Historic Preservation

The goal of historic preservation is to preserve and maintain significant structures or groupings of structures for present and future use. It goes beyond efforts to memorialize historical events or sites and attempts to assure a degree of cultural continuity between past and present in the built environment.

Although there are earlier examples of efforts to preserve buildings associated with significant historical figures, historic preservation in Indianapolis in its present, more programmatic form dates from the late 1950s. In 1958 Marion County’s Department of Metropolitan Planning proposed the creation of “Lockerbie Fair,” a tourist magnet which was to include a complete restoration of Lockerbie Street near the former home of James Whitcomb Riley and a recreation of a late 19th century streetscape on the adjacent blocks of New York Street. While never adopted, the plan reflected a growing awareness that increased development activity threatened to remove all vestiges of the city’s past.

The historic preservation movement in Indianapolis received impetus in early 1960 when a small but influential group of Indianapolis residents and local planning officials, with substantial financial support from Eli Lilly, organized the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana (HLFI). This statewide organization combined direct involvement in the preservation process with educational and consulting activities. At the local level it encouraged the formation of such groups as the umbrella advocacy group Historic Urban Neighborhoods of Indianapolis (HUNI).

Although HLFI had significant resources, as a private organization its efforts to affect the fate of a historic structure were limited to persuasion or situations where it was able to become the owner. In order to fill this gap, in 1967 many advocates who formed and continued to direct HLFI supported the passage of legislation to create an Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission (IHPC). The resulting seven-member commission was given the power to prepare plans of historically significant districts for zoning adoption by the Planning Commission and County Council. It was also given the power to acquire and dispose of property; to exercise the right of eminent domain; and to control the construction, rehabilitation, and demolition of property within a designated district through the issuance of “certificates of appropriateness.” While the commission did not receive financial or staff support from local government until 1975, it prepared a preliminary Lockerbie Square plan which was adopted in 1968 by the Metropolitan Planning Commission (the pre-Unigov predecessor to the Metropolitan Development Commission). The first certificate of appropriateness, authorizing owners to proceed with work on a property in Lockerbie Square, was issued in 1972.

After the commission obtained staff and financial support from local government, work began on a countywide survey of historic structures, undertaken to fulfill a condition for the city’s receipt of federal Housing and Community Development funds. Building on the results of the survey and further research, and in response to requests from neighborhood residents, eight residential districts, one commercial district, and several individual structures subsequently came under the review authority of the IHPC. Proposed construction and rehabilitation in these districts resulted in over 300 certificates of appropriateness annually.

At least some of the impetus for increased local preservation activity can be traced to the passage of federal legislation, including the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Tax Reform Act of 1976, and the Revenue Act of 1978. A key element of the 1966 law was the inclusion in most federal aid programs of a formal review process, similar to that required to assess environmental impact. This review is conducted prior to expenditure of funds to determine the effect of a proposed action on a site or building “that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.” It is this requirement which led to a local historic survey in 1975 and increased local governmental involvement in historic preservation. The act also created an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that must be given the opportunity to comment on any federally funded activity that might affect a site listed, or eligible to be listed, in the National Register. In the late 1970s, State Historic Preservation Officers were given formal responsibility for making the initial determination of National Register status. In Indianapolis, agreements made this a cooperative process with the IHPC.

The Tax Reform Act of 1976 reduced some of the tax advantages associated with development projects if they involved demolishing historic buildings, while the Revenue Act of 1978 added tax credits (since substantially reduced) to encourage the rehabilitation of historically significant commercial structures. Since other factors such as increasing costs of new construction and changing architectural tastes also contributed to increased rehabilitation activity, it is difficult to determine precisely the economic impact of these initiatives. However, millions of dollars of rehabilitation activity in Indianapolis since the mid-1970s has been performed under historic preservation guidelines in order to qualify for the favorable tax treatment.

In some instances, local historic preservation efforts have generated controversy. Philosophical objections to government intrusion and fears of financial hardship have sometimes been aroused by the belief, substantially unfounded, that designation as an historic district would lead to mandated property improvements. Perhaps more noteworthy were the debates in the mid-1970s to the early 1980s over whether historic preservation displaced lower income, largely minority residents in favor of middle class, usually white gentrifiers. No one disputed that many of the neighborhoods undergoing revitalization had experienced significant declines in the numbers of low-income residents. What was at issue was whether the decline was the result of the disinvestment, housing abandonment, and demolition typical throughout the central city, or if it was caused by the preservationists’ intervention. Although there is some anecdotal evidence that the reconversion of structures from low-income apartments back to single-family houses did occur, as of the 1990s no systematic study has yet provided a definitive answer to the underlying causal question.

*Note: This entry is from the original print edition of the Encyclopedia of Indianapolis (1994). We are currently seeking an individual with knowledge of this topic to update this entry.