The adverse impacts of local historic designation: The case of small apartment buildings in Philadelphia

  • Paul K. Asabere
  • Forrest E. Huffman
  • Seyed Mehdian


This paper examines the sales effects of local historic preservation. Using the hedonic framework our study shows that small historic apartment buildings experienced a 24% reduction in price compared to nonlocally certified properties. Our variable for federal historic districts, however, produced statistically insignificant results. The results suggest that historic control (as practiced in Philadelphia) is confiscatory. The study illustrates an outcome of public regulation that impinges on private property rights.

Key words

adverse impacts local designation historic preservation public choice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asabere, P.K., G. Hachey, and S. Grubaugh. (1989). “Architecture, Historic Zoning, and the Value of Homes,”Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 2, 181–195.Google Scholar
  2. Asabere, P.K., and F.E. Huffman. (1991). “Historic Districts and Land Values,”The Journal of Real Estate Research 6:1 (Spring).Google Scholar
  3. Benson, V.O., and R. Klein. (1988). “The Impact of Historic Districting on Property Values,”Appraisal Journal (April), 223–232.Google Scholar
  4. Berk, K.N. (1977). “Tolerance and Condition in Regression Computations,”Journal of American Statistical Association 72, 863–866.Google Scholar
  5. Box, G., and D. Cox. (1964). “An Analysis of Transformations,”Journal of the American Statistical Association Series B, 26, 211–243.Google Scholar
  6. Box, G., and P.W. Tidwell. (1962). “Transformations of the Independent Variables,”Technometrics 531–550.Google Scholar
  7. Ford, D.A. (1989). “The Effect of Historic District Designation on Single-Family Home Prices,”AREUEA Journal 17:3 (Fall), 353–362.Google Scholar
  8. Kennedy, P.E. (1984). “Estimation with Correctly Interpreted Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations,”American Economic Review.Google Scholar
  9. White, H. (1980). “A Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix and a Direct Test for Heteroscedasticity,”Econometrica 48, 817–838.Google Scholar
  10. Lockard, W.E., and S.D. Hines. (1983). “Historic Zoning Considerations in Neighborhood and District Analysis,”Appraisal Journal (October), 485–497.Google Scholar
  11. National Trust for Historic Preservation. (1983). Information Sheet No. 35. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historical Preservation.Google Scholar
  12. National Park Service. (1991). U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.,Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Fiscal Year 1990 Analysis February.Google Scholar
  13. Philadelphia City Planning Commission. (1986).Analysis of Preservation Techniques for Center City Philadelphia October 30.Google Scholar
  14. Pindyck, R.S., and D.L. Rubinfeld. (1981).Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Schaeffer, P.V., and C.P. Ahem. (1988). “The Impact of Historic District Designation on Property Values: An Empirical Study,” Unpublished paper, University of Colorado at Denver, December.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul K. Asabere
    • 1
  • Forrest E. Huffman
    • 1
  • Seyed Mehdian
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Business and ManagementTemple UniversityPhiladelphia
  2. 2.The Ohio State UniversityNewark

Personalised recommendations