Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 Sunset Review of City Committees-Morris ResponsesSUNSET REVIEW COMMISSION Committee Questionnaire The Sunset Review Commission was appointed on August 11th, 2011 to make recommendations to the City Council in regards to all City Council appointed boards, committees and commission. The Sunset Review Commission is charged with investigating the effectiveness of each board and recommending the appropriate actions. To assist the commission in carrying out its duties, each Chairperson and Staff Liaison is being asked to complete the following questionnaire and return it by February 29th, 2012. . This questionnaire is mandatory for each Chairperson, but we also encourage each board member to complete one as well. Questionnaires will be reviewed in confidence by the Sunset Review Commission ONLY. Questions regarding this form or the sunset review process can be directed to Shelley Major, Records Management Coordinator (and Sunset Review Commission Staff Liaison), 979-764-3516 or smajor@cstx.gov. Questionnaires can be returned by email to smajor@cstx.gov, faxed to 979-764-6377 or mailed: Shelley Major City Secretary’s Office PO BOX 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Board Name: Historic Preservation Committee  Board Member’s Name: Jacob Morris, Historic Records Coordinator, (Staff Liaison to HP Committee)   How long have you served on this board, including multiple terms? I have worked with the HP Committee since early in 2012. My experience is drawn mainly from initial impressions, compared to previous experiences with Historic Preservation efforts in other communities.   Please list the board’s major accomplishments, during your term (including multiple terms): The Historic Preservation Committee has several ongoing projects, the major ones are summarized below: 1. Project HOLD: I first became familiar with Project HOLD while attending the Texas Historical Commission’s Annual Conference several years ago. The Project HOLD online digitization project has won a national Leadership in History Award (2007) from the American Association for State and Local History. The project has been awarded two awards for Excellence in Preserving History(2005 and 2007) from the Texas Historic Commission. Project HOLD, in my opinion, represents the highest visibility of the City’s history initiatives, at a scale outside of the community. The program has the potential to provide the benefits of a library and archives, without the added cost of large-scale curation of physical documents, since it consists of digitized documents. 2. Oral History Project: Committee members conduct oral history interviews with members of the community, and former public servants. The Histories are then added to Project HOLD. 3. Exploring History Lunch Lecture Series: The Historic Preservation Committee, in conjunction with the Parks Department, holds monthly lunch lectures. The speakers tend to be high quality, and attendance among community members is consistent, and generally numbers in excess of 100 attendees, depending upon the topic and weather. Sponsors typically partner with the City to help defray costs. It is one of the more popular and high-visibility efforts of the HP Committee at the local level. 4. 75th Anniversary Planning: The HP Committee is planning activities for the City of College Station’s 75th Anniversary. 5. Historic Marker Program: The Historic Preservation Committee awards Historic Markers for the city. Approximately 100 markers have been awarded.   Please list the major goals of your committee for the upcoming year: To further the initiatives described above. I am most closely involved with Project HOLD. This program is undergoing a re-organization designed to bring it better in line with industry standards. This will make it easier to apply for any available outside grants, and make it easier for laypeople and researchers to use.   Do you have any recommendations for changes to the duties of your committee? Several members of the HP Committee also serve on the Landmark Committee. Discussions will sometimes shift to planning, the lack of a residential historic preservation overlay district in the city, and related topics. Visitors to my office also raise questions about preserving the built environment, historic buildings, etc. The overlap is understandable, given that the state agency in charge of historic markers, the Texas Historic Commission, also provides oversight and review of historic buildings within the state. Much of the mingling of the two Committees in this case may be because of the lack of districts in the city. Without districts to review, the Landmark Committee does not have much to do, but in the event a district is formed, they will immediately become indispensable to planning functions of the City. Currently, it is difficult to appoint the level of expertise needed, and dictated by ordinance, because little or nothing exists to review. To fill this void, enthusiastic activists instead volunteer for the Landmark Committee positions. In my opinion, two policies could enhance the effectiveness of both the Historic Preservation Committee and the Landmark Committee. 1. Discourage the same individual from serving on both committees. This will minimize confusion and emphasize the related, but different, purposes of both committees. 2. In order to retain sufficient expertise in the Landmark Committee, implement the Historic District Overlay Ordinance in a manner that encourages and promotes creation of several small districts located in the Eastgate and Southside neighborhoods that are created by the unanimous consent of affected property owners. This would accomplish several objectives. It would protect historic resources. It would help stabilize property value. It would eliminate the political controversy associated with any perceived conflict between property rights and conservation of historic resources. It would not require any changes to the existing ordinance. An outline of such an approach is included in the final space of this document.   Do you have any recommendations for changes to the duties of your committee? Several members of the HP Committee also serve on the Landmark Committee. Discussions will sometimes shift to planning, the lack of a residential historic preservation overlay district in the city, and related topics. Visitors to my office also raise questions about preserving the built environment, historic buildings, etc. The overlap is understandable, given that the state agency in charge of historic markers, the Texas Historic Commission, also provides oversight and review of historic buildings within the state. Much of the mingling of the two Committees in this case may be because of the lack of districts in the city. Without districts to review, the Landmark Committee does not have much to do, but in the event a district is formed, they will immediately become indispensable to planning functions of the City. Currently, it is difficult to appoint the level of expertise needed, and dictated by ordinance, because little or nothing exists to review. To fill this void, enthusiastic activists instead volunteer for the Landmark Committee positions. In my opinion, two policies could enhance the effectiveness of both the Historic Preservation Committee and the Landmark Committee. 1. Discourage the same individual from serving on both committees. This will minimize confusion and emphasize the related, but different, purposes of both committees. 2. In order to retain sufficient expertise in the Landmark Committee, implement the Historic District Overlay Ordinance in a manner that encourages and promotes creation of several small districts located in the Eastgate and Southside neighborhoods that are created by the unanimous consent of affected property owners. This would accomplish several objectives. It would protect historic resources. It would help stabilize property value. It would eliminate the political controversy associated with any perceived conflict between property rights and conservation of historic resources. It would not require any changes to the existing ordinance. An outline of such an approach is included in the final space of this document.   Do members of the public attend your meetings? If yes, what is your estimate of public attendance per meeting on average? In my brief experience, meetings seldom have more than one or two members of the public in attendance.   Has there been any negative feedback from citizens regarding your board? If yes, how were they handled by the board? N/A   Do you receive adequate city staff assistance? If no, explain: Yes   Do you receive adequate direction from City Council? If no, explain: N/A   Please use this space to provide any additional information to the Sunset Review Commission not listed in the above questions: Proposed Strategy for Protecting Historic Residential Neighborhood Integrity in College Station, Texas. In September of 2008, over three years ago, the City Council of College Station adopted an ordinance enabling Historic Preservation Overlay districts in the city. Despite wording that encourages the formation of Historic Preservation Overlay Districts, no such district has yet been formed within the city limits. The following addresses some reasons that other comparable communities have successfully formed residential historic districts, often despite with more restrictive enabling historic preservation ordinances. Why, by most measures, College Station and residents value their history Like other cities, the City of College Station, for formation of a Historic Preservation Overlay District to occur, a degree of neighborhood consensus must be attained. Only 50% plus 1 property owners within the proposed district are necessary for the process to occur. The City of Austin is comparable, requiring 51%, and Houston requires a much higher standard, 67% of property owners. Despite a higher standard in both cases, both cities feature multiple Historic Preservation Overlay Districts. Any objective observer would have to conclude that obstructionist legislation is not the reason for the lack of any Historic Preservation Overlay Districts within the City. Comprehensive planning documents generated and commissioned by the City of College Station always feature an emphasis upon maintaining neighborhood integrity, and address potential threats to neighborhood integrity. Despite comprehensive plans that are designed to protect historic neighborhoods, no such neighborhood has yet been created. These documents provide evidence that the current lack of Historic Preservation Overlay Districts is not due to systemic lack of planning and foresight by City Planners. A review of public meetings for the City of College Station shows a consistent contingent of residents concerned that the historic character of neighborhoods is being lost; often citing such reasons as insensitive development, gentrification, demolition, ill-maintained rental properties, etc. The Historic Marker Program, designed to recognize and commemorate historic structures within the City, has been wildly successful, approaching 100 individually commemorated buildings awarded Historic Markers. Within the community, a sense of shared heritage and emphasis of the value of history is well represented. Possible reasons these shared values have not translated into the formation of any Historic Preservation Overlay Districts. Despite all of the conditions listed above, no residential Historic Districts yet exist within the City. The State of Texas has produced more than one Historic Preservation initiative that has become a model nationwide. The Courthouse Preservation initiative has been emulated both for its intrinsic value, and as a vehicle to enhance commerce within communities. Similarly, the Heritage Trails project has successfully allowed communities with historic resources to market themselves in a comprehensive way, resulting in economic benefit for all communities involved. In contrast to some other historic preservation initiatives utilized in other regions, both of these successful programs are designed to create and enhance, without any risk of stifling growth and commerce. Inherent in the characteristic pride in their history that Texans exhibit, is a value placed upon an individualistic approach to problems. In some ways, that characteristic makes more proscriptive approaches designed to preserve historic resources distasteful to many members of the public. Although sometimes portrayed in a poor light by advocates of Historic Preservation efforts within a community, many of the residents who object to the restrictions placed upon development by potential historic districts do so, not because they do not place any value upon shared history, but because they prioritize their personal individualism and property rights over protection of historic buildings. In some ways, this attitude is perfectly in line with the broad processes that have often driven Texas history. Within this context, College Station is a city with relatively unusual demographic characteristics that affect housing. Texas A&M University creates a strong market for rental property, adding many relatively young and short-term residents. The relatively low cost of living and high standard living makes the city attractive to retirees who often become long-term residents. This creates a relatively high demand for housing stock in proximity to the University, either for student rentals, a temporary place for alumni who attend events or as a permanent home for professors or retirees. Statistically, students, as renters, often do not feel the long-term attachment to place that would generate efforts to preserve historic neighborhoods, and owners of rental properties may have economic concerns regarding added cost for historically sensitive maintenance and modification of properties. These conditions describe above make otherwise reasonable efforts to promote conservation of historic resources less effective to implement, either because they are perceived as an attack upon personal rights, or because of demographic realities. Proposed strategic response to this perceived conflict between preservation of neighborhood integrity and preservation of property rights. As noted before, the City of Houston has several residential historic districts. Yet despite a 67% threshold of resident approval to form a district, Houston regularly faces controversy regarding historic districts. In 2010, as a response to efforts by property rights advocates, amendments were passed that increased the ease with which owners could opt out of a historic district, as well as limiting reapplication for formation of, and boundary changes to, historic districts. If it is determined that attitudes concerning property rights within College Station are more reflective of Houston than they are of Austin, it follows that any Historic Districts to be formed in College Station with a simple majority may also generate similar controversy. The City of College Station, in 2008, contracted with Quimby McCoy Architects to survey and assess historic resources within the City of College Station and to comment upon the draft of the historic preservation overlay ordinance. Upon completion of the report, Quimby McCoy concluded that substantial historic resources exist, and suggested several potential historic districts in the Eastgate and Southside neighborhoods. These proposed districts are generally relatively sizeable, typically in well in excess of a single city block (See illustrations below).   These proposed districts are categorized into coherent neighborhoods, and reflect the manner in which the neighborhoods evolved from a historical perspective. Despite a coherent and logical basis for planning historic districts in the report, the unusual circumstances of College Station described previously make residential master planning more difficult and contentious than is often the case in other regions. Since, in four years, no historic districts have been formed despite a coherent plan presented by Quimby McCoy, those who are concerned with conserving historic resources may choose to explore options to implement the Historic Preservation ordinance in a manner that may be more effective in current circumstances. As stated previously, vocal support exists among a substantial portion of residents for conserving historic neighborhoods and, arguably, those who oppose such efforts generally also place some value upon historic resources, but simply value other considerations more. This is reflected in the number of individual historic markers in the southside and eastgate neighborhoods. These property owners volunteered their properties for this program at their own time and expense. A review of individual markers reveals that such properties are well represented, especially in the southside neighborhood (See images below).  Historic Markers in Southside Neighborhood. Source: cstx.gov  Historic Markers in Eastgate Neighborhood. Source cstx.gov Although the individually listed properties often would not constitute a majority of property owners willing form a historic district at large scale, based upon the distribution of markers for individually designated historic properties, several smaller districts could relatively easily be formed by unanimous consent of property owners. Assuming a number existing historic marker designated properties would desire district designation, districts may effectively enclose entire intersections, as well as rows of houses on one or both sides of a street. Several such small districts could create long-lasting protections of the overall character of the southside and eastgate neighborhoods, even if they may not create large contiguous swaths of protected properties. This outcome should be infinitely more desirable to advocates of the formation of historic districts than the existing situation, in which several neighborhoods have narrowly fallen short of the degree of consensus required to form more ambitious districts. These small districts, if formed through unanimous consent, should also be preferable to property rights advocates, since property owners are volunteering to form the district entirely by their own initiative. In other communities, the formation of small historic districts is relatively common. For example, the first formal historic preservation overlay district formed in Austin, the Harthan Street District, consists of 11 properties. In other mid-sized cities with substantial universities, these small-scale districts can often be found. In Boulder, Colorado (pop. 97,385 m.s.a. pop. 293,161), both the 16th Street and Floral Park historic districts each only consist of a few adjoining properties. Similarly, the Clifford Row Historic District, located in University City, Missouri (pop. 35,371), contains only 5 houses (see images below).  Scale and distribution of Historic Districts in Boulder, CO. Source: www.bouldercolorado.gov  Scale and distribution of Historic Districts in University City, MO. Source: www.ucitymo.org Implementation of Historic Preservation Overlay District Ordinance to promote creation of several small districts with consistent review standards. The City of College Could facilitate the formation of small historic districts. The existing Historic Preservation Overlay District ordinance could be interpreted and implemented to promote and create incentives for the formation of residential historic districts in several ways: --- By encouraging districts that are proposed by unanimous consent of affected property owners, the approval process becomes much more of a formality. The primary activity would tend to be more of a determination of which structures are contributing and whether the proposed overlay overall is sufficiently intact to warrant the designation, rather than devolving into a referendum upon property rights. --- Representatives of the City could publicize the initiative to designate small historic districts composed of unanimous property owners, emphasizing a commitment to expedite designation, especially among owners of properties of existing individual historic markers, as well as any incentives offered to potential districts willing to utilize the suggested standardized design guidelines and documentation. --- Upon initiation of the historic designation procedure, the Historic Preservation Officer is directed to “coordinate research to compile a written report regarding the historical, cultural, and architectural significance of the place or area proposed for historic designation…” Standardized boilerplate language could be created to make consistent certain portions of the Designation Report. Since all housing stock over 50 years old contains several shared aspects of overall significance, a standardized narrative could be created that addresses these aspects of shared significance. Consistent design guidelines are possible because College Station is a relatively young city, and the housing stock is, somewhat more homogeneous that in older communities. Model historic preservation design guidelines could be adopted, and approval of historic districts that are willing to accept the model guidelines could be expedited. This would make the planning and review standards consistent among districts, preventing delay and confusion for city planners, property owners, and future developers engaging in infill construction, restoration, or rehabilitation of existing housing. --- If feasible, small, temporary tax incentives could be considered to property owners willing to form residential historic districts. --- The process of expanding existing boundaries upon request of adjoining property owners could be expedited if they are owners of contributing properties. Approaching the formation of historic districts in this manner allows the districts to grow and evolve more organically, while still providing a degree of formal protection for historic resources. If smaller districts are perceived as successful and beneficial within the neighborhood, adjoining property owners will volunteer for inclusion. This allows successful districts to grow, and unsuccessful districts to remain small and compact, preserving historic resources while accommodating the economic realities of the housing market in the community. From the perspective of the relative mandates of the Historic Preservation Committee and the Landmark Committee, the districts formed would facilitate separation of duties between the two Committees, allowing each to focus upon its relative purpose. With the incentive of review activities to perform, appointment of qualified Landmark Committee members should become easier.   Comprehensive planning documents generated and commissioned by the City of College Station always feature an emphasis upon maintaining neighborhood integrity, and address potential threats to neighborhood integrity. Despite comprehensive plans that are designed to protect historic neighborhoods, no such neighborhood has yet been created. These documents provide evidence that the current lack of Historic Preservation Overlay Districts is not due to systemic lack of planning and foresight by City Planners. A review of public meetings for the City of College Station shows a consistent contingent of residents concerned that the historic character of neighborhoods is being lost; often citing such reasons as insensitive development, gentrification, demolition, ill-maintained rental properties, etc. The Historic Marker Program, designed to recognize and commemorate historic structures within the City, has been wildly successful, approaching 100 individually commemorated buildings awarded Historic Markers. Within the community, a sense of shared heritage and emphasis of the value of history is well represented. Possible reasons these shared values have not translated into the formation of any Historic Preservation Overlay Districts. Despite all of the conditions listed above, no residential Historic Districts yet exist within the City. The State of Texas has produced more than one Historic Preservation initiative that has become a model nationwide. The Courthouse Preservation initiative has been emulated both for its intrinsic value, and as a vehicle to enhance commerce within communities. Similarly, the Heritage Trails project has successfully allowed communities with historic resources to market themselves in a comprehensive way, resulting in economic benefit for all communities involved. In contrast to some other historic preservation initiatives utilized in other regions, both of these successful programs are designed to create and enhance, without any risk of stifling growth and commerce. Inherent in the characteristic pride in their history that Texans exhibit, is a value placed upon an individualistic approach to problems. In some ways, that characteristic makes more proscriptive approaches designed to preserve historic resources distasteful to many members of the public. Although sometimes portrayed in a poor light by advocates of Historic Preservation efforts within a community, many of the residents who object to the restrictions placed upon development by potential historic districts do so, not because they do not place any value upon shared history, but because they prioritize their personal individualism and property rights over protection of historic buildings. In some ways, this attitude is perfectly in line with the broad processes that have often driven Texas history. Within this context, College Station is a city with relatively unusual demographic characteristics that affect housing. Texas A&M University creates a strong market for rental property, adding many relatively young and short-term residents. The relatively low cost of living and high standard living makes the city attractive to retirees who often become long-term residents. This creates a relatively high demand for housing stock in proximity to the University, either for student rentals, a temporary place for alumni who attend events or as a permanent home for professors or retirees. Statistically, students, as renters, often do not feel the long-term attachment to place that would generate efforts to preserve historic neighborhoods, and owners of rental properties may have economic concerns regarding added cost for historically sensitive maintenance and modification of properties. These conditions describe above make otherwise reasonable efforts to promote conservation of historic resources less effective to implement, either because they are perceived as an attack upon personal rights, or because of demographic realities. Proposed strategic response to this perceived conflict between preservation of neighborhood integrity and preservation of property rights. As noted before, the City of Houston has several residential historic districts. Yet despite a 67% threshold of resident approval to form a district, Houston regularly faces controversy regarding historic districts. In 2010, as a response to efforts by property rights advocates, amendments were passed that increased the ease with which owners could opt out of a historic district, as well as limiting reapplication for formation of, and boundary changes to, historic districts. If it is determined that attitudes concerning property rights within College Station are more reflective of Houston than they are of Austin, it follows that any Historic Districts to be formed in College Station with a simple majority may also generate similar controversy. The City of College Station, in 2008, contracted with Quimby McCoy Architects to survey and assess historic resources within the City of College Station and to comment upon the draft of the historic preservation overlay ordinance. Upon completion of the report, Quimby McCoy concluded that substantial historic resources exist, and suggested several potential historic districts in the Eastgate and Southside neighborhoods. These proposed districts are generally relatively sizeable, typically in well in excess of a single city block (See illustrations below).   These proposed districts are categorized into coherent neighborhoods, and reflect the manner in which the neighborhoods evolved from a historical perspective. Despite a coherent and logical basis for planning historic districts in the report, the unusual circumstances of College Station described previously make residential master planning more difficult and contentious than is often the case in other regions. Since, in four years, no historic districts have been formed despite a coherent plan presented by Quimby McCoy, those who are concerned with conserving historic resources may choose to explore options to implement the Historic Preservation ordinance in a manner that may be more effective in current circumstances. As stated previously, vocal support exists among a substantial portion of residents for conserving historic neighborhoods and, arguably, those who oppose such efforts generally also place some value upon historic resources, but simply value other considerations more. This is reflected in the number of individual historic markers in the southside and eastgate neighborhoods. These property owners volunteered their properties for this program at their own time and expense. A review of individual markers reveals that such properties are well represented, especially in the southside neighborhood (See images below).  Historic Markers in Southside Neighborhood. Source: cstx.gov  Historic Markers in Eastgate Neighborhood. Source cstx.gov Although the individually listed properties often would not constitute a majority of property owners willing form a historic district at large scale, based upon the distribution of markers for individually designated historic properties, several smaller districts could relatively easily be formed by unanimous consent of property owners. Assuming a number existing historic marker designated properties would desire district designation, districts may effectively enclose entire intersections, as well as rows of houses on one or both sides of a street. Several such small districts could create long-lasting protections of the overall character of the southside and eastgate neighborhoods, even if they may not create large contiguous swaths of protected properties. This outcome should be infinitely more desirable to advocates of the formation of historic districts than the existing situation, in which several neighborhoods have narrowly fallen short of the degree of consensus required to form more ambitious districts. These small districts, if formed through unanimous consent, should also be preferable to property rights advocates, since property owners are volunteering to form the district entirely by their own initiative. In other communities, the formation of small historic districts is relatively common. For example, the first formal historic preservation overlay district formed in Austin, the Harthan Street District, consists of 11 properties. In other mid-sized cities with substantial universities, these small-scale districts can often be found. In Boulder, Colorado (pop. 97,385 m.s.a. pop. 293,161), both the 16th Street and Floral Park historic districts each only consist of a few adjoining properties. Similarly, the Clifford Row Historic District, located in University City, Missouri (pop. 35,371), contains only 5 houses (see images below).  Scale and distribution of Historic Districts in Boulder, CO. Source: www.bouldercolorado.gov  Scale and distribution of Historic Districts in University City, MO. Source: www.ucitymo.org Please use this space to provide any additional information to the Sunset Review Commission not listed in the above questions: Proposed Strategy for Protecting Historic Residential Neighborhood Integrity in College Station, Texas. In September of 2008, over three years ago, the City Council of College Station adopted an ordinance enabling Historic Preservation Overlay districts in the city. Despite wording that encourages the formation of Historic Preservation Overlay Districts, no such district has yet been formed within the city limits. The following addresses some reasons that other comparable communities have successfully formed residential historic districts, often despite with more restrictive enabling historic preservation ordinances. Why, by most measures, College Station and residents value their history Like other cities, the City of College Station, for formation of a Historic Preservation Overlay District to occur, a degree of neighborhood consensus must be attained. Only 50% plus 1 property owners within the proposed district are necessary for the process to occur. The City of Austin is comparable, requiring 51%, and Houston requires a much higher standard, 67% of property owners. Despite a higher standard in both cases, both cities feature multiple Historic Preservation Overlay Districts. Any objective observer would have to conclude that obstructionist legislation is not the reason for the lack of any Historic Preservation Overlay Districts within the City. Comprehensive planning documents generated and commissioned by the City of College Station always feature an emphasis upon maintaining neighborhood integrity, and address potential threats to neighborhood integrity. Despite comprehensive plans that are designed to protect historic neighborhoods, no such neighborhood has yet been created. These documents provide evidence that the current lack of Historic Preservation Overlay Districts is not due to systemic lack of planning and foresight by City Planners. A review of public meetings for the City of College Station shows a consistent contingent of residents concerned that the historic character of neighborhoods is being lost; often citing such reasons as insensitive development, gentrification, demolition, ill-maintained rental properties, etc. The Historic Marker Program, designed to recognize and commemorate historic structures within the City, has been wildly successful, approaching 100 individually commemorated buildings awarded Historic Markers. Within the community, a sense of shared heritage and emphasis of the value of history is well represented. Possible reasons these shared values have not translated into the formation of any Historic Preservation Overlay Districts. Despite all of the conditions listed above, no residential Historic Districts yet exist within the City. The State of Texas has produced more than one Historic Preservation initiative that has become a model nationwide. The Courthouse Preservation initiative has been emulated both for its intrinsic value, and as a vehicle to enhance commerce within communities. Similarly, the Heritage Trails project has successfully allowed communities with historic resources to market themselves in a comprehensive way, resulting in economic benefit for all communities involved. In contrast to some other historic preservation initiatives utilized in other regions, both of these successful programs are designed to create and enhance, without any risk of stifling growth and commerce. Inherent in the characteristic pride in their history that Texans exhibit, is a value placed upon an individualistic approach to problems. In some ways, that characteristic makes more proscriptive approaches designed to preserve historic resources distasteful to many members of the public. Although sometimes portrayed in a poor light by advocates of Historic Preservation efforts within a community, many of the residents who object to the restrictions placed upon development by potential historic districts do so, not because they do not place any value upon shared history, but because they prioritize their personal individualism and property rights over protection of historic buildings. In some ways, this attitude is perfectly in line with the broad processes that have often driven Texas history. Within this context, College Station is a city with relatively unusual demographic characteristics that affect housing. Texas A&M University creates a strong market for rental property, adding many relatively young and short-term residents. The relatively low cost of living and high standard living makes the city attractive to retirees who often become long-term residents. This creates a relatively high demand for housing stock in proximity to the University, either for student rentals, a temporary place for alumni who attend events or as a permanent home for professors or retirees. Statistically, students, as renters, often do not feel the long-term attachment to place that would generate efforts to preserve historic neighborhoods, and owners of rental properties may have economic concerns regarding added cost for historically sensitive maintenance and modification of properties. These conditions describe above make otherwise reasonable efforts to promote conservation of historic resources less effective to implement, either because they are perceived as an attack upon personal rights, or because of demographic realities. Proposed strategic response to this perceived conflict between preservation of neighborhood integrity and preservation of property rights. As noted before, the City of Houston has several residential historic districts. Yet despite a 67% threshold of resident approval to form a district, Houston regularly faces controversy regarding historic districts. In 2010, as a response to efforts by property rights advocates, amendments were passed that increased the ease with which owners could opt out of a historic district, as well as limiting reapplication for formation of, and boundary changes to, historic districts. If it is determined that attitudes concerning property rights within College Station are more reflective of Houston than they are of Austin, it follows that any Historic Districts to be formed in College Station with a simple majority may also generate similar controversy. The City of College Station, in 2008, contracted with Quimby McCoy Architects to survey and assess historic resources within the City of College Station and to comment upon the draft of the historic preservation overlay ordinance. Upon completion of the report, Quimby McCoy concluded that substantial historic resources exist, and suggested several potential historic districts in the Eastgate and Southside neighborhoods. These proposed districts are generally relatively sizeable, typically in well in excess of a single city block (See illustrations below).   These proposed districts are categorized into coherent neighborhoods, and reflect the manner in which the neighborhoods evolved from a historical perspective. Despite a coherent and logical basis for planning historic districts in the report, the unusual circumstances of College Station described previously make residential master planning more difficult and contentious than is often the case in other regions. Since, in four years, no historic districts have been formed despite a coherent plan presented by Quimby McCoy, those who are concerned with conserving historic resources may choose to explore options to implement the Historic Preservation ordinance in a manner that may be more effective in current circumstances. As stated previously, vocal support exists among a substantial portion of residents for conserving historic neighborhoods and, arguably, those who oppose such efforts generally also place some value upon historic resources, but simply value other considerations more. This is reflected in the number of individual historic markers in the southside and eastgate neighborhoods. These property owners volunteered their properties for this program at their own time and expense. A review of individual markers reveals that such properties are well represented, especially in the southside neighborhood (See images below).  Historic Markers in Southside Neighborhood. Source: cstx.gov  Historic Markers in Eastgate Neighborhood. Source cstx.gov Although the individually listed properties often would not constitute a majority of property owners willing form a historic district at large scale, based upon the distribution of markers for individually designated historic properties, several smaller districts could relatively easily be formed by unanimous consent of property owners. Assuming a number existing historic marker designated properties would desire district designation, districts may effectively enclose entire intersections, as well as rows of houses on one or both sides of a street. Several such small districts could create long-lasting protections of the overall character of the southside and eastgate neighborhoods, even if they may not create large contiguous swaths of protected properties. This outcome should be infinitely more desirable to advocates of the formation of historic districts than the existing situation, in which several neighborhoods have narrowly fallen short of the degree of consensus required to form more ambitious districts. These small districts, if formed through unanimous consent, should also be preferable to property rights advocates, since property owners are volunteering to form the district entirely by their own initiative. In other communities, the formation of small historic districts is relatively common. For example, the first formal historic preservation overlay district formed in Austin, the Harthan Street District, consists of 11 properties. In other mid-sized cities with substantial universities, these small-scale districts can often be found. In Boulder, Colorado (pop. 97,385 m.s.a. pop. 293,161), both the 16th Street and Floral Park historic districts each only consist of a few adjoining properties. Similarly, the Clifford Row Historic District, located in University City, Missouri (pop. 35,371), contains only 5 houses (see images below).  Scale and distribution of Historic Districts in Boulder, CO. Source: www.bouldercolorado.gov  Scale and distribution of Historic Districts in University City, MO. Source: www.ucitymo.org Implementation of Historic Preservation Overlay District Ordinance to promote creation of several small districts with consistent review standards. The City of College Could facilitate the formation of small historic districts. The existing Historic Preservation Overlay District ordinance could be interpreted and implemented to promote and create incentives for the formation of residential historic districts in several ways: --- By encouraging districts that are proposed by unanimous consent of affected property owners, the approval process becomes much more of a formality. The primary activity would tend to be more of a determination of which structures are contributing and whether the proposed overlay overall is sufficiently intact to warrant the designation, rather than devolving into a referendum upon property rights. --- Representatives of the City could publicize the initiative to designate small historic districts composed of unanimous property owners, emphasizing a commitment to expedite designation, especially among owners of properties of existing individual historic markers, as well as any incentives offered to potential districts willing to utilize the suggested standardized design guidelines and documentation. --- Upon initiation of the historic designation procedure, the Historic Preservation Officer is directed to “coordinate research to compile a written report regarding the historical, cultural, and architectural significance of the place or area proposed for historic designation…” Standardized boilerplate language could be created to make consistent certain portions of the Designation Report. Since all housing stock over 50 years old contains several shared aspects of overall significance, a standardized narrative could be created that addresses these aspects of shared significance. Consistent design guidelines are possible because College Station is a relatively young city, and the housing stock is, somewhat more homogeneous that in older communities. Model historic preservation design guidelines could be adopted, and approval of historic districts that are willing to accept the model guidelines could be expedited. This would make the planning and review standards consistent among districts, preventing delay and confusion for city planners, property owners, and future developers engaging in infill construction, restoration, or rehabilitation of existing housing. --- If feasible, small, temporary tax incentives could be considered to property owners willing to form residential historic districts. --- The process of expanding existing boundaries upon request of adjoining property owners could be expedited if they are owners of contributing properties. Approaching the formation of historic districts in this manner allows the districts to grow and evolve more organically, while still providing a degree of formal protection for historic resources. If smaller districts are perceived as successful and beneficial within the neighborhood, adjoining property owners will volunteer for inclusion. This allows successful districts to grow, and unsuccessful districts to remain small and compact, preserving historic resources while accommodating the economic realities of the housing market in the community. From the perspective of the relative mandates of the Historic Preservation Committee and the Landmark Committee, the districts formed would facilitate separation of duties between the two Committees, allowing each to focus upon its relative purpose. With the incentive of review activities to perform, appointment of qualified Landmark Committee members should become easier.