...

Historic preservation rules are part of the regulatory framework of most major American cities. But the historic districts in which they are generally applied get little inquiry from economists, meaning little is known about their nationwide scope and economic impact. And even between municipalities they can vary, depending on the precedents set by different circuit courts. Now the Cato Institute, a libertarian Washington think tank, is filing a brief that aims to bring consistency to these laws nationwide. 

In a 2014 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of urban economists led by Ed Glaeser found that historic districts in New York City experienced less construction, and affected where in the city developers build. More importantly, the economists found that preservation laws were costliest in neighborhoods where redevelopment would have been most valuable.

Another paper, published in 2016 by NYU, to mark the 50th anniversary of New York City’s preservation laws, explored the relationships between historic districts and the type of buildings built, the type of buildings preserved, demographics of the residents in historic districts, and more.

...

The Cato Institute, where I am a research assistant, and the National Federation of Independent Business’ Small Business Legal Center, submitted a brief in support of petitioner Stahl, a large New York City development company. The brief includes new evidence I gathered showing that historic preservation is used far more widely in large, old cities governed by regulator-friendly rules than by cities that are governed by owner-friendly rules.

For example, the Urban Land Institute’s study of Baltimore’s historic districts found that the city, which is governed under the regulator-friendly Fourth Circuit, has far more protected structures than Philadelphia, which is governed by the Third Circuit rules. This is despite the fact that both cities have a similar percentage of pre-1945 buildings.