Author
Listed:
- Sarah L. Mawhorter
- Kelly L. Kinahan
Abstract
Problem, research strategy, and findingsLocal historic districts function as a zoning overlay regulating the urban form, yet limited empirical analysis has considered how historic districts may interact with broader land use regulations. We conducted a comparative case study of the designation process in two Los Angeles (CA) neighborhoods, combining archival research and building permit data analysis. We examined land use regulations, development patterns, and the arguments of supporters and opponents to understand the intended purposes of the historic districts and the factors that contributed to either adoption or withdrawal. We found interactions between historic districts and other land use and zoning regulations substantially shaped the designation process and outcome. The designation process also has the potential to foster diverse community coalitions organized around a wide range of concerns, from anti-development to anti-displacement. Because our analysis focused on comparing two neighborhoods in Los Angeles, different factors could shape designation processes in other localized contexts. Still, we have identified lessons with transferability to planning in other cities.Takeaway for practicePlanners should more explicitly attend to the potential conflicts between neighborhood-level historic district designation versus broader housing density and affordability goals. We recommend changes to the historic preservation plan-making process that would include explicit considerations of how the designation could affect housing production and rental affordability to more tightly link to the housing element of the general plan and relevant community plans. Incorporating these considerations into the historic district designation process would allow for better balancing of preservation and development goals.
Suggested Citation
Sarah L. Mawhorter & Kelly L. Kinahan, 2025.
"Where Preservation Meets Land Use Regulation: Historic Districts in Los Angeles,"
Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 91(3), pages 394-413, July.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:91:y:2025:i:3:p:394-413
DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2024.2417053
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:91:y:2025:i:3:p:394-413. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjpa20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.