Uncovering the Relationship Between Historic Districts and Same-Sex Households. Issue 4 (1st October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kinahan, Kelly L.; Ruther, Matthew H.
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Planning Association. Volume 86:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 481
• Page End: 494
• Publication Date: 2020-10-01
• Subjects: historic districts -- neighborhood change -- same-sex households; Planning -- Periodicals; City planning -- Periodicals; Regional planning -- Periodicals; 711.4097305; 361.60973
• DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2020.1762507
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0194-4363

Abstract

Abstract: Problem, research strategy, and findings: Despite established connections between the LGBTQ community and historic preservation, there is no analysis of unmarried partnered same-sex households (UPSSHs) and historic districts. Here we investigate the relationship between locally designated and National Register historic districts and demographic, socioeconomic, and housing changes—specifically, UPSSHs, racial and ethnic subgroups, and median household income—in 46 U.S. cities. Although the U.S. Census data capturing UPSSHs are time limited and only capture one segment of the broader LGBTQ community, they are the best available national data. We find significant growth in the share of male UPSSHs from 2000 to 2010 in census tracts where historic districts were established during the 1990s. Tracts with higher shares of male UPSSHs in 2000 are more likely to establish locally designated historic districts from 2000 to 2010. Finally, we also find evidence that historic districts are significantly related to later changes in race, ethnicity, and median household income. Takeaway for practice: The results indicate that historic districts can help grow the presence of UPSSHs, one segment of the broader LGBTQ community. Planners concerned with protecting queer spaces should consider incorporating preservation-based approaches. The presence of male UPSSHs increases the likelihood of locally designated historic districts, and preservation planners should work to ensure LGBTQ social histories are included in new designations where appropriate. Our findings also suggest losses of racial and ethnic subgroups and increasing median household income after designation, indicating the need for proactive efforts from planners and preservations to help protect existing vulnerable residents. The timing of these changes is not the same for all variables; thus, planners should focus attention on both short- and long-term shifts in historic districts.