Journal of Cultural Economics

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 1–26

Determinants of historic and cultural landmark designation: why we preserve what we preserve

Original Article


There is much interest among cultural economists in assessing the effects of heritage preservation policies. There has been less interest in modeling the policy choices made in historic and cultural landmark preservation. This article builds an economic model of a landmark designation that highlights the tensions between the interests of owners of cultural amenities and the interests of the neighboring community. We perform empirical tests by estimating a discrete choice model for landmark preservation using data from Chicago, combining the Chicago Historical Resources Survey of over 17,000 historic structures with property sales, Census, and other geographic data. The data allow us to explain why some properties were designated landmarks (or landmark districts) and others were not. The results identify the influence of property characteristics, local socio-economic factors, and measures of historic and cultural quality. The results emphasize the political economy of implementing preservation policies.


Heritage preservation policy Landmark designation 

JEL classification

Z1 R52 D78 


  1. Ahlfeldt, G. M., & Maennig, W. (2009). Substitutability and complementarity of urban amenities: External effects of built heritage in Berlin. Real Estate Economics, 37(6) (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  2. Alberini, A., & Longo, A. (2006). Combining the travel cost and contingent behavior methods to value cultural heritage sites: Evidence from Armenia. Journal of Cultural Economics, 30(4), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. City of Chicago (2004). Chicago Landmarks: General information.
  5. Commission on Chicago Landmarks. (1996). Chicago historic resources survey: An inventory of architecturally and historically significant structures. Chicago: The Department.Google Scholar
  6. Commission on Chicago Landmarks. (2007). Landmarks ordinance with rules and regulations of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. Chicago: City of Chicago. Accessed 28 April 2008.
  7. Coulson, N. E., & Lahr, M. L. (2005). Gracing the land of Elvis and Beale Street: Historic designation and property values in Memphis. Real Estate Economics, 33(3), 487–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coulson, N. E., & Leichenko, R. M. (2001). The internal and external impact of historical designation on property values. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 23(1), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coulson, N. E., & Leichenko, R. M. (2004). Historic preservation and neighbourhood change. Urban Studies, 41(8), 1587–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cyrenne, P., Fenton, R., & Warbanski, J. (2006). Historic buildings and rehabilitation expenditures: A panel data approach. Journal of Real Estate Research, 28(4), 349–379.Google Scholar
  11. Heilbrun, J., & Gray, C. M. (2001). The economics of art and culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Listokin, D., & Lahr, M. L. (1997). Economic impacts of historic preservation. New Jersey: New Jersey Historic Trust.Google Scholar
  13. Listokin, D., Listokin, B., & Lahr, M. L. (1998). The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3), 431–478.Google Scholar
  14. Longo, A., & Alberini, A. (2006). What are the effects of contamination risks on commercial and industrial properties? Evidence from Baltimore, Maryland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(5), 713–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mason, R. (2005). Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the Literature. Brookings Institution Discussion Paper, September 2005.Google Scholar
  16. Noonan, D. S. (2007). Finding an impact of preservation policies: Price effects of historic landmarks on attached homes in Chicago, 1990–1999. Economic Development Quarterly, 21(1), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schuster, J. M. (2002). Making a list and checking it twice: The list as a tool of historic preservation. (Working Paper No. 14). Chicago: The Cultural Policy Center at the University of Chicago. Accessed 24 April 2008.
  18. Turnbull, G. (2002). Land development under the threat of taking. Southern Economic Journal, 69(2), 468–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Whitehead, J. C., & Finney, S. S. (2003). Willingness to pay for submerged maritime cultural resources. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3–4), 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.University of Michigan and IZAAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations