Baltimore, 44, 44; vacancy rates correlation to Baltimore, 151–52, 152
MFI/MHI. See median family/household income
Mill Hill, Baltimore: demographic characteristics, 55–57, 56; vacancy in, 153
Mixed-Use Development, 176
Mondawmin, Baltimore, 129
Morrell Park, Baltimore: demographic characteristics, 55–57, 56; vacancy in, 153
Municipal Art Society, 76–77
National Historic Preservation Act, 9
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): establishment of, 9–10; HDs as districts of, 218n9; HDs defined by, 10; local designation compared to, 33–35; Prospect Heights help from, 83
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 11
neighborhood coordinator, 143–45
neighborhood statistical areas (NSAs): demographic characteristics and, 28–31; quantitative approach for, 205–8; vacant buildings in, 148–54
never-designated districts: Baltimore pre-designation cluster demographic characteristics relative to, 40–41, 41; educational attainment changes in Baltimore, 56, 56–58, 57; educational attainment in Baltimore, 29, 30, 36–37, 37; MFI/MHI in Baltimore, 30–31, 31, 37–38, 38; quantitative approach for Baltimore, 207–8; vacancy rates in Baltimore, 148–50, 149; vacancy rates of Baltimore HD clusters relative to, 150, 150–51; White population in Baltimore, 29, 29, 36. See also specific districts
New York City: City Planning Commission of, 181–82; context of landmarking in, 71–79; educational attainment changes in, 104–6, 105; population of, 65; property tax increases in, 107–8. See also Brooklyn, New York; Central Brooklyn
New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), 176–77
New York University Furman Center: on crime rates in Central Brooklyn, 90, 90–91; as data source, 211–12; on socioeconomic makeup of Central Brooklyn, 104–6, 105
Norman, David: on liens, 140; on Urban Renewal district designation, 146–47
NRHP. See National Register of Historic Places
NSAs. See neighborhood statistical areas
NTP. See Notices to Proceed
NYCEDC. See New York City Economic Development Corporation
Philadelphia: Baltimore and Brooklyn New York similarities to, 199; preservationists in, 12–13
PHNDC. See Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council
population: Central Brooklyn Hispanic and Latinx, 100; decline in Baltimore, 24, 114–15, 224n1; of Downtown Baltimore, 43; of Lubavitchers, 173; of New York City, 65; trends in Philadelphia, 199. See also Black population; White population
preservation advocacy/organizations: background on formalizing, 9–14; Baltimore motivation for, 3; in Bed-Stuy, 70, 101–4; Central Brooklyn motivation for, 3; community activism experience and, 92; in Crown Heights North, 69–70, 91–97; fortification and, 6; in Prospect Heights, 68–69, 79–89; self-selecting groups in, 161. See also specific advocates; specific organizations
preservationists: argument of, 1; in Philadelphia, 12–13; Project CORE perspectives from, 125–27. See also specific preservationists
Project CORE: community expectations of, 124; as crime reduction strategy, 124–25; as demolition and blight removal program, 117–21; in Detroit, 117–18; disinvestment leading to, 32–33; factors influencing change by, 130; funding for, 121–22, 123; Hogan announcing, 118; Hogan on purpose of, 124; Holcomb on, 125–27; Hopkins on, 125–27; intrigue of, 155; legacy of, 193; Maryland Department of Legislative Services report on, 121–22; NTPs from, 128–29, 129; preservationist perspectives on, 125–27; profile and critique of, 121–25; Pugh on purpose of, 124–25; quarterly reports, 127–30, 129; revitalization support from, 118; Rohn on, 121–25; shift in focus of, 123–24
property rights crowd: criticism from, 5, 94; galvanization of, 69–70
property tax increase, 2, 107–8
Prospect Heights: accountability in, 87–88; Atlantic Yards project impacting, 68, 82–83, 85–86, 88; Black population changes in, 97–98, 98; crime rates in, 80–81, 89–91, 90; educational attainment changes in, 104–6, 105; focus on, 66–67; house tours in, 86; housing price index in, 108; intrusion of, 84–85; landmarking in, 68–69, 79–89; LPC petitions in, 87–88; median rent in, 109; NRHP helping, 83; Oratowski as resident of, 84–86, 88–89; preservation advocacy in, 68–69, 79–89; rent affordability in, 110; Shuford as resident of, 79–82, 221n20; turnaround in, 81; Veconi as resident of, 82–85, 86–88, 100, 209–10; White population changes in, 98–99, 99; Witherwax as resident of, 158–62, 188, 189, 190
Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council (PHNDC): CHNA compared to, 196–97; founding of, 82; Oratowski of, 84–86, 88–89; roles of, 87–88, 157; unity from, 85; Veconi of, 82–85, 86–88, 100, 209–10; Witherwax of, 158–62, 188, 189, 190
Pugh, Catherine: incarceration of, 227n33; on Project CORE, 124–25
qualitative approach, 208–9
quantitative approach, 205–8
rehabilitation/redevelopment: of Bedford Union Armory, 175–88; CHAP on, 47; HTC Program encouraging, 46–47; HTC Programs facilitating, 47–48
Rehabilitation Tax Credit (RTC), 196; availability of, 214n8; comparisons of CDBGs, LIHTC and, 7, 7–8; Maryland Heritage Structure, 47–48
rent. See housing affordability; housing prices
research/data: Furman Center for, 211–12; future considerations and summary of, 191–200; introductory overview of, 15–20; kaleidoscopic approach to, 212; methods for Baltimore, 205–9; methods for Central Brooklyn, 209–12; qualitative approach to, 208–9; quantitative approach to, 205–8; trends in Baltimore, 22–24; triangulation approach to, 201
research/data conclusions: on demographic characteristics in Baltimore, 61; on development pressure in Central Brooklyn, 188–90; on HD designation in Baltimore, 62–64; on landmarking in Central Brooklyn, 111–13, 112; on vacancy, abandonment, and demolition in Baltimore, 154–55
research questions, 201–4
revitalization: by creative class, 54; Holcomb on, 28; Hopkins on, 32, 33; Project CORE supporting extensive, 118
RTC. See Rehabilitation Tax Credit
Ryberg-Webster, Stephanie, 7, 7–8, 196
Sampson, Robert, 14, 212; on Chicago demographics, 99–100; enduring neighborhood effect of, 52–53
single room occupancy rental units (SROs), 167
speculative development: deviousness of, 156; discouragement of, 2; landmarking for restraining, 159–60
SROs. See single room occupancy rental units
stabilization: complications of, 141; demolition in relation to, 125–27
state historic preservation organizations, 10
St. George, Carmen Victoria, 184
Stressed Housing Market, 119
Stuyvesant Heights landmark district, 73–74
triangulation approach, 201
Tully Costa, Evelyn, 188; on Bedford Union Armory, 176, 179; on demolition eviction, 171; frustration of, 170; on gentrification, 169; health issues of, 174–75; on importance of educating neighbors, 172; on landmarking in Crown Heights South, 157–58, 169–75; presence of, 198
UDAGs. See Urban Development Action Grants
Union Square, Baltimore: Cahill concerned about, 132–33, 136–38; demographic characteristics, 57, 57–58; District Planner working in, 143; Fox concerned about, 133, 137–38; Goodman addressing concerns about, 145–47; Huppert responding to concerns about, 138–43, 147–48; Miles responding to concerns about, 143–45; Norman addressing concerns about, 146–47; photos of, 59; vacancy, deterioration, and demolition by neglect in, 130–48; Whitely concerned about, 132–36, 137–38
University of Maryland, Baltimore, 145–46
Urban Development Action Grants (UDAGs), 133–34
Urban Institute report, 119, 120
Urban Renewal: district designation, 146–47; negative impacts of, 135–36
vacant buildings: in Abell Baltimore, 153; in Baltimore HD clusters, 150, 150–51; in Baltimore HDs, 148–50, 149; in Baltimore never-designated districts, 148–50, 149; in Brooklyn Baltimore, 153; Cahill concerned about, 132–33, 136–38; in Canton Baltimore, 153; in Charles Village Baltimore, 153; in Cheswolde Baltimore, 153; Cohen on, 115–17; counting uncertainty issue with, 115–16; demographic characteristic correlation to, 151–54, 152; in Detroit, 117–18; educational attainment correlation to, 152, 152–54; estimations on number of, 130; Fox concerned about, 133, 137–38; Goodman addressing concerns about, 145–47; Huppert responding to concerns about, 138–43, 147–48; incarceration over, 142; in Kernewood Baltimore, 153; MFI/MHI correlation to, 151–52, 152; Miles responding to concerns about, 143–45; in Mill Hill Baltimore, 153; in Morrell Park Baltimore, 153; Norman addressing concerns about, 146–47; in NSAs, 148–54; ownership complications with, 115; plan to demolish, 226n22; population decline leading to mass, 114–15; pressure to sell, 135; Project CORE for addressing, 117–21; research conclusions on, 154–55; spread of, 117; in Union Square Baltimore, 130–48; Whitely concerned about, 132–36, 137–38
White population: in Baltimore HD clusters, 36; in Baltimore HDs, 29, 29; in Baltimore never-designated districts, 29, 29, 36; in Baltimore pre-designation clusters, 39–42, 40, 41; Central Brooklyn changes in, 98–99, 99; in Downtown Baltimore, 42–43, 43; in Northwood Baltimore, 43–45, 44; privilege and, 213n1; White L pattern of Baltimore, 119, 120; working-class Black population compared to, 23