HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric preservation planIowa City
Historic Preservation Plan
IOWA CITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN
Prepared for
the City of Iowa City
and
the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
February 2008
City of Iowa City
City Council
Regenia Bailey, Mayor (District C)
Mike O’Donnell, Mayor Pro Tem (At-Large) Connie Champion, (District B)
Amy Correia, (At-Large) Matt Hayek, (At-Large)
Ross Wilburn, (District A) Mike Wright, (At-Large)
Dale Helling, Interim City Manager
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
Tim Weitzel, Chairperson
Planning and Community Development
Jeff Davidson, Director
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner
Consultants
SVENDSEN TYLER, INC.
Sarona, Wisconsin
Clarion Associates LLC
Denver, Colorado
Preparation of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan was funded
by the City of Iowa City and a Historic Resource Development Program
grant from Iowa’s Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP)
Program and administered by the State Historical Society of Iowa.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................11
II. Overview of Local Historic Preservation Movement .............................................................15
A. Historic Preservation Movement Prior to 1992 ...........................................................15
B. Adoption of Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan in 1992 ..........................................16
C. Progress on 1992 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................1
D. Summary of Progress .......................................................................................................26
III. Public Opinions and Perceptions of Historic Preservation ...................................................2
A. Opinions Sought ...............................................................................................................2
B. Summary of Public Input ................................................................................................2
IV. Updated Goals and Objectives for the Historic Preservation Plan 200 .............................31
Goal 1: Identify historic resources significant to Iowa City’s past ...................................31
Goal 2: Continue municipal policy of protection of historic resources and
implement this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory
measures ....................................................................................................................34
Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic
buildings and neighborhoods .................................................................................41
Goal 4: Provide the technical assistance necessary to preserve and improve historic
properties ...................................................................................................................46
Goal 5: Heighten public awareness of historic preservation in the community and
improve preservation education efforts for various audiences ...........................48
Goal 6: Maintain and strengthen preservation partnerships between municipal
government, state government, and federal agencies ..........................................52
Goal : Establish and implement historic preservation objectives for the University of
Iowa campus and surrounding neighborhoods ....................................................53
Goal 8: Establish and support heritage tourism efforts appropriate to Iowa City’s
historic resources and community needs ..............................................................58
Goal 9: Conduct regular review and evaluation of historic preservation initiatives by
the historic preservation community and integrate preservation objectives in
related planning work undertaken by the City of Iowa City...............................61
V. Neighborhood Strategies ...........................................................................................................63
Goal 10: Adopt strategies to preserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic
development, historical roles and traditions, modern needs, and economic
health and stability ...................................................................................................63
District Adoption Steps................................................................................................................63
Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps ..........................................................64
Technical Assistance Steps ...........................................................................................................65
Home Ownership Incentive Program .........................................................................................65
Iowa City Historic Areas Map Legend .......................................................................................6
Downtown Planning District ..................................................................................................................0
1. Downtown .....................................................................................................................................0
2. Near South Side Neighborhood ...................................................................................................3
Central Planning District ........................................................................................................................3
3. Brown Street Historic District (includes Bella Vista Drive, sections of Ronalds Street, and
other cross streets) ...........................................................................................................................3
4. Clark Street Conservation District ................................................................................................5
5. College Green Historic District .....................................................................................................6
6. College Hill Conservation District ................................................................................................
. East College Street Historic District ..............................................................................................8
8. Dearborn Street Conservation District ........................................................................................9
9. Dubuque Street Corridor................................................................................................................80
10. Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District .............................................................................................81
11. Goosetown ........................................................................................................................................83
12. Governor-Lucas Conservation District ........................................................................................86
13. Jefferson Street Historic District ....................................................................................................8
14. Longfellow Historic District ...........................................................................................................88
15. Muscatine Avenue Moffitt Cottage Historic District (now, part of Longfellow Historic
District) .............................................................................................................................................90
16. Oak Grove-Kirkwood Avenue Corridor.......................................................................................91
1. Lucas Farms Neighborhood-Ginter, Friendly, Highland, Pickard, and Yewell Streets ...........92
18. Morningside-City High Neighborhood........................................................................................93
19. Rochester Avenue Neighborhood .................................................................................................95
20. Summit Street Historic District .....................................................................................................96
21. Woodlawn Historic District ...........................................................................................................9
North Planning District ...........................................................................................................................98
22. North Dubuque Street/Montgomery-Butler House ...................................................................98
23. Tank Town ........................................................................................................................................99
24. Dubuque Road Neighborhood ....................................................................................................100
Northwest Planning District .................................................................................................................102
25. Manville Heights Neighborhood .................................................................................................102
Southwest Planning District .................................................................................................................104
26. Melrose Historic District ..............................................................................................................104
Other Planning Districts .......................................................................................................................106
Summary of Common Neighborhood Strategies ..............................................................................108
8
9
VI. Model for Evaluating Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation ...................................109
A. Rehabilitation ...............................................................................................................110
B. Property Values ............................................................................................................112
C. Heritage Tourism .........................................................................................................113
D. Selected City and Community Level Economic Impact Reports ..........................114
Appendices
Appendix A: Chronological Overview of the Historic Preservation Movement in Iowa City,
Iowa: 195–2006
Appendix B: National Register of Historic Places Iowa City Listings
Appendix C: Public Meeting Comment Summaries (North Side/Goosetown, Longfellow, West
Side, and Downtown meetings)
Appendix D: Interview Questions; Summary of Responses; and Individuals Interviewed
Appendix E: Outline for Update of “Iowa City Historic Resources” Multiple Property
Documentation Form, including bibliography
Appendix F: Clarion Associates Recommendation Memorandum
Appendix G: Historic Preservation Commissioners, 1983–2006
Appendix H: Projects Receiving Design Review, 1985–2006
Appendix I: Historic Preservation Award Winners, 1983–2005
Appendix J: Related Historic Preservation Websites
Appendix K: Tax Incentives for Historic Buildings
Appendix L: Maps of Completed and Proposed Historical and Architectural Survey Areas
Appendix M: Map of Iowa City Subdivisions Recorded 1924–1965
Appendix N: FHP History
11
Introduction
The purpose of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan 2007 is to review and revise the first Iowa
City Historic Preservation Plan prepared and adopted in 1992. In the 15 years since, its goals and
objectives have served as a road map for a wide range of public and private historic preservation
activities. Recommendations in the original plan ranged from how and where to identify historic
properties and neighborhoods to legislative initiatives and economic methods for protecting
historic resources to ideas for stimulating preservation education programs and private support
for preservation undertakings. Under the direction of the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Commission, regular reviews of the plan’s recommendations have been conducted and steady
progress has been made in achieving the plan’s ten principal goals and more than 100 city-wide
and neighborhood-based objectives.
The overall purpose for the 1992 Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan stated in the introduction
was simply put, “to conserve old buildings makes a good community better.” The validity
and importance of these few words still rings true in 200. They were affirmed in neighborhood
meetings, group discussions, and dozens of individual interviews conducted during the spring
and summer of 2006. A review of annual preservation awards and an inspection of individual
neighborhoods throughout the community revealed dozens of successful private and public
historic preservation projects. An invigorated, private non-profit organization, Friends of Historic
Preservation (Friends), is now professionally staffed and responsible for a range of education and
financial incentive programs.
An expanded historic preservation ordinance covering individual landmarks as well as additional
historic and conservation districts offers protection to 1,100 properties with free technical
assistance provided to property owners through more than 100 design reviews undertaken
annually. More than 60 people have served on the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
during its 25 years. Some went on to hold a position on the Planning and Zoning Commission, be
elected as a City Councilor, or direct major historic building preservation efforts.
The historic preservation goals and objectives recommended here are intended to be
comprehensive. They are built on a foundation of preservation success over more than three
decades. Although this plan was prepared for the City, its success will depend on leaders at
all levels of government, from the University of Iowa, and from private organizations such as
Friends and various neighborhood associations. Individual property owners will continue to be
at the center of preservation efforts, saving important buildings and historic neighborhoods one
building at a time. The diverse base of support for preservation in Iowa City’s past suggests that it
will be an even more important community improvement strategy in the future.
This new edition of the Historic Preservation Plan will provide a road map for preservation
policies and activities for the next 10 to 15 years. Being intended for such a long time frame, the
plan contains a lengthy set of goals and objectives that may initially appear daunting. However,
the plan’s policies and its interrelated goals and objectives can be stated in a few basic themes.
I.
1. Tell the good news: Because
it involves applying rules
and regulations to property,
designation of historic and
conservation districts and local
landmarks sometimes becomes
controversial and creates
conflict within the community.
This should not be allowed to
overshadow the many positive
benefits that preservation has
brought to Iowa City. A good
example is the amazing recovery
of Iowa Avenue and nearby
historic neighborhoods from
the April 13, 2006 tornado. The
day after the storm much of the
eastern portion of Iowa Avenue
appeared to be so devastated
that it was thought that several
historic buildings were beyond
repair. There was uncertainty
as to what would replace them.
Property owners, the preservation
community, the City, and private
organizations such as Friends
rallied to address both the human
and physical needs to achieve recovery. As a result, what could have been a scar across
the heart of the city has been restored to a condition better than before the storm. This
restoration effort shows the value of the preservation ethic and practice to all of Iowa City.
Through the many educational programs and initiatives detailed in this plan the City and
preservation proponents such as Friends should strive to tell the good news about the
positive benefits that preservation brings to the community and local economy.
2. Streamline the process: Some of the conflict that arises around preservation matters comes
from the length of the design review process. The plan identifies a number of areas where
the review process can be streamlined and handled administratively, rather than requiring
that the Commission review every aspect of a project. Streamlining the process should not
only make the review process more user-friendly, but it should also free up Commission
and staff time to devote to preservation activities other than regulations, such as education
and promotional activities. Given budget constraints, the efficiencies advocated in the plan
will be necessary to achieve the plan’s other goals and objectives.
3. Neighborhood preservation: In some of the public meetings citizens were concerned
about issues like zoning violations, poor property maintenance, trash and litter, vandalism
Iowa Avenue tornado damage, April 2006
Iowa Avenue recovers from the damage
12
13
and parking congestion, that negatively affect the quality of life in some neighborhoods.
In addition to historic preservation programs, this plan advocates the use of tools, such as
targeted code enforcement and home ownership programs to preserve the quality of life in
older neighborhoods. This multipronged approach may be necessary to maintain the value
and stability of older neighborhoods so that they remain a viable option in an expanding
housing market.
4. Tap the economic development potential of the City’s historic resources: The first
step is to measure the full economic impact of preservation and to identify impediments.
The plan recommends bolstering the marketing of Downtown by promoting its historic
resources; promoting the use of Federal and State tax incentives as a means of encouraging
rehabilitation projects, and developing local incentive programs to support preservation.
5. Learn from ourselves. The planning update process included a comprehensive review
of what had been accomplished since the 1992 plan was adopted. Our progress has been
substantial whether measured in the number of neighborhoods studied, buildings protected,
or citizens involved in the process. Creative solutions for problems in one area are likely
to work elsewhere or at a later date. Good communications between neighborhoods and
districts, training newcomers to preservation, educating the general public, and learning
from ourselves will be key to creating even greater success in the future. Both public entities
such as the Historic Preservation Commission and private organizations such as Friends of
Historic Preservation will play leadership roles.
15
II. Overview of Local Historic Preservation Movement
Historic Preservation Movement Prior to 1992
The 1992 Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan contains an overview of the history of the historic
preservation movement at the national, state, and local levels. The description of local activities
spanned the period from the 1960s through the early 1990s. Separate sections discussed the
following:1
i. Early preservation awareness efforts (1960s and 190s)
ii. Zoning changes designed to stabilize and preserve residential neighborhoods (1958–
1961); Cooperative neighborhood planning effort between the City of Iowa City and the
University of Iowa’s Institute of Urban and Regional Planning (196–198)
iii. Downtown urban renewal (1960–late 190s)
iv. Historic preservation campaigns to save Old Brick (190–19) and Old Capitol (191–
196)
v. Early historical surveys, National Register of Historic Places nominations, and
important historic rehabilitation projects during the 190s
vi. Continued historical surveys in North Side, South Side, College Hill and Goosetown
neighborhoods during the 1980s
vii. Unsuccessful efforts to list the North Side historic districts on the National Register of
Historic Places (1981–198)
viii. North Side Neighborhood Preservation Study completed (1981)
ix. Historic Preservation Task Force formed to draft a historic preservation ordinance
(1982)
x. Adoption and revisions to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Ordinance (1982–1989)
xi. Designation of local historic districts: successful listing of South Summit Street and
Woodlawn (1983–1984); unsuccessful listing of North Side 1983–198)
xii. Leadership for the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission (1980s)
xiii. Public awareness and education efforts (1984–1991)
xiv. Continued historical surveys and unsuccessful nominations to the National Register of
Historic Places for College Hill and Goosetown historic districts (1985–1990)
xv. Historic Preservation Commission designated a Certified Local Government (198) and
responsibilities expand
xvi. Historic Preservation Commission became an issues forum (1980s)
xvii. Friends of Old Brick becomes Friends of Historic Preservation and expands mission
(1989) in Iowa City and Johnson County
xviii. Private historic rehabilitation projects grow in number (1980s)
1Marlys A. Svendsen, Svendsen Tyler, Inc., Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, (Iowa City, Iowa: City of
Iowa City and the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission), October 1992, pp. 6-34.
A.
Adoption of Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan in 1992
The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission began a major new chapter in the community’s
preservation efforts with completion of a 10-month long strategic planning process in 1992
designed to develop a comprehensive historic preservation plan for the community. With the
assistance of a Historic Resources Development Program Grant from the State of Iowa, Iowa City
was able to retain Svendsen Tyler, Inc. of Davenport as the planning consultant for the project. In
December 1992, the City Council unanimously adopted the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan.2
The 1992 Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan established a mission statement, goals and a work
plan containing objectives designed to guide future historic preservation activities undertaken by
the City and its citizens.
MISSION: Iowa City and its citizens seek to identify, protect, and preserve the
community’s historic resources in order to enhance the quality of life and
economic well-being of current and future generations.
Goal 1: Identify historic resources significant to Iowa City’s past.
Goal 2: Make protection of historic resources a municipal policy and implement this
policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures.
Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings
and neighborhoods.
Goal 4: Provide the technical assistance necessary to preserve and improve historic
properties.
Goal 5: Heighten public awareness of historic preservation in the community and improve
preservation education efforts for various audiences.
Goal 6: Maintain and strengthen preservation partnerships between municipal
government, state government, and federal agencies.
Goal 7: Maintain and strengthen private support for historic preservation from
individuals, not-for-profit preservation groups, neighborhood organizations, and
downtown interests.
Goal 8: Establish and support heritage tourism efforts appropriate to Iowa City’s historic
resources and community needs.
Goal 9: Conduct regular review and evaluation of historic preservation initiatives by the
historic preservation community.
2Ibid.
B.
16
1
Goal 10: Adopt strategies to conserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic
development, historical roles and traditions, modern needs, and economic health
and stability.
Progress on 1992 Goals and Objectives
The first step in completing the current update of the 1992 Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan
(Plan) was to compile a record of the progress made during the past 15 years. This review shows
that nearly every goal and most objectives set in 1992 have seen achievement. A chronological
overview of the historic preservation movement in Iowa City from 195 through mid-2006
appears in Appendix A. A summary of preservation activities, successes, and shortfalls during the
past 15 years for each of the ten goals and related objectives follows.
Goal 1: Identify historic resources significant to Iowa City’s past.
Five objectives were established for completing work under this goal. Historic resources include
buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects which reflect the city’s cultural, social, economic,
political, and architectural history. Individual historic resources or districts are generally a
minimum of fifty years old. The criteria used to identify and evaluate significance for historic
resources are those of the National Register of Historic Places administered by the National Park
Service and the State Historical Society of Iowa.
The 1992 Plan included completion of a comprehensive overview of the city’s historic resources
designed to help the Historic Preservation Commission and individual property owners
identify and evaluate historic resources. This overview document was prepared using the format
established by the National Register program known as the “Multiple Property Documentation
(MPD) Form.” The overview document was titled “Historic Resources of Iowa City, Iowa”
and covered the years 1839 to 1940. The document was organized into five themes or “historic
contexts” including:
• “Territorial and Early Statehood Era Buildings, 1839–185”
• “Railroad Era Buildings, 1856–1900”
• “Town and Gown Era, 1900–1940”
• “The Development of the University of Iowa, 1855–1940”
• “Iowa City Neighborhoods: Town and Country, 1840–1940”
The Historic Resources of Iowa City MPD was approved for National Register listing in 1994 and
continues to provide a framework for the nomination of individual historic resources and historic
district nominations. A complete list of National Register properties, including ten individual
resources and eight historic districts added between 1992 and 2005, appears in Appendix B.
Several updates of the Iowa City MPD itself were also completed and listed in the National
Register following intensive level survey work in several neighborhoods. They include:
• “The Small Homes of Howard F. Moffitt in Iowa City and Coralville, Iowa,
1924–1943” (completed by Tallgrass Historians, 1992)—listed on National
Register 5/4/1993
C.
• “Architectural and Historic Resources of the Longfellow Neighborhood Area,
ca. 1860–ca. 1946” (completed by Molly Nauman, Phase I—1996 & Phase II
–1998)— listed on National Register 9/12/2002
• “Architectural and Historical Resources of Original Town Plat
Neighborhood—Phase II, 1845–1945” (completed by Svendsen Tyler, 1999)—
listed on National Register 5/11/2000
• “Melrose Neighborhood Survey” (sponsored by the Melrose Neighborhood
Association and completed by Svendsen Tyler, 2004)—Melrose Historic
District listed on National Register 12/6/2004
Other neighborhood surveys produced MPDs that have not been listed. The decision not to
proceed with listing of an MPD was generally made because the National Register program
requires that either an individual resource or a historic district must accompany an MPD
nomination for the MPD to be reviewed. The cases below did not include such nominations and,
as a result, the MPDs were not formally reviewed:
• “Historic and Architectural Resources in College Hill, 1839–1944” (completed
by Tallgrass Historians, 1994)
• “Architectural and Historical Resources of the Dubuque/Linn Street Corridor,
1839–ca.1940” (completed by Molly Nauman, 1996)
• “Historic Folk Housing of Iowa City, 1839–ca.1910 MPD,” prepared as part
of the Survey of a Portion of the Original Town Plat of Iowa City—Phase I
(completed by Tallgrass Historians, 199)
• “Architectural and Historical Resources of Goosetown Neighborhood—Phase
III, 1855–1945 MPD” (completed by Svendsen Tyler, 2000)
• “Architectural and Historical Resources of Iowa City Central Business District,
1855–1950” (completed by Svendsen Tyler, 2001)
The National Register nominations completed between 1992 and 2005 represented a significant
body of survey and evaluation work handled by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
together with several privately funded individual nominations and one historic district. This
research constituted major progress towards Goal 1 of the 1992 Plan.
At the local level, many of the National Register listings were protected by the City’s Zoning
Code as local Historic and Conservation Districts. Provisions for designating historic districts
existed since the Historic Preservation Ordinance was drafted but provisions for designating
conservation districts and landmarks were not added until 1995. A total of 3 landmarks, six
historic districts and four conservation districts were designated between 1996 and 2005.
Since 1992, no systematic identification of archeological resources within Iowa City’s corporate
limits has been undertaken by the Commission. Instead, limited work has been done as part
of Section 106 compliance projects such as the investigation of the 1838–era Napoleon town
site in present day Napoleon Park completed during the late 1990s. Adoption of the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance in ca. 1996 attempted to promote greater coordination of information about
previously identified archeological resources in areas subject to new development. However, no
18
19
archeological sites have been nominated to the National Register or have been designated as local
landmarks or districts between 1992 and 2005. This may be due to no significant sites having been
found in developing areas.
Goal 2: Make protection of historic resources a municipal policy and implement this
policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures.
Integration of historic preservation
into public policy involves the
adoption of various planning
objectives and practices which make
retention of, and investment in,
historic resources the rule rather
than the exception. Five objectives
were laid out in the 1992 plan
for accomplishing this goal, and
major progress has been made in
achieving these objectives. Since
1992, the City’s comprehensive
planning process has integrated
preservation objectives into each
of the neighborhood plans prepared
by Urban Planning staff. In addition the City has sought to strengthen regulatory provisions
to protect and preserve historic resources. These measures have included: extension of the
designation and design review process to both landmarks and conservation districts, addition of
an economic hardship provision in the ordinance, and establishment of a demolition by neglect
provision. Major steps have also been taken in improving the design review process, including
establishment of design review guidelines for historic and conservation districts in specific
neighborhoods. Measures not yet enacted include more meaningful penalties for ordinance
violators.
Improvements in the capacity and effectiveness of the Historic Preservation Commission
related to planning, communication, operations, training, and staffing constituted a major set of
recommendations. Accomplishments included the publication of an annual report for the HPC;
holding work plan sessions on a nearly annual basis; improving the quality of the agenda and
support materials circulated to the HPC; and increasing of staffing for the HPC from a quarter-
time to a half-time staff person in 2001. Areas where plan objectives have been less successful
include: regular communication with the City Council and other boards and commissions;
improved operations of HPC meetings; commissioner recruitment; and improved orientation and
training for HPC members.
Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic
buildings and neighborhoods.
The development of economic incentives by private sources and units of government was
identified as a strategy for preserving historic resources in the 1992 plan. Only minimal progress
A.W. Pratt House, a local landmark and a National Register property,
located at 503 Melrose Avenue.
on the five objectives has been made. The
State of Iowa’s incentive programs for historic
tax credits and property tax abatement have
had few projects undertaken in Iowa City.
An effort to establish a special-taxing district
for the downtown to finance area-wide
improvements, which could have included
enhancement of its historic character, failed
when first attempted in 2005.
No progress has been achieved in having
private lenders, for instance, act independently
or in cooperation with not-for-profit
organizations or units of government to
provide essential financial resources, even if
only as seed money, for financing pools or
revolving loan funds to encourage historic
rehabilitations. The program established
in 1994 by Friends was the only source of
small grants designed to encourage historic rehabilitation efforts. Efforts by the City to work
with property owners and Friends in the moving of historic buildings had limited success when
a threatened house was moved from 03 Bowery Street to 451 Rundell Street in 1992. Another
house move attempt in 2006 was halted when the April tornado destroyed the building before it
had a chance to be moved.
A more recent example of a successful program that could serve as a model for future programs
occurred during the summer of 2006. In the wake of the April tornado that damaged a number
of historic districts and individual historic buildings, members of the Historic Preservation
Commission and City Staff worked with Friends of Historic Preservation to secure a special
appropriation from the State of Iowa to fund damage not covered by insurance claims. The
funding was handled through the Historic Resource Development Program administered by
the State Historical Society of Iowa. Friends assisted grant applicants and provided professional
design assistance. The program brought $250,000 of funding to the recovery process. Though
such an appropriation would not likely be triggered again without an emergency situation, the
coordinated effort demonstrates the capacity of the public and private groups involved to advance
a common agenda in an efficient and effective manner.
Goal 4: Provide the technical assistance necessary to preserve and improve historic
properties.
Technical assistance refers to providing information to property owners and the public in general
for rehabilitation, reconstruction, restoration, stabilization and documentation of historic
resources. In 1992 when the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan was adopted, the emphasis for
providing technical assistance was on individual counseling, training programs, and publications.
451 Rundell Street; moved from
203 Bowery Street.
20
21
During the 1990s and early 2000s, efforts to provide technical assistance ranged from the
continued operation of the Salvage Barn and accompanying training programs by the Friends of
Historic Preservation to the establishment of a website for the Historic Preservation Commission.
Guest speakers on various historic rehabilitation subjects were sponsored by both Friends and the
HPC. Provision of individual counseling was offered by the City through its historic preservation
staff members. As design review cases increased during the 1990s and early 2000s, counseling
opportunities also increased.
No staffed outreach programs were established by the City or any private group to provide
design assistance to owners of historic buildings including those in the downtown or individual
residential neighborhoods. Most design assistance occurred through the design review process
handled through the HPC. Preservation workshop sessions for homeowners, commercial
property owners, or contractors were not established as a priority with only a handful of such
sessions offered. The Who to Book, a guide to skilled historic rehabilitation designers and
contractors, was transferred to the Friends website. The most significant technical assistance
accomplishment of the past decade was the establishment of the Salvage Barn by Friends of
Historic Preservation. Weekly operation of the Barn has provided opportunities for people to
not only browse changing salvage inventory but to discuss restoration projects with one another
gaining valuable hands-on technical assistance. The Salvage Barn has also played a regional role in
stimulating restoration and salvage projects in nearby communities.
Goal 5: Strengthen historic preservation education efforts and develop private support
and commitment for preservation undertakings.
The five objectives for historic
preservation education in Iowa
City focused on expanding
general awareness of preservation
issues through development of
education campaigns using the
media, special publications, events,
and other communication tools.
Emphasis was put on establishing
private leadership and support
for preservation projects through
not-for-profit preservation groups,
neighborhood organizations, and
groups representing downtown.
Since 1992 programs such as the Historic Preservation Awards co-sponsored by the Commission
and Friends have made annual awards to more than 250 exemplary preservation projects. Other
programs such as the Irving Weber Day(s) celebration coordinated by the Iowa City Public
Library have heightened interest in local history. Walking tours and neighborhood house tours
have been offered as special fundraising events but to date, none have been established as regular
Salvage Barn
or annual events. General awareness of preservation publications once the purview of local book
stores and public library collections, has now been expanded by outreach offered through the
Friends website that contains links to other good on-line preservation information sources.
Goal 6: Maintain and strengthen preservation partnerships between municipal
government, state government, and federal agencies.
Iowa City has maintained active partnerships at the state level in the Certified Local Government
Program. Since 1992 it has taken a leadership role in the establishment of an annual work plan.
Surveys of historic neighborhoods have identified areas eligible for National Register listing.
Nominations undertaken by the HPC and private individuals have resulted in the successful
listing of hundreds of buildings including 10 individual resources and eight historic districts
between 1992 and 2005:3
• Rose Hill, 1415 E. Davenport St., 4/28/1992
• Muscatine Avenue Moffitt Cottage Historic District, 1322–1330 Muscatine
Ave., 5/4/1993
• Schindhelm–Drews House, 410 N. Lucas St., 1/28/1994
• Brown Street Historic District, roughly Brown St. from west of Linn St. to
Governor St. and adjacent parts of intersecting streets, 9/23/1994—HPC
sponsor
• Cannon, Wilbur D. and Hattie, House, 320 Melrose Ave., 10//1994
• St. Mary’s Rectory, 610 E. Jefferson St., //1995
• Bostick, William, House, 115 N. Gilbert St., 3/28/1996
• Clark House, 829 Kirkwood Ave., 5/16/1996
• College Green Historic District, roughly bounded by Burlington, Summit,
Washington, and Van Buren Sts., /9/199—HPC sponsor
• East College Street Historic District, roughly bounded by Muscatine Ave.,
Summit, Washington, and Burlington Sts., /9/199—HPC sponsor
• Emma J. Harvat and Mary E. Stach House, 332 E. Davenport St., 5/11/2000
—HPC sponsor
• Bethel AME Church, 411 S. Governor St., 9/2/2000
• Ned Ashton House, 820 Park Rd., 1/26/2001
• Englert Theatre, 221 E. Washington St., 8/30/2001
• Longfellow Historic District, roughly bounded by Court, Rundell, Sheridan,
and west boundary of Longfellow School, 9/12/2002—HPC sponsor
• Brown Street Historic District (boundary increase), 500-800 blocks of E.
Ronalds St., 9/29/2004—HPC sponsor
• Jefferson Street Historic District, Portions of 100–400 blocks of E. Jefferson St.,
9/29/2004—HPC sponsor
• Melrose Historic District, Portions of Melrose Ave., Melrose Ct., Melrose
Circle, Brookland Park Dr., Brookland Place, and Myrtle Ave., 12/6/2004
• Gilbert–Linn Street Historic District, Portions of 300-600 blocks of N. Gilbert
and N. Linn Sts., 4/21/2005—HPC sponsor
3Nominations sponsored by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission listed as “HPC sponsor.”
22
23
Participation by members of the
Commission in statewide CLG
training sessions has been sporadic
with increased attendance by the
chairperson in recent years at both
Main Street and CLG conferences.
The HPC, with the support of staff,
has continued to have a good track
record in applying for, receiving,
and completing both CLG grants
and Historic Resource Development
Program grants (ten separate projects
since 1992).
Examples of other government
partnerships include work carried
out on Section 106 cases where environmental review involved historic resources for projects
involving federal funding. Iowa City’s new waterworks included an agreement to invest in
mothballing the Montgomery-Butler House and to complete a feasibility study for reuse of the
building while work on a sewer project in the vicinity of Napoleon Park involved completion
of archeological work at the 1838-era town site and prehistoric village. Both projects involved
sections of municipal government not regularly involved with historic resources and the Section
106 process. In the early 1990s, the HPC was involved with many design reviews of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) rehabilitation projects. In more recent years, these have
diminished significantly. Attempts to achieve a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department
of Housing and Urban Development and the State Historical Society of Iowa have not progressed
to completion. In other instances, the City has played a significant role in preservation initiatives.
One involved the investment of over $250,000 in the restoration of the Englert Theatre and a
second saw the cooperation of the City with Friends to allow a condemned house in the 900 block
of Washington Street to be rehabilitated and returned to the active housing market. A third saw
the City support the establishment the Old Capitol Cultural and Entertainment District.
Goal 7: Establish and implement historic preservation objectives for the University of
Iowa campus and surrounding neighborhoods.
The University of Iowa’s history has paralleled the development of the community, and since the
middle of the nineteenth century, the University has been the largest single factor to shape Iowa
City’s economy, social fabric, and nearby built environment. Because of the strong separation
between the state-empowered activities of the University and the municipality, little shared
historic preservation planning has occurred between the City and the University before or since
adoption of the 1992 Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan. Nevertheless, progress on several of the
six objectives related to the University of Iowa has been achieved since 1992.
Though no inventory of historic resources owned by the University has been conducted, efforts
have been made to retain and reuse several historic resources. Examples include the rehabilitation
The Englert Theatre, 221 E. Washington Street
and adaptive reuse of the former Hall
of Anatomy as the Biological Sciences
Library, in 2000, and the historic
rehabilitation of the Medical Laboratory
Building (Zoology Building/Old Biology
Building), in 2001. Both buildings were
subsequently listed on the National
Register as part of the Jefferson Street
Historic District in 2004. The most
significant historic rehabilitation project
completed by the University in recent
years was the 2003 restoration of Old
Capitol’s dome and related fire damage.
Other efforts include the historic
rehabilitation of the Shambaugh House,
completed in 1996, and the building’s
relocation to a nearby property several
years later.
Efforts to secure support from the University in solving neighborhood problems and addressing
preservation issues in areas surrounding its campus have had mixed success. The University
took a positive position on historic preservation when approached by residents in the Northside
Neighborhood to support local designation of the Gilbert–Linn Street Historic District. The
project was supported by the Office of the President. The University made no objections when
several properties held by the University were included in the Jefferson Street Historic District but
did express concern when the Melrose Historic District was nominated.
Inclusion of historic preservation as a guiding principle in the University of Iowa Campus Master
Plan in 2006 (available online at: http://masterplan.facilities.uiowa.edu/Docs/University
IowaCampusMasterPlan.pdf; accessed 12/2006) was an important step for the University.
The plan acknowledged the importance of key features such as Old Capitol while extending
a philosophy of preservation to the entire Pentacrest and other heritage resources (National
Register-listed) on the University campus. Language in Section 4.5.3 identifies the following
principle related to campus form and character: “Protect the campus’ historic landscape and
architectural resources that positively contribute to its unique identity. Recognize and protect
the Pentacrest as the most significant character-defining feature of the campus plan.” The
announcement in late 2006 of preservation plans for the former Isolation Hospital Building in
the Jefferson Street Historic District is an example of how the master plan’s historic preservation
principle can have a positive impact on University policy.
Built in 1916, this building was originally used for the SUI Isola-
tion Hospital. After the construction of the new hospital complex
in 1928 it became the Music Building, and in 1972 was converted
into art studios. The building is located at 325 E. Jefferson Street.
Photo date: c. 1918.
24
25
Goal 8: Establish and support heritage tourism efforts appropriate to Iowa City’s
historic resources and community needs.
The development of a heritage tourism initiative integrating historic
preservation into the community goals of tourism and economic
development has seen steady progress since 1992 on most of the six
objectives identified. Promotion of authentic and quality heritage
offerings for local residents and visitors has tended to focus on
resources associated with the University such as Old Capitol or operated
by the Johnson County Historical Society such as the Coralville School
and Plum Grove. Developing visitor experiences in the growing number
of historic districts through special events, walking tours, and signage
programs is having success. Historic signage and walking tour programs
include the effort completed in the Longfellow Historic District and
the signage project planned for the Melrose Historic District. The
Longfellow neighborhood walking tour is posted on the City website.
The establishment of the Irving Weber Days annual celebration
has offered an opportunity to focus on local history topics though
not necessarily historic preservation topics. One of the goals of the
establishment of the Old Capitol Cultural and Entertainment District has been to foster tourism
and creation of a historic downtown walking tour is nearing completion.
Goal 9: Conduct regular review and evaluation of historic preservation initiatives by
the historic preservation community.
Following adoption of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan in 1992, the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission conducted annual reviews of the plan’s ten basic goals and the work
plan to achieve them. The results were reported each year in progress reports submitted for
Iowa’s Certified Local Government program. This annual review process has helped the HPC
achieve steady progress. It has also helped make Iowa City one of the most successful state grant
recipients. As predicted, these regular evaluations have had the effect of making the plan into an
ongoing process.
Goal 10: Adopt strategies to conserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic
development, historical roles and traditions, modern needs, and economic
health and stability.
When the 1992 plan was prepared, one of Iowa City’s strengths was identified as the variety
and health of its older residential and commercial neighborhoods. The importance of adopting
strategies that value neighborhood differences was stressed in the nearly 60 recommendations
made for the twelve distinct neighborhoods identified in the 1992 plan. As the plan said, “what
may be good for one neighborhood may not be wholly appropriate for another.” Since adoption
of the plan, most neighborhoods have achieved 50 to 5 percent of the historic preservation
objectives initially identified. Several neighborhoods have seen little or no progress in the specific
The House America
Was Waiting for;
Longfellow Historic Marker
on Clark Street
objectives but have still experienced a heightened sense of their historic value and the importance
of historic preservation. The chart that appears on the following page summarizes approximate
progress on 1992 Historic Preservation Plan objectives by neighborhood.
Summary of Progress
A review of local historic preservation activities shows progress in both the public and private
sectors during the past 15 years. Primary success has been achieved in the identification and
protection of historic resources on both the national and local levels. The history of Iowa City
revealed in its buildings and neighborhoods has been documented, many more historic building
owners appreciate the value of the properties, and historic preservation is now part of the ongoing
agenda of strategies for community improvement. A table appears on the following page that
depicts the estimated progress in various neighborhoods since adoption of the 1992 Plan.
D.
23
Estimated Progress on 1992 Iowa City Historic Preservation Neighborhood Strategies Objectives
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Downtown
Dubuque St. Corridor
North Side
Goosetown
Woodlawn
College Hill
Summit Street
Longfellow
Lucas Farms (Kirkwood)
South Side
West Side (Melrose)
Manville Heights
Progress on 1992
Plan Objectives
26
2
III. Public Opinions and Perceptions of Historic Preservation
Opinions Sought
A second step in completing the update of the 1992 plan involved assessing public attitudes
and concerns. This was done in several settings by soliciting opinions about progress made and
work yet to be completed. Four public meetings were held in April and June 2006 and a fifth
one was held in January 200. The first two meetings were held just one week after the April
tornado struck in Iowa City and as a result the tone of the meetings reflected concerns arising
due to storm damage. The other three forums were held for the North Side and Goosetown
neighborhoods, the Manville Heights and Melrose neighborhoods, and the Downtown (two
meetings). Approximately 40 residents attended each of the first three meetings with less than
a dozen at each of the Downtown sessions. The sessions included a presentation by Marlys
Svendsen, lead consultant for the project, summarizing the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan.
Participants were asked to offer their opinions regarding successes and short-comings of the 1992
plan’s goals and objectives. They were also encouraged to share concerns to be addressed in the
plan update. Comments received at the five sessions are summarized in Appendix C.
Solicitation of opinions continued through a series of one-on-one interviews with representative
opinion holders and key decision makers. Consultants Matt Goebel and Bohdy Hedgecock
with Clarion Associates joined Svendsen during three days of interviews in late June. Svendsen
conducted additional interviews in January, March, and April 2006 and January 200. Interviews
were held with representatives of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and
Zoning Commission; City planning, housing, economic development, and legal staff; and the
City manager and two City Council members. Both proponents and opponents of preservation
from the community were interviewed including representatives of Friends, neighborhood
organizations, the University, realtors, developers, bankers, Downtown retailers and Downtown
Association organizers, contractors, and architects.
Summary of Public Input
During the course of conducting interviews, subjects were encouraged to be frank and specific
knowing that their remarks might be shared during the report process but not attributed.
This information along with comments received during public forums became important in
ascertaining how the current preservation effort in the community is working. Is the work of
the Historic Preservation Commission effective and well-targeted? Are other parts of municipal
government fulfilling their historic preservation obligations? Is the community as a whole behind
the stated historic preservation goals of Iowa City’s Comprehensive Plan? Are their additional
public and private preservation efforts needed in Iowa City?
The overall assessment of the consultants is that Iowa City’s historic preservation effort is a
broad-based, community-supported undertaking. It has progressed considerably during the past
15 years involving many more residents and property owners while garnering the support of
decision makers in many levels of government. Comments made during the public meetings and
interview process generally fell under eight broad categories listed on the following pages.
A.
B.
1. Operation, Staffing, Efficiency, and Effectiveness of the Historic Preservation Commission
From the onset of the Historic Preservation Plan update project, it was understood that
considerable effort should be spent on evaluating the work of the Historic Preservation
Commission and means for improving it. As a result, many of the questions in the interviews
conducted by the consultants focused on the HPC’s general operation, its staffing, its
efficiency, and its effectiveness.
2. The relationship between the City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission
Maintaining a good working relationship between elected and appointed officials is a goal
for good government. Several good suggestions were offered to help the HPC and the City
Council establish a better working relationship.
3. Historic District and Conservation District Issues
The interview process was an important tool used to solicit opinions about the operation of
historic districts and conservation districts and their success as a means of protecting Iowa
City’s historic resources.
4. Improving the Design Review Process
Viewpoints offered regarding the success of the design review process since it was established
nearly 20 years ago depended on a number of factors including whether a person owned a
property within a regulated district and had direct experience with the process. In 2006, there
are more than 1,100 properties for which certain construction work is regulated. Design
review cases comprise a substantial share of the work load for the HPC and the half-time
staff person responsible for handling inquiries for certificates of appropriateness, formal
applications, HPC agendas, and compliance issues.
5. Downtown Preservation and Improvement
Opinions about Iowa City’s central business district were sought from all individuals
interviewed regardless of whether or not they were downtown stakeholders. Good insight was
provided by a wide range of people interviewed.
6. Historic Preservation Incentives
As historic preservation efforts have become more sophisticated in recent years, the concept
of incentives has grown to include not only traditional financial programs but also regulatory
incentives. Comments received during the interview process included suggestions for both
financial incentives originating in the private and non-profit sector and regulatory incentives
from local government.
28
29
7. Historic Preservation and the University of Iowa
Most of the comments received regarding preservation and the University related to issues
on the edges of the campus or the University’s impact in the community as a whole. Few were
received about the need for preservation on-campus.
8. Historic Preservation Advocacy and Education
Throughout the interview process, many people volunteered general observations about
attitudes in the community towards historic preservation and its proponents. The overall
success of historic preservation in the community was acknowledged by most people
interviewed.
Summary: Appendix D contains an example of the general format used for interview
questions along with both a summary and list of specific responses organized by general
topic. A list of individuals interviewed is provided at the end of Appendix D. Many of the
comments received and summarized in Appendix D form the basis for recommendations
that appear elsewhere in this plan.
31
Updated Goals and Objectives for the Historic Preservation
Plan 2007
The review of local historic preservation efforts since 1992 shows major progress in both public
and private activities. Good communication has been at the center of the best cases of progress
while minimal or ineffective communication has characterized preservation missteps or failures.
The common theme incorporated into the recommendations that follow is thoughtful, clear, and
audience-appropriate communication. Whether this takes the form of official reports, shared
strategy sessions, targeted publications, web-based information gathering and dispersal, or direct
communication with historic property owners, good communication will be key to advancing the
comprehensive preservation agenda and strategies recommended below.4
Goal 1: Identify historic resources significant to Iowa City’s past.
Objective 1: Continue to research and evaluate historic resources through the systematic
and prioritized completion of neighborhood and thematic-based historical and
architectural surveys.
Following adoption of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, the HPC assumed
the leadership role for completing comprehensive studies of Iowa City’s built
environment by carrying out historical and architectural surveys based on the
National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places survey model. Work
began in 1992 with preparation of a Multiple Property Documentation (MPD)
form titled “Iowa City Historic Resources” to serve as a broad outline for future
survey and nomination work.
Since 1992 the HPC has undertaken an orderly process for completing nearly a
dozen neighborhood-based surveys. That process has included securing Certified
Local Government grants and Historic Resource Development Program grants
through the State Historical Society of Iowa that were matched by City resources
including both cash and in-kind labor. The HPC systematically worked its way
through a prioritized list of neighborhood survey projects established in the
plan’s work program completing approximately 5 percent of the proposed survey
areas by 2005. In most cases, intensive level surveys were undertaken by historic
preservation professionals with Iowa Site Inventory Forms completed for all
properties within proscribed blocks. An exception was a section of the College
Hill Neighborhood, where work was carried out directly by the HPC under the
direction of a professionally experienced member of the HPC.
4To maintain continuity with the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan, recommendations are presented
according to the original ten goals adopted. Where appropriate, the language of the goals and the accompanying
objectives has been changed or expanded. In several cases emphasis has been shifted to account for completed tasks
and newly identified needs or opportunities. In other cases, entirely new initiatives are incorporated as additional
objectives. A major change is the expansion and refinement of the neighborhoods designated for study and
preservation. Underlining is used to emphasize new or expanded recommendations throughout IV. Updated Goals
and Objectives.
IV.
The “Iowa City Historic Resources” MPD was approved in 1994 for listing in the
National Register and subsequent amendments to the MPD have been completed
in the years since as a part of the completion of survey work. To continue an
organized approach, it is recommended that the broad outline contained in “Iowa
City Historic Resources” MPD be updated (see Appendix E) through the addition
of historic contexts and an extended time period through ca. 1960. Future
decisions for what districts to study and to regulate as well as special protection
needed for the more recent past flow from this important appendix. The priorities
set for neighborhood survey work are listed in the Neighborhood Strategies
Summary table under Goal 10 below.
Objective 2: Enlist the financial and volunteer support of private sponsors to undertake survey
work.
The ongoing leadership responsibility for this task rests with the HPC but
emphasis should be put on enlisting private sponsors and volunteers to carryout
survey work when neighborhood support is available. Successful examples for such
efforts in the past 15 years include sponsorship and funding of National Register
of Historic Places nominations by Friends for properties such as the African
Methodist Episcopal Church or the Emma Harvat House and the historical and
architectural survey work completed by the Melrose Neighborhood Association
to which Friends also contributed. In the latter project, the use of local volunteers
allowed survey work to proceed at a faster pace when neighborhood residents
handled historical research for 85 properties. Such an effort also provided training
for neighborhood residents, giving them the skills to complete future research
tasks on their own. Private efforts such as those sponsored by Friends and the
Melrose Neighborhood Association demonstrate a growing support for historic
preservation activities in the community.
Objective 3: Set designation priorities for historic districts and landmarks that emphasize the
most important or threatened resources first.
Use of a neighborhood-based historical and architectural survey effort to identify
and prioritize eligible historic districts and landmarks continues to make the
most sense in Iowa City. However, it is recommended that future efforts use both
reconnaissance and intensive level survey formats in order to complete work more
efficiently and with greater speed. Such an effort would mean first completing
a reconnaissance level survey to focus energy and funding on historic districts
and scattered properties that are individually eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. Once National Register eligibility has been established, local
designation efforts should proceed.
32
33
Objective 4: Extend the period for neighborhoods to study through ca. 1960.
The federally-supported Certified Local Government Program that Iowa City
participates in requires that the historical and architectural survey process
focus evaluation efforts on historic resources and neighborhoods that are at
least 50 years old. When the Historic Preservation Plan was completed in 1992
its recommendations focused on historic resources built between Iowa City’s
founding in 1839 through the 1930s. With the passing of time, the 50-year
cut-off period for research efforts has moved forward to include buildings and
neighborhoods built after World War II. It is now recommended that the list of
neighborhoods to study be expanded to include historic resources from the 1930s
through ca. 1960. The progress, priorities, and period of significance of the historic
resources and neighborhoods to survey should be re-assessed after five to seven
years.
A new work plan for survey efforts is incorporated into the Neighborhood
Strategies Summary Table on page 109. It tracks progress on the survey plan laid
out in 1992 through 2005 as well as suggesting a priority for future neighborhood
and thematic-based survey efforts. This new priority for surveys should be used to
guide future grant writing and volunteer recruitment.
Objective 5: Continue to nominate individual properties and historic districts to the National
Register of Historic Places. When appropriate, pursue local designation as
landmarks and historic districts for National Register properties.
The best means for identifying the historical and architectural significance of
properties is to list them on the National Register of Historic Places. The National
Register acknowledges historic resources including buildings, structures, sites,
objects, and districts that are significant in the fields of history, architecture, and
archaeology. Since 1992, Iowa City has had 10 individual resources and eight
historic districts listed on the National Register. Many other resources have been
identified as eligible for listing but the research and documentation has not been
completed.
Listing on the National Register is often the first step in heightening public
awareness about a property or neighborhood. The same criteria are used to
establish the eligibility of a property for local designation and protection. Since
1996, the Iowa City HPC has successfully pursued a strategy of nominating
National Register listed individual properties as local landmarks. Currently, this
strategy has resulted in the designation of 36 National Register listed properties for
local landmark protection. In the case of several properties including the
A.W. Pratt House at 503 Melrose Avenue and the College Block Building at 125
E. College Street, local landmark designation has been key to their long-term
preservation. The strategy of coupling landmark designation to National Register
listing should continue to be encouraged by the HPC.
Objective 6: Nominate properties of national
level significance as National
Historic Landmarks.
This new objective focuses
attention on historic resources
with national level significance
and high levels of integrity.
Old Capitol is a well-known
National Historic Landmark that
demonstrates both national level
significance and a high level of
physical integrity. Other examples
likely include Plum Grove at 1030
Carroll Avenue, the residence of
Iowa’s first territorial governor;
the Iowa Hydraulics Laboratory/
Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research on the campus of the University; the Oakes-
Wood House at 1142 E. Court Street, the residence of Grant Wood while he
resided in Iowa City; and a property associated with the life and career of Dr.
James Van Allen, internationally renowned astronomer and physicist.
A strategy for evaluating and promoting NHL designations would be to work
with potential co-sponsors for NHL eligible properties such as the University or
private owners, the State Historical Society of Iowa, and the National Park Service’s
Midwest Regional Office, Cultural Resources Division in Omaha. An appreciation
of the presence of national level resources will give Iowa Citians a heightened sense
of the importance of such resources for the entire country.
Goal 2: Continue municipal policy of protection of historic resources and implement
this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures.
Objective 1: Incorporate an updated 200 Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan into the Iowa
City Comprehensive Plan.
As with the 1992 preservation plan, the updated 200 Historic Preservation Plan
should be incorporated into the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. Those involved
in the updated plan at neighborhood sessions and interviews should be invited to
participate in the adoption process.
Objective 2: Most of the specific recommendations made in 1992 to amend the City’s historic
preservation ordinance have been completed. These included successfully
establishing individual landmark designation, conservation district designation,
a certificate of economic hardship provision, and demolition prevention powers
for the HPC. Following discussions with City staff, community interviews,
Oakes-Wood House, 1142 E. Court St., residence of Grant
Wood while he resided in Iowa City.
34
35
and an examination of the Iowa City Zoning Code, consultants from Clarion
Associates prepared a review of the historic preservation ordinance to identify
potential future updates to the ordinance. Comparisons with historic preservation
ordinances from comparable cities and national best-practices were also made.
A full discussion of Clarion Associates’ historic preservation ordinance review is
included in section II of Appendix F. The most important recommendations are
called out as new objectives beginning with Objective below.
Objective 3: Evaluate the need for zoning changes in historic and conservation districts as a
neighborhood stabilization measure.
Designation of a neighborhood as a historic or conservation district is not
intended to satisfy all of the stabilization needs of a neighborhood. Evaluation of
the applicability of the underlying zoning designation should be undertaken as a
parallel activity. An example of how this was undertaken successfully took place
in a portion of the Longfellow Neighborhood in 2000 when down-zoning was
considered for Governor and Lucas Streets south of Burlington. Continuation of
the existing multifamily residential zoning designation was reviewed to determine
if it was encouraging the demolition of older residences and construction of
new apartment buildings, and if so, whether the results were greater density and
parking congestion that were incompatible with a stable neighborhood. Following
completion of the down-zoning by the P&Z Commission, the area was evaluated
to determine if the neighborhood qualified as a historic or conservation district.
In 2001 the Governor–Lucas Conservation District was enacted. Together the
land-use changes and design review requirements of the down-zoning and the
conservation district designation have served as compatible neighborhood
stabilization strategies.
Efforts should be made to make it understood that land use change involves a
separate and distinct set of issues to be evaluated by the P&Z Commission and that
design review issues are carried out by the HPC based on historic or conservation
district designation based on an evaluation of neighborhood character and the
application of design review standards. The HPCs’ work does not involve non-
visual issues such as property usage, density, parking requirements, etc. so long as
these issues do not affect the appearance of a building covered by design review.
The coupling of discussions involving zoning change by the P&Z Commission
and decisions regarding historic or conservation district designation by the HPC
should be undertaken carefully so that the members of the public as well as the
commissioners themselves understand which issues are addressed by which public
body.
Objective 4: Revise Building Code requirements for historic districts.
In 1992, this objective related to the need to establish more flexible building code
provisions for buildings located in historic districts. Limited progress has been
made on this objective. The capacity of Housing and Inspections Services staff to
identify buildings in historic districts and conservation districts that require design
review has improved, however, despite the fact that more than 1,100 buildings
now included. In light of the newly adopted International Existing Building Code
and the State of Iowa’s Historic Building Code, opportunities now exist for using
building codes more suited to historic resources to guide their improvement. It is
recommended that the International Existing Building Code and the State’s Historic
Building Code be adopted to provide for safe structures, preserve historic features,
and assure the highest economic impact from reusing existing historic buildings.
Objective 5: Amend portions of the Iowa City Zoning Code relating to Conservation District
Overlay Zones to emphasize differences from historic districts by:
a) Clarifying goals for these areas based on additional community input and
incorporating these goals into a revised purpose statement for conservation
districts;
b) Reinforcing the distinction between historic and conservation districts with a
focus on issues related to mass, scale, and general compatibility in reviews of
conservation district properties; and
c) Requiring periodic resurveys of conservation districts (every five to ten
years) to determine if areas may have improved to the point that historic
district designation may be appropriate or buildings may have changed their
designations as contributing and noncontributing. Such resurveys could also
be used to reassess appropriate boundaries.
Objective 6: Improve enforcement of the Historic Preservation Ordinance by establishing
remedies for noncompliance, maintenance, and demolition by neglect standards,
and administration changes.
a) Strengthen remedies for noncompliance – fines, injunctive relief and
compliance orders, forcing reconstruction, and loss of further entitlement.
b) Use provisions of the International Building Code to promote maintenance
and upkeep of historic properties.
c) Consider administrative changes to improve enforcement of historic
preservation design review including: working closer with Housing and
Inspection Services and the City Attorney’s Office to establish procedures
that ensure uniform and efficient enforcement of the preservation ordinance;
establishing a designated staff person within HIS to handle preservation
enforcement issues in order to ensure that alterations are carried out in
conformance with the HPC approval; and reviewing the “Definitions” section
in the Historic Preservation Ordinance to make sure language is concise
36
3
and not open to court interpretation. For example, prior to regulation of
commercially used properties, a review should be completed to determine all
of the elements subject to, or excluded from, design review (e.g. signs, awnings,
decorative lighting, etc).
Objective 7: Make changes in the design review process to improve efficiency and add
predictability. Some recommended changes in the design review process are based
on the lessons learned in the post-April 2006 tornado period.
a) HPC should give reasons (or “findings of fact”) for its decisions on applications
for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
b) Continue to use a tiered system (“Major,” Intermediate” and “Minor” reviews)
for completing design review in conservation districts but more clearly define
what types of alterations fall within each category.
c) Use “Minor” and “Intermediate” reviews in conservation districts for standards
more tailored to the key issues related to those districts rather than the more
detailed standards of historic districts.
d) Allow the tiered system of review to be used for minor and intermediate
level reviews in historic districts by delegating administrative authority to
professional staff with concurrence of the HPC chairperson. Operate this
system in the same manner that the Certificate of No Material Effect is handled
in order to speed the design review process and reduce design review agenda
size. If a measure cannot be approved administratively, an application should
be automatically forwarded to the full HPC. In other words, do not give staff/
chairperson power to disapprove.
e) Delegate to staff the ability to grant minor modifications to certain standards
in order to streamline ordinance administration. To do this, a more specific
authorization for modifications based on historic status should be established.
Staff decisions should be subject to appeal to the HPC. As a part of this step,
regular staff reports should be prepared for the HPC by staff based on a menu
of basic, pre-approved items (i.e., hand railings, doors, foundation treatments,
siding options that are pre-approved if a set of conditions are met.).
f) Maintain clear design review standards that result in predictable decisions by
staff and the HPC and that limit administrative discretion.
g) Modify the design guidelines sections of the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Handbook (Sections 4.0 through .0) by either removing the distinction
between Disallowed and Not Recommended approaches, or by refining the
exceptions criteria in Section 3.2 of the design guidelines to better define when
the HPC may allow more flexibility in applying the guidelines.
h) In order to speed the processing of design review applications, stress the need
for complete answers to all questions including plans and drawings that clearly
show existing condition and proposed changes. Allow staff to determine if
applications are sufficient and reject incomplete applications.
i) In conservation districts, develop clear and specific standards that address
frequent design review issues. For example, what level of deterioration
determines whether windows should be replaced rather than repaired?
j) In order to improve design guidelines and process applications more
expeditiously, identify in advance the details on buildings that are the most
important to preserve. When surveys are done, identify these features on site
inventory forms and photos. Include evaluations of garages as contributing or
noncontributing resources on site forms for all properties.
k) Allow the HPC to give “conditional approval” by clearly stating conditions in
COA applications and delegating to staff the power to oversee implementation
of the conditions in order to speed the process.
l) Encourage cooperative arrangements with Friends to provide assistance to
owners in complying with design review process including sponsorship of
professional design assistance, joint workshops held by the HPC and Friends,
and promotion of use of the Salvage Barn materials where appropriate to solve
design review issues.
m) Establish a regular training program for the HPC including design review
orientation for new members and periodic refresher training for the entire
HPC.
Objective 8: The Historic Preservation Handbook should be revised by adding a new section
that lists the sections of Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code that relate to historic
preservation procedures, standards, regulations, guidelines, incentives, definitions,
and noncompliance violations.
Objective 9: Revise design guidelines to better address key issues and presentation format.
a) Reexamine guidelines and/or recommendations for new construction; garages
and outbuildings, including garage doors; determining when materials are too
deteriorated to repair; and windows (should they be repaired or replaced).
b) Develop a design manual that includes illustrations or photographs of
appropriate designs for common building elements such as porch balustrades,
porch skirting, hand rails, garage doors, etc. Alterations consistent with those
pre-approved designs would potentially be eligible for administrative approval.
38
39
c) Eliminate inconsistencies between the historic preservation ordinance and
the Historic Preservation Handbook. Examples of inconsistencies include the
following: the Handbook does not reflect recent changes regarding multifamily
design standards and review procedures; the trigger for when a Certificate of
Appropriateness is required is described differently in the ordinance and the
Handbook; and the Handbook does not accurately describe setback averaging
as defined by the Zoning Code.
d) Consider alternative paving materials for establishing required parking areas
in conservation and historic districts. Comments at one of the public meetings
expressed concern about the impact of hardscape paving in rear yards. Though
this is not an element reviewed by the HPC, it is recommended that the City
consider the use of alternatives to impervious materials for parking spaces in
historic and conservation districts (examples of trademarked porous paving
materials include Grasscrete, Grasspave2, Geoblock, Grasroad Pavers8, Tuff
Track, Grassy Paver, Grass-Cel, and Checker Block).
e) Consider revisions to the design guidelines to allow more flexibility in using
alternative/substitute materials for common alteration projects such as door
and windows replacement based on specific criteria such as historic status of
the structure, properties of the substitute materials, etc.
Objective 10: Advocate changes in state enabling legislation for historic preservation
commissions to allow communities greater flexibility in establishing the make-up
of their commission. When a number of commission appointment issues were
discussed with the State Historical Society staff, they were open to the idea of
changing HPC membership requirements in the Iowa Code. Consideration should
be given to changes that do the following:
a) Establish a fixed size for the HPC. Currently there are ten members on the
HPC with six representing districts and four serving as at-large appointees.
Should another historic district be established, the HPC would grow to eleven
appointees, etc. There is currently no limit on the potential commission
size. The commissioners serve rotating three-year terms. The flexible size
and shorter terms of the HPC differs from other commissions staffed by the
Planning and Community Development Department. The Planning and
Zoning Commission has seven members serving five-year terms and the Board
of Adjustment has five members each serving five-year terms. To provide
stability for the HPC, it is recommended that its size be established at a fixed
number that approximates the current size. Consideration should also be given
to lengthening the term of commissioners from three to four years.
b) Eliminate the representative basis for appointments currently in place for
a portion of the HPC’s total membership. The Iowa Code requires that a
commissioner be appointed from each locally designated historic district. As
more historic districts are designated, the size of an HPC grows without regard
to the size of a district or the practicality of an HPC’s size. Pursue amendment
of the State Code to provide more flexibility in the composition of the
Commission.
c) Strengthen technical expertise of commissioners appointed to the HPC. There
are currently minimal requirements in the Iowa Code for technical expertise
of historic preservation commission appointees.5 Federal Certified Local
Government program requirements specify that at least two commissioners
be “preservation professionals”6 and suggests these should be an architect and
an architectural historian. To improve the design review efficiency of the HPC,
it is recommended that two or more members be appointed based on their
technical expertise or skills.
d) To strengthen the HPC and make its actions more effective and efficient,
an HPC by-laws change is recommended that would fix the size of the
commission at nine members in order provide a tie-breaking vote with four at-
large members and five from a mix of historic and conservation districts. This
number allows for broad representation while keeping voting control in the
hands of district residents. Two of the at-large members would be required to
have demonstrated experience or skills in historic preservation or related fields
such as architecture, contracting, real estate, development, etc. An ongoing
effort should be maintained to provide diversity for commissioners, including
residential distribution within designated districts.
Objective 11: Strengthen relationship between HPC and Planning and Zoning Commission.
a) In advance of decisions regarding the designation of potential historic districts
or conservation districts, an invitation should be extended by chairperson of
the HPC to the P&Z Commission to have a member of P&Z to attend the HPC
meeting(s).
b) Conduct an annual joint meeting between the P&Z and the HPC to establish
common goals and discuss areas of concern. Invite members of the City
Council to attend and offer agenda items.
Objective 12: Strengthen language of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
a) In paragraph Section 14-5I-12(F)(2) regarding development in instances where
5The Code of Iowa (Section 303.34 et seq.) states that members of a historic preservation commission “shall
be appointed with due regard to proper representation of residents and property owners of the city and their relevant
fields of knowledge including but not limited to history, urban planning, architecture, archeology, law, and sociology.”
(from Certified Local Government Handbook, State Historical Society of Iowa; available online at: http://www.state.
ia.us/government/dca/shsi/preservation/clg_program/clg_manual.html, accessed 11/18/06.)
6 “Historic preservation professionals are persons who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qual-
ification Standards. The Standards call for an advanced degree (M.A. or Ph.D.) and professional, work experience
in one of the following fields: history, architectural history, prehistoric or historic archaeology or licensed/certified
architects with training/experience in historical architecture rehabilitation. In addition, individuals with degrees and
work experience in urban or rural planning, American Studies, American Civilization, Cultural Geography, Cultural
Anthropology, Folklore, Curation, (building) Conservation, and landscape architecture are also recognized as pres-
ervation professionals, although Professional Qualification Standards have yet to be promulgated.” (For source, see
Footnote 5.)
40
41
significant archaeological sites are identified, the City’s authority to require
retention of an archeological site as private or public open space through a
mandated design of the site plan, planned development or subdivision should
be stated more clearly and affirmatively. In this paragraph the word “require”
should be used rather than “attempt.” Like all land use regulations, care must
be taken to avoid any “takings” claims. Barring that requirement, however, it is
certainly within the power of the City to deny an application that impacts such
resources.
b) Paragraph 14-5I-12(G) establishes the ability of the City to limit development
in the area of burial sites and to require designation as public or private open
space. This is an appropriate standard, however, care must be taken when
dealing with some types of burial sites, particularly those falling under the
standards of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,
to avoid identifying the area as such in public records in order to maintain
protection for these sites. Instead of prescribing a specific buffer size, it may
be more appropriate to include a more general standard for site design that
requires integrating the burial area and buffer into the overall site plan.
Objective 13: Re-examine City policy regarding brick streets to assure protection and funding
are in place for conserving and restoring significant areas both inside and outside
of historic and conservation districts.
Objective 14: The last resort for preserving a historic building is moving it. This complex issue
should be examined by a group representing various parties responsible for such
actions (HPC, P&Z, ZBA, HIS, Traffic Engineering, utility companies, moving
companies, etc.) to determine if a new ordinance or revised set of policies should
be adopted.
Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic
buildings and neighborhoods.
Objective 1: Assess the economic impact of historic preservation on Iowa City by conducting
a study based on section “V. Model for Evaluating Economic Impacts,” beginning
on page 111. Examine the impact of historic rehabilitation expenditures, the roles
preservation and district designation play in property values, and the value of
heritage tourism. As a part of the assessment, identify current impediments—both
public and private—to redevelopment.
Objective 2: Develop a comprehensive set of economic incentives aimed at resolving
impediments to redevelopment. Although some issues were identified during
the current planning process, others need to be more fully evaluated. Once the
impediments have been fully identified, the preservation incentives developed in
other communities and states that are outlined below should be considered.
Objective 3: Establish and market tax incentives for historic buildings. Ongoing promotion of
these incentives should be undertaken by the HPC as well as the staff for the City’s
Economic Development Division, Friends of Historic Preservation, the Downtown
Association, and especially the Cultural and Entertainment District. A more
complete discussion appears in Appendix K.
a) Promote local property tax abatement through the City’s Urban Revitalization
Program for the CBD or the state-wide tax abatement program (Iowa’s
“Temporary Historic Property Tax Exemption”) for properties outside of the
Urban Revitalization Area.
b) Along with the State Historical Society of Iowa staff, investigate the merits of
establishing a statewide property tax abatement incentive such as a temporary
property tax freeze linked to a non-rehabilitation measure such as local
landmark or district designation.
c) Promote use of the federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program
for income-generating properties undergoing rehabilitation that are listed
on the National Register or eligible for listing. The incentive creates a 20%
federal investment tax credit for property owners completing qualifying
rehabilitations.
d) Promote the use of the Iowa State Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
for income-generating properties undergoing rehabilitation that are listed on
the National Register or eligible for listing. The incentive parallels the federal
tax credit program and offers a 25% state investment tax credit for property
owners completing qualifying rehabilitations. Because of current rules
governing this program, properties located within Cultural and Entertainment
Districts, such as in Downtown, have a competitive advantage for receiving
credits.
Objective 4: Downtown: Consider combining a Self-Supporting Municipal Improvement
District (SSMID) for the central business district with the Main Street program;
promote use of the State Investment Tax Credits for historic buildings made
available through the Cultural and Entertainment District program.
a) When the SSMID objective was proposed in 1992 it was aimed at use
in existing historic districts. Since that time, an effort has been made to
establish an SSMID in the Downtown. Though unsuccessful in 2005, based
on interviews with Downtown leaders it is believed that conditions may have
changed in the central business district in terms of ownership support. A
SSMID remains an opportunity for a regular source of funding to underwrite
a façade improvement program, a revolving low-interest loan program, and/or
Even though some of these measures require action at the state level, they are offered here as guidance for
all of the government agencies involved in their enactment.
42
43
full-time staff position for the Downtown. Downtown supporters of such a
measure and the Downtown Association should take the leadership role in
establishing a Downtown SSMID.
b) It is also recommended that Downtown leaders look at combining a SSMID
effort with the “Main Street Approach” for organizing its staff efforts. This
approach seeks to integrate the goal of economic development within the
context of historic preservation.
The Main Street Approach8 has four overall concepts and a set of guiding
principles:
• Business Improvement – This element involves diversifying the
downtown economy by identifying potential market niches, finding
new uses for vacant or underused spaces and improving business
practices.
• Design – Utilizing appropriate design concepts, the visual quality of
the downtown (buildings, signs, window displays, landscaping, and
environment) is enhanced.
• Organization – The organizational element brings together the public
sector, private groups and individual citizens, with coordination by a
paid program manager, to work more effectively in the downtown.
• Promotion – By promoting the downtown in a positive manner, a
community can begin to focus on downtown as a source of community
pride, social activity and economic development potential.
• Guiding Principles
- Incremental Process
- Comprehensive Four Point Approach
- Quality
- Public and Private Partnership
- Changing Attitudes
- Focus on Existing Assets
8“The Main Street Approach,” Iowa Department of Economic Development; available online at http://www.
iowalifechanging.com/community/mainstreetiowa/approach.html; accessed 11/21/06.
Downtown, historic buildings along South Clinton Street.
- Self-Help Program
- Implementation Oriented
c) In 2004, local efforts were successful in having the Downtown designated as
part of the Old Capitol Cultural and Entertainment District (CED). This State-
designation identifies compact, mixed use areas of Iowa towns and cities where
cultural facilities and services are concentrated. A primary advantage of this
designation currently is access to the State tax credits to assist property owners
in completing rehabilitations of historic buildings within CEDs as described in
greater detail above. Downtown property owners should be encouraged to take
advantage of the State income tax credit for historic rehabilitations of buildings
in the Old Capitol Cultural and Entertainment District.
d) Develop closer coordination between economic development staff,
preservation planning staff, and HPC for Downtown projects.
e) Develop a grant/loan program for Downtown business/property owners who
participate in voluntary rehabilitation guidelines. (see Objective 5 and Objective
6 below)
Objective 5: Private Loan Program: Establish a private loan pool for rehabilitating historic
buildings.
When this objective was identified in 1992, leadership for this effort was broadly
directed at both public and private sectors with interest in historic preservation.
Successful models for revolving loan pools and interest write-downs in other
communities were suggested as examples. Since then, the only organization that
has stepped forward to lead such an effort has been Friends. Their efforts have
included modest rehabilitation grants to individual historic property owners and,
in the wake of the 2006 tornado, a grant program coordinated with matching
funds from the National Trust for Historic Preservation focusing on technical
assistance.
Based on comments received at neighborhood meetings and in interviews,
there is a continuing need for a private loan or grant pool for rehabilitating
historic buildings. To better focus the establishment of such a program, it is
recommended that future efforts couple a rehabilitation loan/grant program with
other needs such as was done with the post-tornado program. These could include
neighborhoods containing affordable housing such as Goosetown, properties
transitioning from rental units to owner-occupied, buildings undergoing
design review in both historic or conservation districts, buildings undertaking
ADA improvements, etc. In all cases, the recipient building would also be an
individually significant building or a contributing building in a conservation or
historic district. Work funded through such a program should comply with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and/or the HPC’s design guidelines.
44
45
Objective 6: Municipal Grant/Loan Program: Expand existing grant or loan programs using
Community Development Block Grant funds or other municipal sources to
underwrite the costs of sound rehabilitation work on buildings undergoing design
review in historic and conservation districts.
The City’s federally-funded Community Development Block Grant and HOME
Investment Partnership programs focuses efforts on providing financial
assistance to low and moderate income homeowners wanting to make repairs and
improvements to their homes. Since 1992 these efforts have shifted from older
neighborhoods in the central city to outlying areas. This may be partially due to
requirement for lead based paint testing and abatement.
In 2003 the City established the Targeted Area Rehabilitation Program (TARP) to
compliment CDBG/HOME programs without the same income requirements of
the federal programs. The purpose of TARP is to stabilize and revitalize targeted
neighborhoods, which also include areas of the city containing several historic
and conservation districts as well as a number of National Register properties. The
program allows the City to offer low-interest loans that are repayable over a 20-
year period, with the money awarded to qualified homeowners on a first-come,
first-serve basis. There is potential for TARP to be marketed more effectively in
historic conservation districts.
Low-interest loans and grant programs have been developed in a wide variety
of communities nationally to help offset the costs of rehabilitating designated
historic structures. In Cedar Rapids two popular and well-regarded programs
have been established for designated historic districts. The City’s Paint Rebate
program provides exterior paint rebates for consumable painting materials up
to a maximum of $400 if the homeowner paints his or her home. This program
will provide rebates up to 50% of labor costs or $1,200, whichever is less, for
a homeowner to hire a paint contractor. Though the dollar amounts are not
significant, the effect of this program has been to develop good will in districts that
prohibit installation of synthetic siding.
Other communities provide grants to property owners to hire a preservation
architect or other professional to assist in preparing rehabilitation plans. A related
form of incentive provides low- or no-interest loans to property owners to assist
with project costs. All of these programs aim to encourage property owners to
perform appropriate rehabilitations and to help offset the costs of maintaining
historic properties. Establishment of a paint rebate program similar to the Cedar
Rapids program targeted at buildings in conservation and historic districts should
be considered. With modest annual funding to encourage painting for buildings,
such a program can demonstrate good will and help property owners to realize
that their preservation efforts are appreciated in the community.
Recognizing the traditionally strong real estate appreciation in the Iowa City
market, tie any historic grant programs to a repayment plan that would obligate
recipients to repay grants if a property is sold within five years. Repaid grants
would be incorporated into a revolving fund available for new grants. As with a
private grant/loan program, work funded should comply with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and/or the HPC’s design guidelines.
Objective 7: Regulatory relief: Many communities allow designated historic buildings to
qualify for exemptions or variances from building code and zoning standards
such as parking requirements and setbacks. Iowa City has taken advantage of this
approach and these provisions should be maintained in future building code and
zoning revisions. Relief to parking requirements could be tied to use of specific
surface materials (see Goal 2: Objective 9 d).
Objective 8: Non-local Grants: Establish a more coordinated approach to preparation of non-
local grants by giving grant writing responsibility to City staff members including
the half-time historic preservation planner and other Planning and Community
Development staff. Through the HPC and City staff, the City of Iowa City has had
considerable success in securing State grants since 1995 with eight grants received
during the following decade through the State Historical Society’s Historic
Resource Development Program and Certified Local Grant Program. Despite
this success rate, the effort has been uneven depending to some extent on the
individual capacity of staff members or the interests of HPC members. To improve
the number and amount of grant income to support HPC operations, greater effort
should be made to secure grants through the timely preparation of grant requests.
Also, federal grant opportunities through the National Park Service and private
grant programs offered through such organizations as the National Trust for
Historic Preservation should be considered for eligible projects.
Objective 9: Encourage private individuals and non-profit organizations to identify eligible
projects for the State Historical Society’s grant programs and assist in grant
writing. State programs include the Historic Sites Preservation Program and the
Historic Resource Development Program.
Goal 4: Provide the technical assistance necessary to preserve and improve historic
properties.
Objective 1: In the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan, this objective focused on providing
technical assistance to owners of historic buildings undergoing the design review
process. If funding became available, the objective recommended establishing a
new staff position with this responsibility. Since then both aspects of the objective
have been accomplished. During the intervening years, the HPC’s responsibility
for design review cases has grown 8-fold from approximately a dozen per year
to nearly 100. The response of the Planning and Community Development
Department has been to change the qualifications of the staff planner responsible
46
4
for HPC support to include architectural design skills. Greater guidance during
the application process has been provided to applicants. The historic preservation
planning activity has also been increased following an increase from a quarter-
time position to a half-time position.
The demand for design review assistance continues to grow. The design work
completed during the post-tornado period during the summer of 2006 provided
insight into the best methods for streamlining the design review process. Some of
these methods involve delegating responsibility to the staff. This shift in the design
review process combined with recommendations for continuing to survey and
designate historic and conservation districts suggests that the workload for historic
preservation activities will continue to grow in the future. An initial step for
dealing with this growing workload should be to encourage operational efficiencies
recommended in Goal 2, Objective 7. For the long term, consideration should be
given to increasing the preservation position from half-time to three-quarters or
full-time depending on the availability of funding.
Objective 2: Formulate and implement a Downtown design program and support
neighborhood based programs; continue home improvement workshops.
The importance of having a comprehensive design program for the Downtown
and other historic neighborhoods is stated in several sections of the Historic
Preservation Plan update. What has changed for future years are the opportunities
for delivering information, the specific audiences to be reached, and message
content. The Internet now represents an important opportunity for conveying
a wide range of historic rehabilitation information and design review topics
customized by building type, architectural style, historic or conservation district
character, and a constantly updated set of best-practices. Both the City’s web portal
and Friends websites provide opportunities to formulate aspects of an improved
comprehensive design program.
Other measures to be taken to improve the delivery of technical assistance require
a reassessment of content. Expansion of the Historic Preservation Handbook or
creation of a new “user-friendly” update of the Historic Preservation Guidelines
should be undertaken. During the interviews, a number of people suggested the
need for compilation of a “design handbook” that contains graphics and specific
examples for persons undertaking rehabilitation projects. A series of separate
handouts for common repair items such as door replacements/repairs, garage door
design, porch repairs, deck additions, and new garage designs could also be part of
a design handbook.
Objective 3: Sponsor training sessions for topics designed to improve capacity of property
owners to deal with design review process. Workshops could be recorded
and broadcast on the Iowa City Public Library Channel and City Channel 4.
Workshops or training session topics to be considered include:
• Historic period paint schemes
• Windows and doors: when to repair and when to replace?
• Do-it-yourself window repair
• Repair and restoration of wood siding
• Painting your own house: dos and don’ts, hiring a contractor
• Old house repairs: using alternative materials
• Historic landscaping
• Energy solutions for old houses
• Saving porches: foundations, skirting, decks, steps, balustrades, posts and
pillars, ornamentation, roofs and painting
• How to reopen enclosed porches
• New garages for old houses
Objective 4: Continue and expand operation of the Salvage Barn as an undertaking of Friends
of Historic Preservation with support from the City of Iowa City. Develop new
strategies for recruiting volunteers. Consider developing a business plan for
the operation that would include additional sources of operating income to
help sustain a paid staff. Tie any major changes to plans for establishment of an
expanded facility in 2010 at the Eastside recycling center. Build on the lessons
learned by the Salvage Barn from the post-tornado experience in 2006 when it was
used to stimulate restoration projects. Use the Friends website to highlight Salvage
Barn inventory and promote sales.
Objective 5: Continue to have technical assistance for National Register nominations provided
by the State Historical Society.
Since 1992 the role of the HPC in training the public in the preparation of
National Register nominations has been virtually non existent. Instead, the
HPC has sponsored the professional preparation of both individual and district
nominations. The role of training individuals has fallen to the State Historical
Society of Iowa, the state agency responsible for administering the National
Register program in Iowa. It is recommended that in the future, the HPC continue
its sponsorship of nominations. Rather than carrying out the training efforts
itself for individual nominations, the HPC should promote existing training
opportunities provided by the State Historical Society.
Goal 5: Heighten public awareness of historic preservation in the community and
improve preservation education efforts for various audiences.
Objective 1: Maintain a marketing approach for all education and promotion products and
activities.
When proposed in 1992, this objective simply meant that an effort should be made
to ask what people want and provide it, rather than give them what it is thought
they need. The public input process in the current preservation plan update is
48
49
a good example. A periodic survey of the opinions of historic and conservation
district property owners regarding their concerns about the design review process
or the kinds of design aids they would like to see provided are other examples.
Objective 2: Create volunteer opportunities and special events.
Since 1992, numerous volunteer opportunities and special events have been
staged on behalf of historic preservation efforts. Examples include the continuing
work of Friends to preserve residences with the help of volunteers or to continue
the efforts of the Salvage Barn. Other examples include Friends of the Englert,
championing preservation of the historic Englert Theatre, or the Iowa City Public
Library’s efforts to coordinate volunteer activities for Irving B. Weber Days. This
spotlight on local history has grown from a one day event to a month long series
of activities. Such activities present the opportunity to incorporate an annual
event focused on historic preservation education. Creating opportunities to take
advantage of the skill and enthusiasm of volunteers should continue to be an
outreach effort.
Objective 3: Establish and maintain preservation as an element in community improvement
efforts.
This objective focuses efforts on integrating historic preservation into the wider
agenda for community improvements. In some cases that may mean getting
community support for a historic preservation effort such as the Englert Theatre
but in other cases it may mean seeking to integrate a historic preservation activity
into an existing agenda such as developing and promoting a historic walking tour
for the Downtown Association’s retail campaign. Other examples might include
establishing historic preservation objectives for neighborhood associations. Several
of the projects completed in the North Side, Longfellow, Goosetown, and Melrose
neighborhoods using “Program for Improving Neighborhoods” (PIN) grants have
demonstrated the value placed on heritage in these neighborhoods.
Objective 4: Continue to broaden and strengthen non-profit historic preservation groups.
Friends of Historic Preservation,
established in 195 to save Old Brick
Presbyterian Church and reorganized in
1988 as a broader preservation group,
underwent a self-examination and
planning process in 1992 to establish
a clearer set of objectives. In 1999 this
strategic planning process was repeated.
Important results have been projects
focused on public education, technical
assistance, and supporting historic Neighborhood street marker
rehabilitation with hands-on projects. Retention of a part-time executive director
has been critical to the higher profile gained for the organization. In future
years, there will continue to be a need for a historic preservation advocacy and
education group such as Friends. Its full-time, professional staffing, an expanding
membership base, and higher community profile should be near and mid-term
objectives. Efforts such as the Salvage Barn, National Historic Preservation
Month and Weber Days activities, Historic Preservation Awards, and the newly
inaugurated Parade of Historic Homes, should be encouraged.
Objective 5: Develop new education efforts aimed at the general public, local officials, owners
of historic properties, and target audiences such as elementary students.
There was considerable discussion during interviews and at neighborhood sessions
about the need to focus more resources on educating the general public, local
officials, and owners of historic properties about the benefits of the Iowa City
preservation program. While finding the time and money to make education
and outreach a priority can be a struggle, the long-term benefit of taking a more
proactive approach to these issues can be significant. Support for preservation
from the public and local decision-makers is an essential element for success. To
carry out the objectives below, a combination of City staff and contracted services
will be necessary. Additional assistance from HPC commissioners and Friends
of Historic Preservation will be needed. Funding sources for some efforts may
require special grants. Recommendations for education and public awareness
efforts include:
a) Develop an annual or semi-annual “historic preservation report” that is both
visual and statistical and distribute it to important audiences. Such a report
should contain illustrative “before and after” photographs for representative
rehabilitation projects. It should also contain relevant statistics such as the
number of design review applications in each of the historic and conservation
districts, length of time for processing applications, number of approvals
versus denials, estimated value of rehabilitation work, etc. Target audiences for
this report should be the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission,
the Neighborhood Council and residents of historic and conservation districts.
A copy of the report should be available online through the City’s website.
b) Identify audience groups and develop targeted publications, training sessions,
and special events. Approach these groups through existing membership
organizations including contractors through the Remodeling Contractors
Association, real estate agents through the Iowa City Area Association of
Realtors, and landlords through the Apartment Owners Association. Training
sessions and simple FAQ flyers should be developed for each group. In
addition, specialized publications for real estate agents such as guides to Iowa
City historic neighborhoods and architectural styles should be prepared. A
“Parade of Restored Homes” could also be developed. Other organizations
50
51
such as neighborhood associations containing
historic or conservation districts should be
reached through newsletter articles or an HPC
“history corner” column.
c) Host an annual or bi-annual meeting or “District
Forum” for leaders or representatives from
historic and conservation districts. Consider this
a prime opportunity to exchange information
between the HPC and districts including
information about regulatory changes, successful
preservation initiatives, and suggestions for
solving problems that cross district boundaries.
Coordinate this effort with the Neighborhood
Council and invite public officials.
d) Promote heritage education efforts at local
elementary schools (especially those in
older neighborhoods such as Horace Mann,
Longfellow, Lincoln, etc.) by supporting
establishment of a local history education program that includes information,
tours and events connected to historic districts.
e) Continue efforts to identify historic properties and historic districts with
plaques, street markers, walking tours, heritage paths, and other tools as a
way of educating the community about historic resources. Annual award
ceremonies, sponsored by the HPC and Friends should be continued as a tool
for recognizing new landmarks and outstanding preservation projects. An
annual “Mayor’s Award” should be added as a part of the awards program.
The Annual Historic Preservation Awards program sponsored by Friends
of Historic Preservation should make an effort to dispel views that historic
preservation is an elitist activity by highlighting some of the best efforts for
more modest historic buildings and for projects that entail smaller scale
projects.
Objective 6: Consider participation in “Preserve America,” a White House initiative that
encourages and supports community efforts to preserve and enjoy cultural and
natural heritage resources. The initiative includes an awards program, Preserve
America community designation, grant opportunities, educational outreach, and a
Teacher of the Year award.9
Objective 7: Recognize the day-to-day administration of the preservation program of the HPC
as an opportunity for outreach.
9Program summarized at “The Preserve America Initiative,” http://www.preserveamerica.gov/overview.html.
King-Littrell-Palmer Chicken
Hatchery
Longfellow Historic Marker
located near Rundell Park
Rather than a burden to development, it is
possible to frame the design review process
as an added benefit for property owners and
an opportunity for education. In this sense,
the design review component of the program
can be promoted as an incentive to property
owners. There was considerable discussion
about the appropriate role for staff to play in
this situation. Many interviewees felt that staff
should be more pro-active in providing design
recommendations to property owners to help
them meet the design guidelines. While this
approach needs to be monitored to ensure
that staff or the HPC are not dictating specific
design solutions, providing suggestions and
examples of successful approaches to similar
design problems is appropriate.
Goal 6: Maintain and strengthen preservation partnerships between municipal
government, state government, and federal agencies.
Objective 1: Maintain Iowa City’s status as a Certified Local Government (CLG).
Since 198 Iowa City has participated in the National Park Service’s Certified Local
Government Program and has obtained nearly a dozen grants to underwrite the
costs of historical and architectural surveys, planning efforts, National Register
nominations, and education programs. Continuance of Iowa City’s two-decade
-long effort as a CLG is recommended.
Objective 2: Continue the role of Planning and Community Development Department staff in
the Section 106 Review Process for City projects involving federal funding.
a) At the time that the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan was completed, HPC
played an active role in reviewing Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funded housing rehabilitation projects. In recent years, aspects of
this federal program that is operated through the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), has changed. In addition, the location of
projects has shifted outside of historic neighborhoods partially due to issues
associated with lead-based paint. The State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), the state agency responsible for administering reviews of federally
funded projects, is located in the State Historical Society of Iowa. In recent
years the SHPO has encouraged the City of Iowa City to sign a programmatic
agreement to cover steps for reviewing HUD funded projects, including CDBG
housing rehabilitations. Such an agreement would require the City to maintain
“certified staff” capable of completing in-house reviews. The City submitted a
Neighborhood street sign markers.
52
53
programmatic agreement to SHPO in March 2003 and to date, the agreement
has not been signed. The National Advisory Counsel postponed the decision
due to the workload after Hurricane Katrina. If the City continues to spend
CDBG and HOME funds in older neighborhoods, it is recommended that an
agreement with HUD and the State Historical Society be signed.
b) In order to meet its legal obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the City should continue to work with the State Historic
Preservation Office to complete reviews for all “federal undertakings.” This
term refers to a range of federal activities including construction (e.g. federally
funded sewer projects), rehabilitation (e.g. CDBG/HUD housing projects), and
repair projects; licenses, permits (e.g. Corps of Engineers permits), loans, loan
guarantees, and grants; leases; federal property transfers; and other types of
federal involvement. As a courtesy, City departments should inform the HPC
of federal undertakings that may involve historic resources.
Objective 3: Improve monitoring of state and federal legislation involving historic preservation.
In order to improve monitoring of legislative changes, it is recommended that
the HPC assign one member the responsibility of reviewing legislative initiatives
and budget levels. This can be accomplished by forwarding email messages and
regular reports from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation
Action, or the Iowa Historic Preservation Alliance to the assigned HPC member
for review. If issues surface at either the state or federal level that have importance
for Iowa City, the HPC could then recommend that the mayor take a position
on behalf of the city and communicate that position to the appropriate parties
including the state delegation action network. The best location for monitoring
ongoing federal legislation is the Preservation Action website: http://www.
preservationaction.org/. State legislation can be monitored through the State
Historical Society.
Goal 7: Establish and implement historic preservation objectives for the University of
Iowa campus and surrounding neighborhoods.
Objective 1: Open communication lines between the State Historical Society, the University
and the HPC with leadership for the effort to be placed with the State Historical
Society.
No formal progress has been made on this objective since the 1992 Historic
Preservation Plan was approved. The traditional relationship among these entities
is not one of equal partners and, as a result, will require a disproportionate level
of leadership from the strongest of the three. In this case, the University of Iowa.
This objective of establishing communication lines regarding historic preservation
between the State Historical Society, the University ,and the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission remains important in addressing all of the other issues
identified below.
Objective 2: Complete an inventory of University-related historic resources.
Since the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan was completed, historical and
architectural surveys have been completed along portions of the East Campus and
West Campus of the University. These surveys have included the identification of
individual historic resources and historic districts eligible to the National Register
of Historic Places. In the case of the Downtown Survey completed in 2001, several
blocks of the East Campus paralleling Iowa Avenue between Clinton and Gilbert
streets were included. Other surveys including the Dubuque-Linn Street Corridor,
the Original Town Plat Phase I and Phase II, and the Melrose Neighborhood
surveys, included blocks adjacent to the University campus. In each of these
surveys, the University’s development, its workforce, and housing for its student
population were identified as major historical factors. National Register historic
district nominations listed since 2004 for the Jefferson Street Historic District, the
Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District, and Melrose Historic District contain dozens
of buildings linked to the University’s history including nearly a dozen owned by
the University. Together with the Old Capitol National Historic Landmark and
the Pentacrest National Register of Historic Places Historic District, these on and
off-campus resources are important in understanding the history of the University.
No historical and architectural survey has been completed of buildings and
sites on the balance of the University’s campus. Two important steps towards
accomplishing Objective 2 have been completed, however. The first involved
publication of The University of Iowa Guide to Campus Architecture by John Beldon
Scott and Rodney P. Lehnertz in 2006. It documents nearly 80 resources on the
campus grouped by proximity and use. The primary criterion for their inclusion
in the guide was architectural importance though historical associations were
identified for some of the buildings. The “campus zones” laid out in the book
University of Iowa historic building rehabilitations, old Zoology Building, 100 Bock of
Iowa Avenue.
54
55
could form the basis for a
future survey. They include
the Pentacrest, Iowa Avenue
Campus, Main Campus
North, Main Campus South,
River Valley Campus, Arts
Campus, Near West Campus,
Medical Campus, University
of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics
Campus, Athletics Campus,
and Oakdale Research
Campus. A second step was
the adoption of The University
of Iowa 2006 Campus Master
Plan - The Campus, the
Buildings, and the Space
Between. The Plan identified a
number of heritage resources
on the campus to which special attention should be given for planning purposes.
With the help of Beldon and Lehnertz’s UI Guide to Campus Architecture, the
University should be encouraged to inventory historic resources based on National
Register criteria, including an analysis of historic associations and architectural
significance remains an important objective as the University undertakes planning
for its future campus needs. Support for such a measure should be sought from the
State Historical Society.
Objective 3: Identify University physical plant needs which could be met by acquisition and
reuse of historic resources.
Since 1992, the University has undertaken a number of noteworthy historic
rehabilitation projects. Historic Preservation Awards were given by the HPC
to the following buildings: 1996—President’s House, 102 Church Street; 199
—Shambaugh House, 219 N. Clinton Street; 1998—50 N. Clinton Street; 2002—
Hydraulics Lab; 2002—Old Biology Building; 2003—Calvin Hall, 2 West Jefferson
Street; 2004—post-fire restoration of Old Capitol; and 2005—President’s House,
102 Church Street. Other projects completed or underway included the reuse of
Anatomy Hall as the Biological Sciences Library in 2000, several phases of work
to upgrade and reuse Kinnick Stadium in the early 2000s, and work underway in
2006 at the Iowa Memorial Union. Care was given in each of these examples of
historic rehabilitation to the architecturally significant features of the buildings
and their historic role at the University.
Over the past few decades, the University’s campus planning process has respected
its historic landmarks and been sensitive to their design needs. The 2006 Master
Plan involved planners in evaluating heritage properties on the campus and
completing a review of their structural soundness and mechanical systems in order
Anatomy Hall, Old Biology Sciences Library, 2002, southwest
corner Jefferson and Dubuquae
to evaluate their feasibility for adaptive reuse. Where feasible, the plan calls for
retention and updating heritage properties rather than their replacement.
In support of ongoing historic rehabilitation measures for historic properties
on the University campus, an effort should be made to investigate the use of
federal and state investment tax credits to subsidize their rehabilitation. The State
Historical Society should support this measure.
Objective 4: Expand heritage tourism efforts for University-related historic resources.
This objective is currently being addressed through the efforts of staff at Old
Capitol. Emphasis of the interpretive program is on Old Capitol itself, its
restoration, and its role in territorial government, Iowa’s early statehood, and
the founding of the University. Over time, an effort should be made to widen
the heritage promotion of Old Capitol staff through interpretation of other
campus buildings of historic and architectural significance, important University
contributions in science and the humanities, and nearby historic districts that
have strong University connections such as the Melrose Historic District and
the Jefferson Street Historic District. Strengthening the University’s identity by
emphasizing its association with its surrounding neighborhoods will benefit both
groups. The efforts of the University to establish a “Writers Corridor” emphasizing
the role of the Iowa Writer’s Workshop should be encouraged by the City and the
HPC.
Objective 5: Establish a fraternity and sorority house stewardship program.
Little progress has been made on this objective since 1992. Both fraternity and
sorority houses remain threatened resources as they age. Within the next several
decades, many of the landmark buildings associated with the University’s Greek
community will turn 100 years old. The buildings will need major rehabilitations
at the same time that membership rates are fluctuating. It is recommended that the
HPC work with the Office of Student Life for the University and the Interfraternity
Conference, Panhellenic Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council to develop an
inventory of historic resources associated with Greek community life. An outline
for the “University of Iowa Greek Community: Sorority and Fraternity Houses
Historic Context, 1866–1940” is included in Appendix E. Primary areas of Iowa
City where buildings are include the North Side group in the 600–800 blocks along
North Dubuque Street south of Park Road and along the 300–400 blocks of North
Clinton Street; East College Street; East Burlington Street; and Riverside Drive
and Ellis Street. Once the inventory is concluded, National Register nominations
should be encouraged for eligible buildings and preservation strategies should be
developed. Investigation of the use of federal tax incentives for investors should be
undertaken.
56
5
Objective 6: Participate in a forum for discussing University-neighborhood issues related to
historic preservation.
During the course of neighborhood
meetings and interviews, most
comments about the University related
to issues arising from the proximity of
the campus to nearby older residential
areas. Some of the issues raised
were not directly related to historic
resources but specifically related to
more general University-neighborhood
concerns. Whether the issue is a
positive one, such as cooperatively
finding ways to promote historic
character and neighborhood identities
in its recruitment and retention efforts
for both students and faculty, or
providing opportunities for regular
dialogue regarding problems related to
student housing, the development of
a forum for discussion is the first step.
Leadership for this effort should come
from neighborhood associations that are affected by University-neighborhood
issues. Some university and college communities create task forces for specific
issues while others have regular committees or councils that cooperatively work on
shared issues. If such a forum is developed in Iowa City, the HPC should monitor
activities of shared interest involving historic preservation and offer input.
Objective 7: The University of Iowa should establish a policy that supports efforts to preserve
historic residential neighborhoods adjacent to its campus.
Much of the campus is surrounded by residential districts dating from the
late 19th and early 20th centuries. Over the past two decades, historical and
architectural survey work has identified dozens of individual historic properties
and several historic districts in these neighborhoods. Property owners in many
of these neighborhoods have completed historic rehabilitations continuing their
use as owner-occupied residences, converting houses that had been divided into
apartments back to single-family use, or continuing their use as multifamily
buildings. Preservation of the historic character of these neighborhoods was
encouraged in both interviews and at neighborhood meetings. In many cases,
preservation strategies have contributed to neighborhood stabilization and
enhanced property values. This pattern of neighborhood preservation in areas
surrounding the campus should be encouraged by the University in its master
plan. Future expansion of the University of Iowa campus, if any, into adjacent
Alpha Phi Sorority; 903 E. College Street.
residential areas should be undertaken in a manner
that avoids negative impact on individual historic
resources and historic districts.
Objective 8: Encourage the University to establish a housing
subsidy program to encourage University faculty and
administrators to reside in neighborhoods near the
campus.
A creative idea suggested during interviews was for
the University to model housing subsidy programs
designed to recruit and retain faculty after ones
available at several other universities. These programs
provide interest rate buy-downs for faculty and staff
who buy properties near their respective university.
In the case of Iowa City, such a program could be
extended to properties located in designated historic
and conservation districts. Such a program would not
only encourage owner-occupied real estate sales in
nearby neighborhoods but also provide an incentive
for these neighborhoods to be designated as a historic or conservation district.
Goal 8: Establish and support heritage tourism efforts appropriate to Iowa City’s
historic resources and community needs.
The recommendations made in the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan regarding
the development of a comprehensive heritage tourism program focused on
integrating historic preservation into two community goals—tourism and
economic development. As the plan said, “Successful heritage tourism requires
the development of authentic and quality heritage offerings for local residents and
visitors. Heritage tourism planning should recognize local priorities and capability
as well as the need for creative and accurate education and interpretation. Iowa
City’s heritage tourism efforts should be developed in tandem with other visitor
interests and needs.” The plan went on to recommend that preservation and
protection of historic attractions, including historic districts, should be a priority.
The plan laid out five objectives that remain valid in 200. They are restated below,
with expanded language where appropriate.
Objective 1: Develop a heritage tourism plan as a cooperative effort between the Iowa City/
Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau, Johnson County Historical Society,
University of Iowa, Friends of Historic Preservation, and Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission. Include information about local historic districts,
conservation districts local landmarks, heritage trails, and neighborhood signage
Moffitt Cottages
Longfellow Historic Marker
on Muscatine Avenue near
Washington Street
58
59
programs at a common online location linked to websites of the City as well as the
other sponsors.
Objective 2: Develop and promote heritage tourism packages for visitors to Iowa City.
Objective 3: Develop a heritage tour guide program.
The concept of developing a tour guide program consisting of trained heritage
tourism specialists is not considered as meritorious today as it was in 1992.
Trends in tourism have shifted away from the traditional tour bus group to a focus
on developing individual opportunities. Though the concept of having trained
heritage guides remains valid for some visitor groups the importance of such a
program in future tourism efforts remains in doubt.
Objective 4: Expand heritage tourism potential for Old Capitol and Plum Grove.
Both Old Capitol and Plum Grove
have undergone significant change
and development as heritage tourism
sites since 1992. In 2001, disaster
struck Old Capitol when fire destroyed
the building’s golden dome. Since
then, damage to the dome has been
restored and work has been completed
on phased restoration of the balance
of the building’s exterior. The stated
mission for Old Capitol
today is as “a living museum
and educational resource
dedicated to Iowa’s cultural
and environmental history,
as well as government and
civic life.” Year-round
visitors to Iowa City and the
University campus regularly include
a tour of the building and hear about
the process of restoration as well as the
historic roles served by Old Capitol.
Plum Grove is owned by the State
Historical Society of Iowa and
administered as a seasonal historic
site by the Johnson County Historical
Society. The property operates
summer archeological field schools
and guided tours interpret the restored After restoration
Old Capitol Fire, 2001
1844 house June through October. Plum Grove is one of three historic properties
staffed by the JCHS, which expanded its permanent collection into a new facility at
Coralville’s River Landing District in 2006.
Both the Old Capitol Museum and Plum Grove have the opportunity to see their
roles in a menu of heritage tourism opportunities expanded. The development
of rotating exhibits, specialized tours (including tours of the post-fire restoration
at Old Capitol and the archeological field schools at Plum Grove), and special
events have the potential to increase visitorship and community support for these
important Iowa City landmarks.
Objective 5: Develop heritage festivals.
Since 1992, the main heritage festival to be
introduced and maintained in Iowa City is the
“Irving B. Weber Days.” It is held annually and
coordinated by the Iowa City Public Library
“to honor the life of Iowa City’s most beloved
historian and to celebrate the rich history of
this community.” Co-sponsors have included
the Johnson County Historical Society, Friends
of Historic Preservation, the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission, the State Historical
Society of Iowa, Friends of Old Brick, Iowa Project
on Place Studies, and the Iowa City Noon Lions
Club, which published Weber’s Iowa City history
books. This event spotlighting local history has
grown from a one day event to a month long
series of activities. Weber Days presents the
opportunity to incorporate historic preservation
activities such as the Annual Historic Preservation
Awards or tours of historic properties and historic
districts. An example of an activity that could
focus attention on both Weber’s life and historic
preservation activities would be a historic tour of
his own neighborhood—the blocks surrounding his house at 421 Melrose Court in
the Melrose Historic District.
Objective 6: Develop the heritage dimension of visitor experiences such as dining, shopping,
and housing.
An effort should be made to encourage the development of visitor activities in
historic properties when possible. Since 1992, Iowa City has added a number of
successful bed and breakfast options for visitors. Several are located in historic
districts and take advantage of their heritage in marketing efforts. Other visitor
Irving Weber statue at Iowa Avenue
and Linn Street.
60
61
services, including dining and shopping, have the potential to be supported
in a similar manner. Historic buildings in Downtown and in the Gilbert-Linn
Street Historic District have the potential to be marketed for both their retail
opportunities and the historic locations they contain. Stressing the co-relationship
of historic settings and visitor experiences should be a goal for heritage tourism in
the future.
Objective 7: Establish “heritage trails” in Johnson County. Identify and promote Iowa City sites
along such routes with interpretive signs. Work to identify funding sources and
provide technical assistance for key resources along these routes.
Objective 8: The HPC and local preservation organizations should actively participate in
the Iowa Cultural Corridor Alliance—an organization whose 100+ members
represent a variety of arts and culture organizations in Iowa City and the adjacent
communities of the Amanas, greater Cedar Rapids, Mount Vernon, North Liberty,
West Branch, and West Liberty. The ICCA has the potential to be a good tool for
promoting historic neighborhoods, historic retail districts, public historic sites,
and other historic preservation objectives.
Goal 9: Conduct regular review and evaluation of historic preservation initiatives by
the historic preservation community and integrate preservation objectives in
related planning work undertaken by the City of Iowa City.
Objective 1: Complete an annual review of historic preservation activity and confirm work plan
objectives for the year. Prepare the annual Certified Local Government report for
submittal to the State Historical Society of Iowa as an outcome from this process.
Objective 2: Prepare an annual “historic preservation report” for submittal to the City Council
and other organizations as described in Goal 5: Objective 5, a) above.
Objective 3: Incorporate recommendations of the Historic Preservation Plan 2007 in
other neighborhood and community planning efforts; for example, integrate
neighborhood strategies for relevant historic areas and landmarks in the ten
planning districts included in the Comprehensive Plan’s ten district plans.
63
V. Neighborhood Strategies
Goal 10: Adopt strategies to preserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic
development, historical roles and traditions, modern needs, and economic
health and stability.
In the mid 1990s, the City began a comprehensive planning update process that focused on the
concept of “district planning.” Completed in 1996, the process incorporated recommendations
of the Iowa City: Beyond 2000 citizen task force. Ten geographic based planning districts were
established and introductory studies were made for each district that included descriptive
overviews, a summary of unique features, and an explanation of current public infrastructure
elements. In 199 the City Council adopted the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, which
incorporated the district planning concept. More detailed plans for several of the districts have
been completed in the decade since then.
Historic preservation played a prominent role in the overall recommendations of the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan as well as the district plan strategies. Support of goals and objectives laid out
in the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan was recommended. In areas of the city containing older
neighborhoods – the Downtown, Central, North, Northwest, and Southwest planning districts
– historic character was identified as an attribute to be protected.
As part of the 200 update of the Plan, neighborhood strategies were expanded from 12 to 26
neighborhoods. In some cases, this reflects a division of earlier neighborhoods into distinct
smaller districts based on completed survey work, the completion of historic and conservation
district designations, and the need to evaluate newer neighborhoods that have reached or will
reach the 50-year threshold in the near future.
Four “packages” of recommendations have been compiled that apply to more than one district
or neighborhood. The first recommendations are grouped as District Adoption Steps and consist
of a series of step-by-step measures to guide the local historic district or conservation district
designation process. This package of measures was developed based on the successful experience
in other neighborhoods and the lessons learned in the unsuccessful experience in others. Input
from interviews was particularly useful in preparing the District Adoption Steps listed below.
District Adoption Steps:
1. Develop a clear understanding for why a historic or conservation district is being proposed;
carefully evaluate the boundaries for the district.
2. Stress education about what historic district or conservation district designation means at
the beginning of the discussion process.
3. Identify major concerns/questions and prepare answers before and during the discussion
process.
4. Stress good case studies of rehabilitation projects in other neighborhoods.
5. Develop more options for design review issues that are problems—windows and siding,
design for construction of new secondary buildings, what may be negotiable, etc.
6. Study real estate and economic impact of district designation on market values and tax
assessments in other previously designated districts.
. Confirm record of design review cases that have been problems versus those that were
approved in other districts—cite specific numbers.
8. Stress good news about post-tornado stories as an example of the best and worst that can
come from a natural disaster pushing a design review process “to-the max”; focus discussion
on large issues while also responding to narrower concerns.
Common objectives relating to Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization apply to older
residential neighborhoods throughout the community. They include recommendations for
education programs to increase public awareness of historic resources and encourage resident
involvement with preservation. They also include general neighborhood stabilization efforts
designed to make aging neighborhoods attractive places to live.
Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps:
1. Promote heritage education efforts at local elementary schools (especially those in older
neighborhoods such as Horace Mann, Longfellow, Lincoln, etc.) by supporting establishment
of a local history education program that includes information, tours and events connected
to historic districts.
2. Recruit and train potential district residents to serve on the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Commission.
3. Participate in an annual or bi-annual “District Forum” for historic and conservation district
representatives hosted by the HPC. The District Forum’s agenda could vary but would
regularly provide a setting for sharing information about regulatory changes, exchanging
successful ideas among districts, and offering suggestions for solving problems that cross
district boundaries.
4. Parking problems though not specifically a preservation concern, are important for the
overall stabilization of neighborhoods. To address these concerns it is recommended
that neighborhood associations and the City, explore alternative methods of managing
parking. This might include a residential parking permit program in some areas, the use
of angle parking to increase the supply of parking spaces where appropriate, and the use of
“environmentally friendly” paving techniques when parking is added to back yards. When
addressing parking solutions the conflicting issues of increasing supply while minimizing
paving in a residential setting must be considered.
5. The City should remain vigilant in addressing complaints regarding issues such as zoning
violations, removal of snow from sidewalks, weed removal and trash control that affect
neighborhood quality of life. In some locations, targeted code enforcement may be
appropriate to address perceived neighborhood decline.
6. In areas where housing condition surveys show the need for reinvestment, promote
neighborhood stabilization through a Homeownership Incentive Program such as outlined
below.
. Establish a “user-friendly” technical assistance effort for property owners by implementing
the Technical Assistance Steps also listed below.
8. Develop and fund a program to alleviate lead-based paint for residential landmarks and
buildings in historic and conservation districts that is sensitive to their architectural
character.
64
65
The increasing importance of establishing technical assistance as a “user-friendly effort” was
identified as an important strategy for many neighborhoods, including those already established
as historic or conservation districts, or in some cases, where designation efforts have not begun.
The Technical Assistance Steps below and referred to by reference for specific neighborhoods and
districts provide a menu of activities for the HPC, Friends, and neighborhood associations to use
over time to help property owners who are planning improvements to their buildings—including
work that is outside the scope of formal design review but important to overall up-keep and
building preservation.
Technical Assistance Steps:
1. Develop a historic preservation technical assistance program as an on-going effort aimed at
developing and maintaining the capacity of historic district property owners to maintain or
restore their historic buildings.
2. Distribute an annual or semi-annual “historic preservation report” to property owners in
districts that includes information regarding design review efforts.
3. Add a “history corner” column in the neighborhood association newsletters received by
district residents with information on relevant subjects ranging from a do-it-yourself guide
for re-glazing windows to where the neighborhood ghosts reside to why moisture trapped
in exterior walls leads to peeling paint and dry rot. These columns could be collected at the
City website, indexed, and/or printed annually for retention at the public library.
4. Develop special topic publications in response to resident suggestions and needs identified
by the design review process.
5. Deliver technical assistance and public awareness information through neighborhood
newsletters and website(s), and direct communications with district residents, including
email.
A neighborhood strategy that crosses district and neighborhood boundaries involves the creation
of a program to encourage owner-occupancy as a stabilizing measure. The need for such a
program was identified in various neighborhood meetings and interviews. In communities
around the country, such programs are usually targeted at populations that are at or below
median income levels. Some of Iowa City’s most affordable single-family homes are in northeast
Goosetown and parts of Longfellow. Potential funding sources for such a program might include
Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and major employers. The basic components of a
Home Ownership Incentive Program focusing on neighborhood stabilization are outlined below.
Home Ownership Incentive Program
1. Consider the primary goal for such program as neighborhood stabilization by encouraging
an increase in owner-occupied properties where housing conditions indicate a need for
reinvestment.
2. Establish the program through the cooperation of one or more lenders. Consider CDBG/
HOME and funding from major employers to establish program.
3. Target the program to neighborhoods where housing conditions indicate a need for re-
investment, for areas where the percentage of owner-occupied dwellings are less than
50% and for areas that contain small affordable dwellings that are suitable for first time
homebuyers.
4. Incentives could include interest rate reductions, free initial consultations from architects or
engineers skilled in working with historic properties, cost savings at local retailers, etc.
5. This program could complement the University-sponsored program (Goal : Objective 8).
6. Support this program through code enforcement and educational programs, designed to
stabilize neighborhoods making them more attractive for residents.
The update of preservation strategies for specific neighborhoods that follows is organized
alphabetically within larger “Planning Districts” that were adopted by the City in 199. The
city has been divided into ten such Planning Districts including five containing historic areas
discussed below. Within these Planning Districts, other terms are used to describe various
neighborhood groups. The term “historic district” (HD) refers to a contiguous area that has been
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, designated by local ordinance, and/or both.
Historic districts are significant because of their architecture, historical associations, and other
visual attributes. The term “conservation district” (CD) applies to a local designation for areas that
share a common character, which may include both visual and historical qualities, but because of
physical integrity concerns, does not qualify as a historic district. Both local historic districts and
conservation districts are protected through a design review process administered through the
Historic Preservation Commission.
The term “neighborhood” is used is several manners in the discussion that follows. When
the word is capitalized, it refers to one of the areas of the city organized through the Office of
Neighborhood Services in the Planning and Community Development Department. This City
program supports and encourages neighborhood action and provides ideas and resources that
can help shape the future of a neighborhood. Neighborhoods actively organized in the historic
areas include the Northside, Goosetown, College Green, Longfellow, Melrose Avenue, Manville
Heights, Oak Grove. Morningside/Glendale, and Shimek.
The terms “neighborhood” or “corridor” are used to describe areas that have been formally
surveyed through the Historic Preservation Commission or are recommended for surveying
to determine their eligibility as a local historic district, conservation district, and/or National
Register district. A summary of the status for completed and future neighborhood objectives
appears at the end of this section on page 109.
66
6
Iowa City Historic Areas and Neighborhoods
Downtown Planning District:
1. Downtown
2. Near South Side
Central Planning District:
3. Brown Street HD
4. Clark Street CD
5. College Green HD
6. College Hill CD
. East College Street HD
8. Dearborn Street CD
9. Dubuque Street Corridor
10. Gilbert-Linn Street HD-NR
11. Goosetown
12. Governor-Lucas St. CD
13. Jefferson Street HD-NR
14. Longfellow HD
15. Muscatine Avenue Moffitt
Cottages HD (Longfellow)
Central Planning District (continued):
16. Oak Grove-Kirkwood Avenue
Corridor
1. Lucas Farms-Ginter, Friendly,
Highland, Pickard, & Yewell Streets
18. Morningside-City High
19. Rochester Avenue
20. Summit Street HD
21. Woodlawn HD
North Planning District:
22. North Dubuque Street/
Montgomery-Butler House
23. Tank Town
24. Dubuque Road
Northwest Planning District:
25. Manville Heights
Southwest Planning District:
26. Melrose HD
68
69
Downtown Planning District:
1. Downtown
Located at the physical center of Iowa City, Downtown has a history of development and
redevelopment extending back to the community’s beginnings. In 2001, the Downtown
Historical and Architectural Survey was completed for a 15-block area in the central business
district that was summarized in “Architectural and Historical Resources of Iowa City Central
Business District, 1855–ca. 1960.” The study described the growth and development of the
Downtown as well as the nearby University campus. It explained the patterns of development
that produced building booms and redevelopment after major downtown fires. The rebuilding
along South Dubuque Street in the 180s and East Washington Street in the 1880s and 1910s was
described, along with the stories of how Iowa Avenue became home to commercial laundries,
East Washington Street became the financial district, civic and governmental buildings located
along Linn Street and later Gilbert Street, hotels and restaurants were scattered throughout the
downtown, and the downtown campus expanded to include three blocks north of Iowa Avenue.
The Downtown survey area contained 135 buildings, of which 43 were identified as individually
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places with eight buildings already listed.
Another 55 appeared not to be individually eligible for listing and would be considered non-
contributing structures in a potential historic or conservation district due to their recent dates
of construction or historic integrity problems. The remaining 28 buildings are not individually
eligible, but would be eligible for listing as contributing resources in a historic or conservation
district.
A transitioning real estate market has
property values stable or appreciating in
the Downtown. Since 1992 municipal
investments have included major new
parking garages, a series of streetscape
improvements along Iowa Avenue and
the Pedestrian Mall, and a major addition
to the Iowa City Public Library. The last
urban renewal parcel has been developed
with a high-rise residential and retail
building. A historic rehabilitation has
been completed for the former Carnegie
library. Other market factors affecting
the Downtown since 1992 include the
reuse of a portion of Old Capitol Mall
by the University, establishment of retail
entrances to first floor businesses in the Downtown, Jefferson Hotel Building,
125-31 E. Washington Street.
0
1
mall along Clinton Street, and construction of the competing Coral Ridge Mall in Coralville.
Unsuccessful efforts have been made to establish a Self-Supporting Municipal Improvement
District in the central business district. No Main Street-type improvement and promotion
effort has been undertaken. As in 1992, few of the Downtown’s older buildings are promoted
as “historic buildings” by owners or business operators. As a result, it is likely that few visitors
currently identify the Downtown as a historic neighborhood. The potential for marketing the
Downtown as a historic shopping district remains as a possibility.
Objective 1: Emphasize the improvement of key historic buildings in the Downtown such as:
- Dey Building (8 S. Clinton)
- Coast & Sons Building (10–14 S. Clinton)
- Moses Bloom Clothing Store
(28–30 S. Clinton)
- Whetstone Building (32 S. Clinton)
- College Block Building (125 E. College St.,
post-tornado rehabilitation)
- Crescent Block (11–119 E. College St.,
post-tornado rehabilitation)
- Hohenschuh, W.P., Mortuary
(13–15 S. Linn St)
- Arcade Building (128 E. Washington St.)
- Hotel Jefferson Building (125–31 E.
Washington St.)
- IXL Block (220–224 E. Washington St.)
- Boerner-Fry Company/Davis Hotel (332 E. Washington St.)
Objective 2: Encourage facade improvements for intact, adjoining buildings especially those
along S. Clinton and S. Dubuque streets between Iowa Avenue and Washington
Street, and along Washington Street east of Clinton Street. Develop financial
incentives (See Goal 3: Objective 4 and Objective 5)
Downtown, South Dubuque Street between Iowa Avenue and Washington Street.
Objective 3: In order to establish eligibility for federal and state investment tax credits for
property owners completing historic rehabilitation projects, cooperate with
property owners to nominate key individual buildings and a small Downtown
historic district to the National Register of Historic Places based on the
“Architectural and Historical Resources of Iowa City Central Business District,
1855–ca. 1960” MPD.
Objective 4: Designate a larger area of the Downtown as a conservation district and designate
individually significant buildings as historic landmarks. Boundaries for the
Downtown district would be roughly defined by Iowa Avenue and the alley south
of Iowa Avenue between Linn and Gilbert streets on the north, Clinton Street on
the west and Gilbert Street on the east. The southern boundary includes the alley
south of College Street between Clinton and Linn Street and then east to Gilbert
Street to include the old Iowa City Public Library and Trinity Episcopal Church.
Objective 5: Adopt design guidelines for Downtown commercial and institutional buildings.
Conduct an ongoing training program for the HPC aimed at developing the
capacity for conducting design review of commercial properties. Evaluate merits
of making guidelines voluntary or mandatory and how they could be used to bring
preservation sensitivity to changes in building regulations related to health and
safety or handicapped access.
Objective 6: Establish a Main Street-style program for the Downtown using the National Trust
for Historic Preservation’s “Main Street Approach” as the model. Support local
efforts for a SSMID as a potential funding source and retention of a Downtown
manager. Integrate these efforts with the Old Capitol Cultural and Entertainment
District efforts.
Objective 7: To complement the public improvements along Iowa Avenue and the restoration
of Old Capitol, encourage the historic rehabilitation of building façades principally
in the block between Clinton and Dubuque streets.
Objective 8: Incorporate questions related to historic preservation and historic building stock
in market studies completed for the Downtown in order to determine the likely
impact of historic preservation measures on promotion efforts, special event
planning, remote and onsite signage, and other related issues.
Objective 9: Prepare a separate historic preservation commercial plan for the Downtown.
Begin by incorporating Downtown recommendations from Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and
10. Incorporate findings from other downtown studies such as the “niche study”
being prepared through the Planning and Community Development Department
in 200. Target the plan for Downtown property owners and business operators.
Organize the plan into clear, easily understood recommendations, established
priorities, and relevant incentives.
2
3
2. Near South Side Neighborhood
The Near South Side neighborhood includes the
blocks south of Downtown and the University
campus between Burlington Street and the Iowa
Interstate Railroad. This area has seen considerable
redevelopment since the 190s and two blocks
in the area sustained severe tornado damage in
April 2006. The area has gradually shifted from a
residential neighborhood with commercial uses
on its fringes along the Rock Island Railroad, Iowa
River, and Gilbert Street to a neighborhood of
public institutions, offices, and large scale apartment
buildings. Recent apartment complexes were
developed with stricter design controls. No district
containing a collection of contiguous historic or
architecturally significant buildings remains. The
area’s two surviving older institutional buildings, the Johnson County Court House and the
former Sabin School, are without immediate threat although their institutional occupants are
considering growth needs.
Objective 1: Complete a reconnaissance level survey of the Near South Side neighborhood and
complete intensive level work for individually eligible historic resources.
Objective 2: Encourage retention of redeveloped historic commercial buildings in the Gilbert
St-Maiden Lane corridor. Designate individually significant buildings as local
historic landmarks and encourage private owners to complete National Register
nominations by making survey results available. Priority landmark designations
for the HPC should be the Johnson County Court House and Sabin School.
Central Planning District:
3. Brown Street Historic District (includes Bella Vista Drive, sections of Ronalds Street, and
other cross streets)
This historic district is located along the north edge of Iowa City’s “North Side” neighborhood.
Since the 1960s this area of Iowa City has been the subject of intense debate and neighborhood
planning. During the 1980s, efforts were unsuccessful to designate a large mixed-use historic
district in the North Side that included portions of Brown Street. After completion of the 1992
Historic Preservation Plan, the HPC made its first priority the designation of Brown Street and
portions of adjacent side streets (Bella Vista, Linn, Gilbert, Van Buren, Johnson, Dodge and
Governor) as a separate National Register and local ordinance historic district. These efforts were
successfully completed with strong neighborhood support in 1994 following considerable debate,
organizing, and promotion efforts led by the HPC. In 2004, the district boundaries were expanded
to include a section of Ronalds Street. Since 1994, 94 design reviews have been conducted by the
Near Southside Neighborhood,
Johnson County Court House, 417 S. Clinton Street
HPC. These efforts have led to a generally positive view of the design review process as a means
for protecting historic resources. Changing housing trends and the appeal of older houses as
single-family residences have demonstrated the capacity of North Side neighborhoods such as
Brown Street to rejuvenate and prosper.
Objective 1: Retain Brown Street Historic District designations (National Register and local
district) for sections of Brown Street, Bella Vista, and Ronalds Street. Regularly
provide information to new property owners about the responsibilities and
advantages of owning property in a historic district.
Objective 2: The declining number of rental units in the Brown Street Historic District has led
to fewer complaints related to over occupancy and associated issues. However,
the City should remain vigilant in addressing complaints about zoning violations,
removal of snow from sidewalks, weed removal and trash control.
Objective 3: Maintain and preserve existing stretches of brick-paved streets within the Brown
Street Historic District. The Brown Street route is part of a continuous brick-paved
route that leads to Oakland and St. Joseph’s cemeteries from churches in the center
of town.
Objective 4: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
Clark Street Conservation District, left: one of seven historic signs in Longfellow Neighborhood Art Project, SE cor-
ner of Seymour & Clark; top right: 500 block of Clark Street, looking north; bottom right: Lustron houses, 715 and
717 Clark Street, originally considered noncontributing resources in district.
4
5
4. Clark Street Conservation District 10
The Clark Street Conservation District is an L-shaped neighborhood that includes facing
blocks along Clark Street between Maple Street and the Iowa Interstate Railroad and adjoining
blocks of Roosevelt Street and the west side of Maggard Street south of Sheridan Avenue. The
district abuts the Summit Street Historic District on the west and the Longfellow Historic
District and Longfellow School site to the east. The Clark Street Conservation District includes
residences constructed as worker housing for the nearby Kelly Manufacturing Company and
Oakes Brickworks during the late 19th and early 20th centuries as well as homes built for what
became an early 20th-century commuter suburb. Modest one- to two-story houses in styles
and vernacular house forms typical of the period characterize the district. Scattered examples of
earlier domestic architectural styles and forms appear on the west edge adjacent to the Summit
Street Historic District. Narrow, tree-lined streets contribute to the historic sense of time and
place of this neighborhood. At the time the Clark Street Conservation District was designed
in 2001, 5 of the district’s 6 properties, approximately 5 percent, were considered to be
contributing to the character of the conservation district. Two newer, pre-fabricated Lustron
houses in the district were evaluated as non-contributing due to their age. Since 2001, 1 design
reviews have been completed.
Objective 1: Retain the Clark Street Conservation District designation. Regularly provide
information to new property owners about the responsibilities and advantages of
owning property in a conservation district.
Objective 2: Re-evaluate the district periodically to determine if the passage of time or the
rehabilitations completed have changed the status of the district from conservation
to historic, or if individual buildings should be evaluated as contributing rather
than non-contributing. This recommendation is especially important for aging
resources such as the two rare examples of Lustron Houses (two of six known to
have been built in Iowa City) at 05 and 09 Clark Street.
Objective 3: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
5. College Green Historic District
College Green was laid out midway between downtown and eastern limits of Iowa City in the
original town plat in 1839. The block was the site for an unsuccessful effort to establish the
“Iowa Female Collegiate Institute” college in the 1850s and reverted to park use thereafter.
Substantial houses were built on the eminence surrounding the park, their styles typical of house
forms and designs from the late 19th century and early 20th century. The neighborhood has a
strong association with the development of the University with residences in the area having
served as homes for faculty and staff as well as rooming houses. College Green Park serves as a
neighborhood focal point. The College Green Historic District was one of two residential districts
identified in the historical and architectural survey of the College Hill Neighborhood completed
10Portions of neighborhood description taken from “Proposed Clark Street Conservation District Report,”
November 1, 2001.
in 1994. The district was listed on the National
Register of Historic Places in 199 and became
a local historic district a short time later. Since
then, 38 design reviews have been conducted,
including 21 in 2006 in the wake of the April
tornado. Mature landscape elements in and
around College Green Park were also destroyed
or damaged following the tornado.
Objective 1: Retain College Green Historic
District designation (National
Register and local district) for
blocks surrounding park and
extending east along E. College
Street. Regularly provide
information to new property
owners about the responsibilities
and advantages of owning
property in a historic district.
Objective 2: Re-evaluate district boundaries after rehabilitation work is completed in post-
tornado period; determine if district boundaries should be adjusted based on
building damage/removal or restoration work completed. Also, determine if status
as “contributing” or “noncontributing” needs to be adjusted. Consider joining
College Green and East College St. historic districts if changes in building integrity
merit it.
Objective 3: If new landscape plans for College Green are developed, an effort should be made
to have those plans reflect the park’s history. In the wake of the 2006 tornado, the
importance of this objective is increased. As a part of such a park plan, an effort
should be made to investigate historic documents, plans, and photos in order to
design a plan for College Green Park that reflects its history. Complete a historic
archeology survey of portions of the west side of the park to determine the
presence of artifacts associated with the construction of a ladies seminary on that
site during the mid-1850s. This information should be used for developing passive
green space in the plan and as the basis for construction or reconstruction of park
features.
Objective 4: Promote sound rehabilitation of sorority and fraternity houses in the district as
a part of a larger effort to encourage historically sensitive rehabilitation of Greek
community properties. The intention for such a campaign would be to develop a
sense of awareness and stewardship for the historic buildings owned by the Greek
community (See Goal , Objective 5, page 5).
Objective 5: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
College Green Historic District, from
College Green Park.
6
6. College Hill Conservation District
The College Hill Conservation District is an irregular shaped area that extends along portions of
Iowa Avenue, Washington Street, College Street, and Burlington Streets between Johnson Street
and Muscatine Avenue. The district adjoins three historic districts – College Green, East College
Street, and Woodlawn. The neighborhood takes its name from the topographic rise in the center
of the area occupied by College Green Park and the ladies seminary that was once located in the
park. The neighborhood includes a mix of single-family and multifamily residential buildings
dating from the late 19th through the early 20th century. The neighborhood traditionally had a
strong association with the University, housing students in rooming houses, in scattered fraternity
and sorority houses, and more recently, in apartment buildings. Private residences housed
University faculty and staff as well as many business and civic leaders. Construction of apartment
complexes and the unsympathetic renovations of other buildings have diminished the appearance
of some of the streetscapes.
The College Hill Conservation District was evaluated in two separate surveys – the intensive
level survey of the College Hill Neighborhood completed in 1994 and the reconnaissance level
survey of Iowa Avenue in 2003. The district became a local conservation district in 2003. Since
that time, 6 design reviews have been conducted, including 50 completed in 2006 in the wake of
the April tornado. The College Hill Conservation District was one of the most seriously damaged
neighborhoods in the tornado.
Objective 1: Retain the College Hill Conservation District designation. Regularly provide
information to new property owners about the responsibilities and advantages of
owning property in a conservation district.
Objective 2: Re-evaluate district boundaries after rehabilitation work is completed in post-
tornado time frame to determine if boundaries should be changed based on
building damage/removal or restoration work. Consider amending boundaries of
the East College Street and College Green historic districts by adding blocks from
the College Hill neighborhood if changes in building integrity merit it.
College Hill Conservation District, 103 S. Governor Street, above left: post-April 2006 tornado damage; above right: after
Certificate of Appropriateness granted for repair and restoration work by owner.
Objective 3: Encourage the development of an Iowa Avenue streetscape improvement plan
in the blocks immediately west of the Woodlawn entrance. Include landscaping
measures in the Iowa Avenue boulevard and parking areas as well as upgrades
for sidewalks, curbs and gutters along Iowa Avenue. Use the implemented
streetscape plan, positive post-tornado recovery efforts, and the stability of the
nearby Woodlawn Historic District to attract continued investment along the Iowa
Avenue blocks west of Woodlawn.
Objective 4: Promote sound rehabilitation of sorority and fraternity houses in the district as
a part of a larger effort to encourage historically sensitive rehabilitation of Greek
community properties. The intention for such a campaign would be to develop a
sense of awareness and stewardship for the historic buildings owned by the Greek
community (See Goal , Objective 5, page 4).
Objective 5: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 53.
7. East College Street Historic District
The East College Street Historic District is a linear neighborhood located along the 1000 and
1100 blocks of East College Street three blocks east of College Green Park. Substantial houses
were built along the street, primarily between 1880 and 1920, manifesting the architectural styles
and vernacular house popular in Iowa City during those decades. Queen Anne and Craftsman
influence and American Four-square house forms predominate in three-quarters of the district’s
28 buildings. Several properties in the district have historical associations with early business
leaders, while others were faculty members at the University. The East College Street Historic
District was one of two districts identified in the historical and architectural survey of the College
Hill Neighborhood completed in 1994. The district was listed on the National Register of Historic
Places in 199 and became a local historic district a short time later. Thirty design reviews have
been completed. Several buildings and mature landscape elements along East College Street were
damaged in the April 2006 tornado but most in the district avoided serious destruction.
Objective 1: Retain East College Street Historic District designation (National Register and
local district) for 1000 and 1100 blocks along E. College Street. Regularly provide
information to new property owners about the responsibilities and advantages of
owning property in a historic district.
Objective 2: Re-evaluate district boundaries after rehabilitation work is completed in post-
tornado time frame to determine if district boundaries should be changed based
on building damage/removal or restoration work completed. Consider joining
East College Street and College Green historic districts if changes in building
integrity merit it.
Objective 3: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
8
9
8. Dearborn Street Conservation District 11
The Dearborn Street Conservation District is a J-shaped neighborhood that includes facing
blocks along Dearborn Street and the west side of Seventh Avenue between Muscatine Avenue
and the Iowa Interstate Railroad. It also includes facing blocks of Rundell Street between Sheridan
Avenue and the railroad and the intersecting blocks of Center Avenue, Sheridan Avenue and
Jackson Street. The area was surveyed in 1996. The district abuts the Longfellow Historic District
to the west. For organizational purposes, the Dearborn Street Conservation District is within the
Longfellow Neighborhood Association. The Dearborn Street area developed primarily during the
1930s and post-World War II years. A number of the district’s houses are based on standardized
small house plans popularized during the pre-World War II period. By this time the automobile
was more common and many homes have small historic garages that are similar to the houses or
are incorporated into the house structure. A number of the houses have been altered, diminishing
the neighborhood’s architectural integrity and eligibility for designation as a historic district. At
the time the Dearborn Street Conservation District was designated in 2001, 105 of the district’s
14 properties, approximately 5 percent, were considered to be contributing to the character of
the conservation district. Since 2001, 16 design reviews have been completed.
Objective 1: Retain the Dearborn Street Conservation District designation. Regularly provide
information to new property owners about the responsibilities and advantages of
owning property in a conservation district.
Objective 2: Re-evaluate the district periodically to determine if the passage of time or the
rehabilitations have changed the status of the district from conservation to
historic, or if individual buildings should be evaluated as contributing rather
than non-contributing. This recommendation is especially important for aging
resources that reach the 50-year eligibility for contributing status.
Objective 3: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
9. Dubuque Street Corridor 12
Dubuque Street is one of the most
attractive entrances into Iowa City
because of both natural and human-
made features – the expanse of the
Iowa River, the setting of Hancher
Auditorium in the river flats, the
views of City Park, natural limestone
outcroppings, the large scale and
handsome designs of fraternity
buildings, and mature landscaping.
Since adoption of the 1992 Historic
11Portions of the neighborhood description taken from “Proposed Dearborn Street Conservation District
Report,” November 1, 2001.
12This neighborhood was referred to as the “Dubuque-Linn Street Corridor” in the 1992 Plan. Eastern
blocks of this neighborhood are now included in the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District, neighborhood #10 below.
Dubuque Street Corridor, 700 & 800 blocks North Dubuque Street.
Preservation Plan, Dubuque Street has undergone a transformation. Razing of several contiguous
single-family dwellings and the construction of multistory apartment buildings occurred at the
north end while further south, construction of the University’s above-street skywalk connecting
biology buildings interrupted the historic vista of the Downtown from the blocks north of Iowa
Avenue. The City has played a role in the appearance of replacement buildings built at the north
end through the Zoning Code’s requirement for design review for newly constructed multifamily
buildings. In the case of the skywalk project, considerable discussion between the City and the
University took place, but in the end, it was determined that Dubuque Street’s historic status as a
state road precluded the City from controlling the project.
For construction of the new, multifamily buildings, design review has been completed by City
staff based on Multi-Family Residential Design Standards in the Central Planning District.
Changing ownership patterns in recent years suggests that some of the visually important
buildings in fraternity row along the north end of Dubuque Street are likely to undergo reuse as
rental apartments or residential condominiums. Proximity to the University campus suggests that
this area will continue to be redeveloped. The area along portions of North Dubuque, North Linn,
and North Clinton streets was surveyed in 1996. A section of the surveyed area was incorporated
into the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District discussed below. The balance of the neighborhood is
not currently designated as either a historic or conservation district.
Objective 1: The Dubuque Street Corridor should be evaluated for eligibility as a local
conservation district. Findings of the Dubuque/Linn Corridor Survey completed
in 1996 and the recommendations of the North Side National Register project
completed in 2003 should be updated with information regarding demolitions and
newly constructed buildings. An evaluation should be made as to whether or not
a portion of the neighborhood – sections of North Clinton and North Dubuque
streets – meet the criteria for conservation district designation. Such an evaluation
would also provide a list of individual buildings with historical or architectural
significance eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. If it is determined
that a conservation district should be pursued, follow the District Adoption Steps
listed above on page 63.
Objective 2: Because of this area’s proximity to the University, identify prospective sites for
future redevelopment which will not adversely impact historic resources. Include
properties containing buildings that are outside of a proposed conservation
district or are not individually eligible for the National Register.
Objective 3: If a conservation district is established, develop design guidelines appropriate
for this area which, like the design guidelines for the Downtown, acknowledge
the specific requirements of dealing with fraternity house building types as well
as appropriate scale, rhythm, mass and materials for new buildings. In addition,
develop guidelines for site improvements for properties in this area including
wall and fencing materials, signage, lighting, etc. The goal of such guidelines is to
provide and maintain a quality entrance corridor into the city.
80
81
Objective 4: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
Objective 5: Promote sound rehabilitation of sorority and fraternity houses in the district as
a part of a larger effort to encourage historically sensitive rehabilitation of Greek
community properties. The intention for such a campaign would be to develop a
sense of awareness and stewardship for the historic buildings owned by the Greek
community (See Goal , Objective 5, page 5).
10. Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District
The Gilbert-Linn Street Historic
District makes up a mixed
residential and commercial
neighborhood at the west end of
Iowa City’s traditional North Side.
Some of the city’s oldest buildings
are in this neighborhood. Residents
and property owners in the area
participate in the geographically
larger Northside Neighborhood
Association. The Gilbert-Linn
Street Historic District has an
irregularly shaped boundary
that begins approximately four blocks north of the Downtown and the East Campus of the
University and extends north approximately four blocks along N. Gilbert and N. Linn streets
from E. Bloomington Street to Fairchild Street along the eastern edge and E. Ronalds Streets on
the western edge. Mercy Hospital’s campus is at the southeast corner of the District. Boundaries
along the west and east edges generally extend only one or two lots west of Linn Street and east of
Gilbert Street, respectively, depending on the integrity of buildings and the presence of parking
lots or vacant parcels. Properties facing the intersecting streets of E. Davenport Street, E. Fairchild
Street, and E. Church Street are also included.
Since the 1960s, this area of Iowa City has been the subject of intense debate and neighborhood
planning. Following the completion of surveys of the neighborhood in the 190s, unsuccessful
efforts were made during the early 1980s to designate several larger North Side residential and
commercial historic districts to the National Register. These efforts were closely tied to efforts to
establish a local ordinance historic district as well. Following extensive debate, public hearings
before the HPC and P&Z Commission, and boundary revisions, objection from owners in the
southern blocks of the proposed district saw the effort tabled. Following adoption of the 1992
Historic Preservation Plan, the North Side blocks were resurveyed and new efforts were made
to establish boundaries for smaller districts. The first such effort in 1994 saw the Brown Street
Historic District successfully listed on the National Register and as a local district after an
extensive public education campaign.
Northside Market Place retail district,
200 block North Linn Street.
In 2003, efforts returned
to designation of a historic
district in the west end of
the North Side. A smaller,
mixed-use residential and
commercial area extending
along Gilbert and Linn Streets
was proposed for National
Register designation. Public
debate focused on potential
restrictions to commercial
development and expansion
related to Mercy Hospital
in the south blocks if the same area were designated as a local ordinance district. Eventually,
boundaries for the National Register area were reduced to the current district. Concurrent plans
to designate the area as a local historic district failed when the City Council denied the district in
2004 by a narrow margin.
Meanwhile, a combination of market conditions along with changing zoning and building
regulations have had a positive effect on the neighborhood. Changing housing trends and the
growing appeal of older houses as single-family residences have demonstrated the capacity of
North Side neighborhoods to survive and prosper. These market trends combined with adoption
of the Multi-Family Residential Design Standards in the Central Planning District for new
construction of apartment buildings along with a down zoning in the area have made the blocks
contained in the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District less threatened than in the 190s.
Proximity to the University campus and Mercy Hospital (adjacent to the district to the southeast),
however, suggests that this area will continue to be one of the front-lines for redevelopment
pressures in the future. Future decisions outside of the district, including building trends south of
the Downtown and hospital ownership or medical specialties, could greatly influence the rate of
change in the residential and commercial blocks surrounding the district. Without design review
in place for the historic district and/or a larger conservation district, the neighborhood is not
likely to achieve its potential in terms of historic preservation objectives.
Objective 1: Retain the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District designation (National Register).
Regularly provide information to new property owners about the responsibilities
and advantages of owning property in a historic district.
Objective 2: In the near term (one to two years), focus neighborhood historic preservation
efforts on an education program to develop a clear understanding of what a local
ordinance historic district means for a designated area. Address FAQs about
the designation process, including questions about “urban myths” and genuine
concerns voiced during the 2004 designation effort. Establish a “user-friendly”
technical assistance effort for property owners by implementing the Technical
Assistance Steps on page 65.
Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District, residences in the 600 block Linn Street
82
83
Objective 3: In the midterm (two to three years), encourage designation of the Gilbert-Linn
Street Historic District as a local ordinance historic district. Follow the District
Adoption Steps listed above on page 63.
Objective 4: Because of this area’s proximity to the University, continue efforts to identify
prospective sites for future redevelopment which will not adversely impact historic
resources. Include properties containing buildings that are outside of a proposed
historic or conservation district or are not individually eligible for the National
Register.
Objective 5: Maintain and preserve existing stretches of brick-paved streets within the Gilbert-
Linn Street Historic District, including portions of Fairchild Street and several
blocks of Linn that are part of the brick-paved route that leads to Oakland and St.
Joseph’s cemeteries from churches in the center of town.
Objective 6: Incorporate historic preservation efforts in planning for the Northside Market
Place retail district (intersecting blocks at Market, Linn, Gilbert and Bloomington
streets). Stress the significance of the neighborhood’s history as an industrial and
commercial enclave of 19th century breweries and markets. Encourage efforts to
tell the story of its early development (stone and brick buildings) as well as its turn
of the century buildings (O.H. Carpenter designed houses). Emphasize the story
of its diversity (German and Bohemian working class residents and merchant
families). Promote preservation of the architectural elements of both landmarks
such as the Slezak Building-National Hall (Pagliai’s Pizza ) at 302 E. Bloomington
and vernacular commercial buildings such as the Hamburg Inn at 214 N. Linn.
Relate the story of the neighborhood’s buildings of literary significance such as
402 E. Market through the development of walking tours or special celebrations.
Encourage public improvements that are consistent with the neighborhood’s
historic character and private redevelopment measures that complement surviving
landmarks such as the Union Brewery at 12-131 N. Linn Street and the home of
its owner, Conrad Graf, at 319 East Bloomington Street or the Jacob Wentz House
at 219 N. Gilbert Street.
Objective 7: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
11. Goosetown
The Goosetown neighborhood encompasses the blocks at the east end of the North Side and is
discussed as a separate neighborhood because of its distinct ethnic origins and building stock. It
is roughly bounded by Oakland Cemetery on the north, Rochester Avenue and the alley south
of Bloomington Street on the south, North Dodge/North Lucas-Governor Street on the west,
and Reno Street on the east. Originally developed in the mid to late 19th century, this area was
populated largely by working class Bohemian or Czech immigrants with a smaller number of
German immigrants.
Once characterized by small houses
situated amidst semi-agrarian blocks,
Goosetown grew both internally and
on its edges in the decades immediately
following 1900. The commercial and civic
center for Goosetown lay to the west in
the blocks along North Johnson and North
Dodge streets. Around North Market
square, several churches, successive public
schools, and a Czecho-Slovakian fraternal
hall were built. Over time, large lots in
Goosetown were sometimes subdivided
and houses were occasionally moved or
more often replaced when circumstances
required it.
Through the years, the Goosetown neighborhood remained a neighborhood of closely-knit
Bohemian and German families. For the men, work life might include a job at a local brewery or
in one of the building trades if you were lucky. For those less fortunate, low-paying jobs changed
frequently. For the women, work outside the home included jobs as laundresses and domestics or.
if you were fortunate, clerking in a store downtown or working at a printing company or the local
glove factory. As the University of Iowa grew after 1900, employment opportunities gave stable
jobs to dozens of Goosetown residents.
Through two World Wars and the Great Depression, Goosetown remained a close-knit
neighborhood of working class families whose children attended the same school and attended
the same churches. They maintained pride in their former Bohemian homeland while they took
new pride in their Iowa City neighborhood, their well-kept homes, and productive gardens.
Public awareness of the history and location of Goosetown has grown since 1992, especially
following publication of Marybeth Slonneger’s Goosetown social history, Small But Ours, in 1999.
Goosetown’s identity as a distinct neighborhood has grown with pride in the modest design and
scale of the neighborhood’s housing stock. A parallel recognition has developed of the area’s
“affordable housing.”
In 2003, in response to a neighborhood-based petition to consider designation of a Goosetown
conservation district, the HPC held a public information meeting. Concern of some neighbors
regarding an obligation for property owners to undergo design review was strongly expressed.
Since 1992, the historic character of the neighborhood has changed as the result of carefully
planned historic rehabilitation projects for some buildings and modernizations of others. In
the latter cases, buildings have seen the installation of synthetic siding, loss of wood porch
detailing, resizing of windows, construction of out-of-scale additions and garages, and other new
construction work that has diluted the character of the neighborhood. No concerted technical
assistance or preservation education program has been undertaken.
Goosetown. Left: Chensky-Klema House, 1013 East Bloomingon
Street
84
85
As efforts are undertaken for Goosetown’s preservation in the future, the neighborhood’s dual
images—a picturesque historic district and a low-cost residential neighborhood—will likely be
argued by some as conflicting. However, neighborhood preservation efforts in other communities
show that the two can be compatible. Factors such as small lot size, modest house square footage,
the presence of a substantial number of one and one-and-a-half-story houses, and the simple
vernacular designs of Goosetown dwellings are more likely to be important factors in maintaining
their affordability. Since these factors are also part of their historic character, any design review
process that preserves Goosetown’s modest-scale dwellings by not allowing inappropriately-sized
additions or front porch enclosures is likely to assist in keeping the area affordable.
Other concerns, including issues relating to siding (installing synthetic siding versus maintaining
painted wood finishes) and window replacement (opting for repairing and replacing selected
wood sash rather than total window replacement) have been debated in other communities.
Careful evaluations have demonstrated that in assessing the long-term effect, the historic
rehabilitation approach is about the same cost or less expensive and has the benefit of often
contributing to a historic house’s appreciation. The HPC has demonstrated the flexibility of
conservation district regulations in practice. The best example was the operation of the HPC
during the post-tornado months of 2006. A record number of design reviews for buildings in
blocks damaged by the storm were reviewed and rehabilitated by their owners. Some received
technical assistance during the process that enabled them to save historic features their insurance
companies might not have considered worth paying for as part of a tornado loss. Success of the
design review process under even the most adverse circumstances demonstrates the community
benefits of historic preservation regulation.
Objective 1: Develop and submit a Multiple Property Documentation form to the National
Register of Historic Places for “Iowa City’s Bohemian History, 1855–1945” for
scattered resources found throughout the North Side and Goosetown; base the
MPD on survey work of the Phase I and Phase II Original Town Plat surveys
(199, 2000) and the Phase III Goosetown survey (2000). Identify four to six
individually eligible properties for preparation of individual National Register
nominations to include with submittal of the MPD.
Objective 2: Begin the process of designating a Goosetown conservation district with a strong
education effort that develops a clear understanding of what a local ordinance
conservation district means for a designated area. Include dissemination of
“history corner” columns in the neighborhood association newsletter addressing
FAQs, including questions about “urban myths” and genuine concerns about the
designation effort. Develop other special topic publications based on questions of
property owners.
Objective 3: Follow-up on Objective 2 using the District Adoption Steps listed above on page 63.
Objective 4: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
12. Governor-Lucas Conservation District 13
The Governor-Lucas
Conservation District was
Iowa City’s first conservation
district. It is a rectangular-
shaped neighborhood southeast
of the central business district
that includes properties along
Governor and Lucas streets
between Burlington Street and
the Iowa Interstate Railroad as
well as properties along Bowery
Street between Lucas Street and
the Summit Street Historic
District. Measures to designate
the area for protection began with a reconnaissance survey of the neighborhood and blocks to
the west completed in 1990. In 1996 and 1998, a smaller area was included in the intensive level
survey completed for the Longfellow Neighborhood. Turn-of-the-century houses and tree-lined
streets characterize the Governor-Lucas Conservation District with houses dating from the late
19th century through the 1930s. Governor Street’s unusually wide lots and deep set-backs on the
east side create a sense of spaciousness that is similar to portions of Summit Street and not found
in most Iowa City residential districts. Examples of vernacular house forms and architectural
styles from the 1860s through the 1930s are present, with many good examples of Craftsman
Style, American Four-Squares and Bungalows intermixed with earlier Victorian styles.
The Governor-Lucas Conservation District includes 140 residential properties and one church,
the Bethel AME Church (National Register). Unlike other historic and conservation districts in
Iowa City, owner-occupants make up a minority of residents – slightly less than one-third. The
neighborhood saw its transition to rental occupancy begin in 1961 when the majority of the
district was rezoned for dense multifamily occupancy. In the wake of this rezoning, blocks to the
west saw houses razed and new apartment buildings erected. In May 2000, owner-occupants and
long-term renters, aware of the pressure to construct dormitory-style apartment buildings in the
neighborhood, successfully petitioned the City Council to down-zone the neighborhood. Work
on establishment of a conservation district paralleled the rezoning measure. Since 2001, 2 design
reviews have been completed.
Objective 1: Retain the Governor-Lucas Conservation District designation. Regularly provide
information to new property owners about the responsibilities and advantages of
owning property in a conservation district.
13 Portions of the neighborhood description taken from “Proposed Lucas-Governor Conservation District
Report,” November 1, 2001. (Note: At an unidentified point in time, common usage saw the name of the district
become “Governor-Lucas” perhaps reflecting the title and name of Governor Lucas, Iowa’s territorial governor who
resided in his retirement home, Plum Grove, located several blocks to the south.)
Governor-Lucas Conservation District, Bethel A.M.E. Church,
411 S. Governor Street.
86
8
Objective 2: Re-evaluate the district periodically to determine if the passage of time or the
rehabilitations completed have changed the status of the district from conservation
to historic, or if individual buildings should be designated contributing rather than
non-contributing.
Objective 3: Consider local landmark designation for eligible properties in the district such
as Bethel AME Church. Given the important history of this church to Iowa City
and Iowa, take special care in evaluating planned preservation and rehabilitation
measures. Work with the church owner and non-profit groups to develop a master
plan for reuse and rehabilitation. Identify a continued-use plan that preserves its
original historic character by evaluating a long-term, wholistic plan for its use and
building modifications that are sensitive to its historic character.
Objective 4: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
13. Jefferson Street Historic District
The Jefferson Street Historic District is a linear
neighborhood that extends along East Jefferson Street
from Clinton to Van Buren streets. Properties facing
the intersecting streets of Dubuque, Linn, Gilbert, and
Van Buren are also included within the district. The
district includes a mix of institutional buildings (religious
and academic) and residential buildings that reflect its
historical development along the edge of the downtown
and the University campus. University-related resources
include buildings originally used as a biological sciences
classroom building, a medical school anatomy lecture
hall, an isolation hospital, and sorority houses. Buildings
used for religious purposes include four churches, a
student center, a former convent, and a rectory. The
balance of the district includes two large apartment
buildings, a collection of medium- and large-sized
single-family dwellings that date from the 1850s through
the 1930s, and a variety of secondary structures erected
during the early 20th century. The district contains a
total of 38 primary resources with all but one considered
contributing. Buildings in the Jefferson Street Historic District exhibit a range of late 19th and
early 20th century architectural styles including excellent examples of eleven distinct styles and
several vernacular residential forms.
The most recent historical and architectural surveys of this area were completed in 1999 and
2001. In 2004, the Jefferson Street Historic District was listed on the National Register. No local
historic district designation has been established for the area. East Jefferson Street currently
serves as a one-way arterial street with significant vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Proximity
to the University campus, suggests that this area will continue to be one of the front-lines for
Jefferson Street Historic District,
St. Mary’s Catholic Church,
220 E. Jefferson Street
redevelopment pressures. Future reuse for a key property in the district, the former University
Isolation Hospital at the southwest corner of Gilbert and East Jefferson streets, will have a major
impact on the district.14
Objective 1: Retain the Jefferson Street Historic District designation (National Register).
Regularly provide information to new property owners about the responsibilities
and advantages of owning property in a historic district.
Objective 2: In the near term (one to two years), focus neighborhood historic preservation
efforts on an education program to develop a clear understanding of what a local
ordinance historic district means for a designated area. Focus on FAQs regarding
designation including questions about “urban myths” and genuine concerns.
Establish a “user-friendly” technical assistance effort for property owners by
implementing the Technical Assistance Steps on page 65.
Objective 3: In the mid term (two to three years), encourage designation of the Jefferson Street
Historic District as a local ordinance historic district. Follow the District Adoption
Steps listed above on page 63.
Objective 4: The University of Iowa 2006 Campus Master Plan identified National Register listed
properties that the University owns as heritage properties that should be protected.
(see Section 4.5.3: “Protect the campus’ historic landscape and architectural
resources that positively contribute to its unique identity.”) This policy was
established for historic resources within the current campus including buildings
in National Register Historic Districts such as the Pentacrest and the Jefferson
Street Historic District. As a result, an effort should be made to engage University
representatives in discussions for specific historic resources in the district, such as
the Isolation Hospital at the southwest corner of Jefferson and Gilbert streets.
To focus efforts for this property, a comprehensive assessment of reuse options
should be undertaken. The University should consider potential use of federal
investment tax credits to finance rehabilitation through the sale of the credits to
for profit entities. Consider soliciting planning assistance from the Midwest Offices
of the National Trust for Historic Preservation or engaging a group of specialized
architects and planners experienced in academic campus reuse issues. A planning
effort for the Isolation Hospital could serve as a model for future efforts to plan for
historic resources with both a University and community interest.
Objective 5: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
14. Longfellow Historic District
The Longfellow Historic District includes portions of the original Rundell Addition, Oakes
14In late 2006 near the conclusion of the Historic Preservation Plan update process, reuse of the Isolation
Hospital for the University’s Urban Planning Graduate School was announced and is likely to have a positive impact
on the building’s long-term preservation.
88
89
Addition and East Iowa
City. The northern
fringe of the Longfellow
neighborhood was
developed before World
War I while the balance of
the area extending south
of Court St. and east of
Clark St. was not fully
developed until World War
II. Longfellow Elementary
School is an important landmark
anchoring the neighborhood,
which was originally conceived as a
streetcar suburb. Facing blocks have a
homogeneous scale of buildings with
uniform setbacks. The neighborhood
has a high level of physical integrity,
including many historic garages.
Good examples of vernacular house
forms and architectural styles from
before and after World War II survive
throughout the neighborhood.
Since 1992, major progress has been made on historic preservation objectives. In 1996 and
1998, historical and architectural survey work was completed. Parallel designation tracks saw
the Longfellow Historic District listed as a local ordinance historic district in 2001 and on the
National Register the following year. The local Longfellow Historic District and Moffitt Cottage
Historic District were combined into a single historic district in 2003. Since local designation,
the district has had 56 design review cases. Fears of residents expressed in 1992 regarding
incompatible exterior remodeling of pristine bungalows and period cottages has been replaced
by deliberate planned historic rehabilitations. Removal of the district’s small period garages has
been slowed, and where replacement buildings have been erected the design review process has
mitigated their loss by requiring more compatible design for new garages. The continuing loss of
original garages remains a challenge for the neighborhood.
Good efforts on heightening public awareness of neighborhood history have been undertaken
through projects sponsored by the Longfellow Neighborhood Association and the leadership of
individual residents. One of the most successful to date has been the Longfellow Neighborhood
Art Project financed with a City PIN grant. It features a series of large free-standing markers
highlighting the stories of the Oakes Brickworks, the Muscatine Avenue Moffitt Cottages, the
Civil War-era site for Camp Pope, the O.S. Kelly Factory, Rundell Park, and others. Regular
columns appear in the Association’s newsletters featuring local history and preservation topics.
Objective 1: Retain the Longfellow Historic District designation. Regularly provide information
to new property owners about the responsibilities and advantages of owning
property in a historic district.
Longfellow Historic District, above: 600 block of Oakland Avenue; below: 1100
block
Objective 2: Re-evaluate the district periodically to determine if the passage of time or the
rehabilitations completed for buildings under design review have changed the
boundaries for the district, or if individual buildings should be evaluated as
contributing rather than non-contributing. This recommendation is especially
important for aging resources that reach the 50-year eligibility for contributing
status.
Objective 3: Support historic preservation efforts for the Longfellow School building as an
important anchor in the historic district. Adopt strategies for preserving historic
neighborhood schools promoted by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
15 Encourage retention and celebration of the existing school building as a
neighborhood value.
Objective 4: Develop and publish a Longfellow Neighborhood History keyed to the 2010
centennial anniversary of the Rundell Land and Improvement Company. Use the
publication as an opportunity to solicit historic neighborhood photos and first
hand accounts of the area’s post-World War II changes from present and former
residents. To broaden the appeal of the book, incorporate the stories of nearby
neighborhoods.
Objective 5: Maintain up-to-date information regarding historic preservation at the Longfellow
Neighborhood website. Once established, keeping information fresh and accurate
a website is challenging. The Longfellow Neighborhood Association has an
excellent site but the material regarding historic preservation was more than two
years old when examined. Although some of it may still be accurate, it is critical
that all of it be updated regularly or site users will discount its validity or be
misled. Since the current newsletter is maintained through the City’s website, it
is important that the City make the maintenance process as straight forward as
possible and cooperate in the updating effort.
Objective 6: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
15. Muscatine Avenue Moffitt Cottage Historic District (now, part of Longfellow Historic
District)
This small National Register historic district contains five stone cottages located along the east
side of the 1300 block of Muscatine Avenue. They were built during the 1920s and 1930s by
Iowa City developer and contractor Howard F. Moffitt. Their distinct designs blended features of
Tudor Revival and Craftsman Style dwellings in a variety of cottage forms. The Muscatine Avenue
Moffitt Cottage Historic District was listed in the National Register in 1993 and locally designated
a short time later. In 2003, the small district was incorporated into the adjoining Longfellow
Historic District. Only one design review case was heard in the district before it was merged
15“Focus On Historic Neighborhood Schools,” National Trust for Historic Preservation available at: http://
www.nationaltrust.org/issues/schools/neighborhood school preservation; accessed 12/1/2006.
90
91
with Longfellow. All of the recommendations and strategies presented above for the Longfellow
Historic District apply to this small enclave of buildings. The one objective listed below applies to
these buildings separately.
Objective 1: Use research work completed on the Moffitt Cottages to develop a cross-district,
citywide bicycle/driving tour highlighting Moffitt cottages, such as the Muscatine
Avenue group. Publish information about the tour on-line and in the Longfellow
neighborhood newsletter. Encourage preparation of a social history of Moffitt
houses using the recollections of former owners.
16. Oak Grove-Kirkwood Avenue Corridor
The Oak Grove-Kirkwood Avenue
Corridor neighborhood occupies an area
in the southern blocks of the Central
Planning District roughly bounded by the
Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way on
the north, Van Buren Street or Webster
Street on the west, Lower Muscatine Road
on the east, and Highland Avenue and De
Forest avenues on the south. Subdivisions
in the Oak Grove-Kirkwood Avenue
Corridor prior to 1890 included the Page
Addition, Borland Place Addition, and
Block 2 of the Summit Hill Addition
north of Kirkwood Avenue and the Lucas
Addition south of Kirkwood Avenue.
Between 1890 and World War I, the Wilson and Lantz Addition was added north of Kirkwood
Avenue and the Switzer Subdivision, E.W. Lucas’s Addition and Sunnyside Addition were
added south of Kirkwood Avenue. Large undeveloped parcels were still held individually along
Kirkwood Avenue through the Great Depression years. During the 1920s, the S.J. Kirkwood
Homestead Addition and Kirkwood Place Addition were platted, the latter by Bert Manville.
Additions made between 1935 and 1955 included Kirkwood Circle (1939), C.R. Regan Addition
(1950), Highland Addition Part 3 (1955), and Plum Grove Part 3 (1955).
The Kirkwood Avenue corridor is made up of facing blocks along an east-west stretch of the
avenue between Diana and Roosevelt streets. Originally named “Wyoming Road,” it served as an
important country road leading into Iowa City from the southeast. Prominent farmsteads and
country homes built along and near Kirkwood Avenue before 1900 include Plum Grove (National
Register, 1030 Carroll Street), the Governor Samuel Kirkwood House (local historic landmark,
1101 Kirkwood Avenue), the Clark House (National Register and local landmark, 829 Kirkwood
Avenue), the Lovelace House (820 Kirkwood Avenue), and the Gotch House (1110 Kirkwood
Avenue). Wide lots and deep set backs continue along much of the corridor. Plum Grove has been
held as a state-owned property since the 1940s. It is operated as a house museum and memorial
to the lives of Governor Lucas and his wife Friendly by the State Historical Society of Iowa
Oak Grove-Kirkwood Avenue Corridor,
806 Kirkwood Avenue
and administered by the Johnson County Historical Society. In 1992, the Historic Preservation
Plan stated that though owned by the State of Iowa, “Plum Grove pales by comparison with the
attention received by its sister landmark - Old Capitol.” This position continues reflecting the
relative importance of the University in statewide affairs when compared with the Historical
Society.
Objective 1: Complete a reconnaissance survey of the Oak Grove-Kirkwood Avenue Corridor
Neighborhood in order to focus intensive level survey work on scattered
individually eligible National Register properties and on multi-block areas such as
the Kirkwood Avenue corridor.
Objective 2: Once reconnaissance survey work is completed, complete intensive level work for
individually significant buildings and historic districts. If the Kirkwood Avenue
corridor is determined eligible for National Register listing, pursue nomination.
Objective 3: Encourage local designation of a Kirkwood Avenue historic district. Follow the
District Adoption Steps listed above on page 63.
Objective 4: Support the continued use of Plum Grove as state-owned, locally administered
historic site. Make efforts to rotate exhibits, emphasize specialized tours such
as evening “candle light tours” or archeological field school tours, and special
events have the potential to increase visitorship and community support for this
important historic property.
Objective 5: Coordinate efforts with the State Historical Society and the Johnson County
Historical Society to evaluate Plum Grove for designation as a National Historic
Landmark and seek designation as an Iowa City historic landmark.
Objective 6: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
17. Lucas Farms Neighborhood – Ginter, Friendly, Highland, Pickard, and Yewell Streets
As noted above, the Lucas Farms neighborhood occupies an area in the southern blocks of the
Central Planning District extending south from Kirkwood Avenue to Highland Avenue and De
Forest avenues and from Van Buren Street or Webster Street on the west to Lower Muscatine
Road on the east. Subdivisions in the Lucas Farms Neighborhood were established during
the 1920s and later focused on the blocks south of Kirkwood Avenue. They included the S.J.
Kirkwood Homestead Addition (1924) and the Kirkwood Place Addition (1925), the latter
platted by Iowa City developer Bert Manville. Additions made between 1935 and 1955 included
Kirkwood Circle (1939), C.R. Regan Addition (1950), Highland Addition Part 3 (1955), and Plum
Grove Part 3 (1955). The main blocks in this neighborhood of historic and architectural interest
front on the intersecting blocks of Ginter, Friendly, Highland, Pickard, and Yewell streets and
include good examples of suburban development in Iowa City during the 1920s–1930s.
92
93
The multi-block area along Ginter,
Friendly, Highland, Pickard, and
Yewell streets contains a dozen or
more Moffitt stone cottages, most
of which were identified as eligible
for National Register listing in
the in MPD form for “The Small
Homes of Howard F. Moffitt in
Iowa City and Coralville, Iowa,
1924-1943” listed on the National
Register in 1993.
Objective 1: A reconnaissance level survey of the Lucas Farms Neighborhood should be
completed to focus intensive level survey work on scattered individually eligible
National Register properties and on multi-block areas identified as containing a
potential National Register eligible historic district or locally eligible conservation
district.
Objective 2: Once reconnaissance survey work is completed, a second phase would focus
intensive level work for individually significant buildings and historic districts.
Buildings in a multi-block area with the potential for either historic district
or conservation district eligibility should be surveyed intensively. If a historic
district is identified as eligible for National Register listing, a district nomination
should be pursued. If a district is not identified, individual nominations should be
encouraged based on the “Small Houses of Howard F. Moffitt” MPD.
Objective 3: Once survey work is completed, encourage local designation of a historic or
conservation district. Follow the District Adoption Steps listed above on page 63.
Objective 4: Use research work completed on the Moffitt houses in the Lucas Farms
Neighborhood survey as an opportunity to develop a cross-district, citywide
bicycle/driving tour highlighting specific Moffitt cottages and enclaves of houses
such as those in the Lucas Farms Neighborhood. Publish information about the
tour on-line and in the neighborhood newsletter. Encourage preparation of a
social history of Moffitt houses that uses the recollections of former house owners.
Objective 5: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
18. Morningside-City High Neighborhood
The Morningside-City High Neighborhood is one of several neighborhoods newly included in
the update of the Historic Preservation Plan. The neighborhood includes a series of irregular
Lucas Farms Neighborhood, Moffit house, 1217 Friendly Street.
shaped blocks between Muscatine
Avenue and City High School
campus. Court Street forms the
south boundary and rear property
line of houses facing the south
side of Glendale Road forms
the north boundary. The area is
substantially different from blocks
to the west due to the inclusion
of diagonal and curving streets,
cul-de-sacs, and blocks of various
sizes and shapes to better fit the
topography. The development of
the neighborhood extended from
the platting of the Morningside
Addition in 1924 on the former
fairgrounds site through the
post-World War II period and
early 1950s. The Morningside-City
High neighborhood is directly
north of East Iowa City, which was
platted in 1898 as a subdivision for
manufacturing sites and worker
housing.
The visual centerpiece of the neighborhood is City High School, built in 1938–1939 as a joint
project of the Iowa City School District and the federal Public Works Administration. House
building appears to have continued in the neighborhood at a slow pace during the Depression
years, but World War II deterred development of new subdivisions until the end of the war. After
the war, subdivisions in the neighborhood included College Court Place (1948), Wildman’s 1st
Addition (1949), Adrian’s Addition (1950), West Bel Air Pt. 1 (1956), and Lafferty Subdivision
(1960). The 1950s development in the neighborhood is symbolized by installation of a miniature
Statue of Liberty at entrance to the City High campus in 1950. Its installation was part of a
national campaign sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America to erect statues across the U.S. The
construction of Herbert Hoover Elementary School in 1954 south of City High prompted the
neighborhood’s last wave of residential development.
For many, the inclusion of a neighborhood made up of buildings dating from the decades
immediately preceding and following World War II stretches the concept of “historic.” However,
the passage of time requires historians, architectural historians, archeologists, and city planners
to retain an arbitrary “look back” date of 50 years for evaluating potentially significant historic
resources. This criterion has been central to the National Register of Historic Places since it was
established in 1966. The “look back” date in those years extended only until World War I. Since
then, there has been a gradual recognition of newer buildings as important historic resources in
telling a community’s ever expanding—and more recent—history.
Morningside—City High Neighborhood, above: 100-inch replica of Statue
of Liberty at City High School, one of 200 copies placed by the Boy Scouts
in the U.S., 1949 & 1957; below, 1700 block of College Street.
94
95
Objective 1: Complete a reconnaissance survey of the Morningside-City High Neighborhood
in order to focus intensive level survey work on scattered individually eligible
National Register properties and on multi-block areas that may be significant as
historic district(s) or, more likely, potential conservation district(s).
Objective 2: Once reconnaissance survey work is completed, complete intensive level work for
individually significant buildings and districts.
Objective 3: If a Morningside-City High historic or conservation district is recommended,
Follow the District Adoption Steps listed above on page 63.
Objective 4: Develop a National Register of Historic Places nomination for the City High
campus and the little “Miss Liberty” statue at its entrance. Use the nomination to
draw attention to Iowa City’s involvement with national trends such as the Public
Works Administration that sought to put people to work in the waning years of
the Great Depression and the patriotic campaign waged by the Boy Scouts with the
effort to put miniature Statues of Liberty in county seat towns across the nation.
Objective 5: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
19. Rochester Avenue Neighborhood
The Rochester Avenue Neighborhood
includes facing blocks along the avenue
and blocks to the south from roughly
Elizabeth Street on the west to Parsons
Avenue or Ralston Creek on the east and
from Bloomington Street on the north
to Jefferson Street/Glendale Avenue on
the south. This neighborhood includes
the heavily tornado damaged-area
along Hotz Street and Clapp Street. The
neighborhood contains several additions
platted from end of World War I through
ca. 1960, including the Rose Hill
Addition, J.W. Clark’s Addition, Raphael
Placer Addition, Memler’s Addition (1951), Highland Addition Pt. 2 (1954), Wildwood Addition
(1956), Streb’s 1st Addition (1958), and Mark Twain Addition (1959). The meandering course of
the North Branch of Ralston Creek and Glendale Park are included.
The pre-urban history of Rochester Avenue saw farmsteads and acreages owned by Ruth Irish and
O.S. Barnes on north side of Rochester Avenue and J.P. Memler, Peter Zach and O.S. Barnes on
south side of Rochester Avenue. Housing stock in the neighborhood includes one- and two-story
frame and masonry residences, a mix of vernacular house forms such as the American Four-
Square, Front-Gable and Wing, and Suburban Cottage. The neighborhood also includes pre and
post-World War I domestic architectural styles including variations of the Craftsman, Colonial
Revival, and Bungalow styles.
Rochester Avenue Neighborhood, 1300 block Rochester Avenue.
Objective 1: Complete a reconnaissance survey of the Rochester Avenue Neighborhood
in order to focus intensive level survey work on scattered individually eligible
National Register properties and on multi-block areas that may be significant as
historic district(s) or, more likely, potential conservation district(s).
Objective 2: Once reconnaissance survey work is completed, complete intensive level work for
individually significant buildings and districts.
Objective 3: If a Rochester Avenue historic or conservation district is recommended, Follow
the District Adoption Steps listed above on page 63.
Objective 4: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
20. Summit Street Historic District
The Summit Street Historic District is
a linear neighborhood composed of
facing blocks along South Summit Street
between Burlington Street and the Iowa
Interstate Railroad. The neighborhood’s
three blocks include Iowa City’s best
collection of well-preserved Victorian-
era and turn-of-the-century American
Revival style residences. Houses are
set well back on deep lots with many
properties containing carriage houses,
fences, carriage blocks, and historic
landscaping features. Construction dates
for the district’s building stock primarily
range from the 1860s-1910s.
The Summit Street blocks were recognized through the years as having a sense of time and
place. Individual houses were prominently featured in Margaret Keyes’ early book on Iowa City
architecture. Early threats to the neighborhood posed by apartment house construction were
thwarted by neighborhood activism and subsequent down zoning and historic district protection.
In 193, residents sought and received a designation for the area as a National Register historic
district – the first historic district established in Iowa City. A decade later, the district was also
the first to be listed as a local historic district. Since local designation and the beginning of design
review, the district has had 61 cases.
The health of Summit Street is evidence of the long term community benefits fostered by
historic preservation. A neighborhood that was threatened with redevelopment in the 1960s is
now a stable and well-regarded residential anchor for the near east part of the city. Buildings
in the district have been rehabilitated at a rate commensurate with or ahead of other older
neighborhoods in the city. Property values have kept pace with or exceeded appreciation in the
balance of the community. Traffic increases are still perceived by current residents; and others, as
the principle threat to the neighborhood.
Summit Street Historic District, 513 S. Summit Street
96
9
For many, the Summit Street Historic District is an example of the idiom “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it!” The area has a well-recognized historic image in the community and the district’s addresses
are sought after in spite of an increasingly competitive market for preserved historic residences.
Regardless of the actual and perceived success of historic preservation along South Summit
Street, owners change, buildings experience change, and strategies for continued success will be
necessary.
Objective 1: Retain designation of the Summit Street Historic District. Provide information
to new property owners about the responsibilities and advantages of owning
property in a historic district through regular mailings and a visitation program
conducted by residents.
Objective 2: Continue to identify and retain Summit Street’s unique neighborhood
development features such as deep lots with spacious front yard setbacks, canopy
landscaping with minimal low-level screening, etc. Do not add features to the
neighborhood which provide a false sense of history, such as decorative street
lights or undocumented fences and walls.
Objective 3: Consider establishing a regular event (annually or bi-annually) such as a “front
porch festival” open to the public in order to invite neighbors and Iowa City
residents to share the history of Summit Street—a rich heritage which belongs to
the entire community. Such an event negates the mindset that historic preservation
only makes sense for prestigious neighborhoods.
Objective 4: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
21. Woodlawn Historic District
Woodlawn is an enclave of 14 well-preserved late 19th and early 20th century residences located
at the Y-shaped junction of Iowa Avenue, Evans Street, and Muscatine Avenue. “Governor’s
Square” located southwest of Woodlawn, was originally planned as the location for the governor’s
residence. After the capital relocated to Des Moines in 185, these plans were abandoned and
Governor’s Square was replatted for house lots. In 1889 S.M. Clark’s Sub-division, which contains
Woodlawn, was platted east of the terminus of Iowa Avenue. Beginning in the 1880s houses
were built along Woodlawn Avenue’s spacious lots featuring Gothic Revival, Italianate, Queen
Anne, Stick/Eastlake, and Tudor Revival styles. Through the years, a Woodlawn address, like that
of South Summit Street, connoted prestige. The Woodlawn Historic District was listed on the
National Register in 199 and became a local historic district in 1983. Since that time, 15 design
reviews have been conducted. Several buildings and mature landscape elements on Woodlawn
were seriously damaged in the April 2006 tornado.
Objective 1: Retain designation of Woodlawn as a historic district. Regularly provide
information to new property owners about the responsibilities and advantages of
owning property in a historic district.
Objective 2: Use Woodlawn as an anchor for encouraging the development of an Iowa Avenue
streetscape improvement plan in the blocks immediately west of the Woodlawn
entrance. Include landscaping measures in the Iowa Avenue boulevard and
parking areas as well as upgrades for sidewalks, curbs and gutters along Iowa
Avenue. Use the implemented streetscape plan, positive post-tornado recovery
efforts, and the stability of the Woodlawn District to attract continued investment
along the Iowa Avenue blocks west of Woodlawn.
Objective 3: Establish a “user-friendly” technical assistance effort for property owners by
implementing the Technical Assistance Steps on page 65.
Objective 4: Consider establishing a regular event (annually or bi-annually) such as a “front
porch festival” open to the public in order to invite neighbors and Iowa City
residents to share the history of Woodlawn—a rich heritage which belongs to the
entire community not just the current residents of the area.
Objective 5: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
North Planning District:
The North Planning District includes
the northern portions of Iowa City
roughly bounded by the Iowa River,
Interstate 80, North Dodge Street, and
Iowa Highway 1. Several individual
historic resources and large areas of
undeveloped land are located along
Dubuque Street in the western part of
the district while the eastern blocks
comprise a portion of what is known
today as the Shimek Neighborhood and
what was known historically as “Tank
Town.” In 2000, the “North District
Reconnaissance Survey” was completed
for the North District Plan. Buildings
scattered throughout the North District were identified as potentially eligible for the National
Register. They are clustered in three groups: the first includes scattered properties along Dubuque
Street; the second includes a group of buildings in Tank Town, and the third includes a group of
former rural properties extending along a one-mile stretch of Dubuque Road.
22. North Dubuque Street/Montgomery-Butler House
One of the most important historic resources along Dubuque Street is the Montgomery-Butler
House site, a City-owned historic dwelling and the ruins of several outbuildings, that overlooks
Montgomery-Butler House, North Dubuque Street
98
99
the north edge of Waterworks Prairie Park. The house site was acquired by the City in 1995
as part of the property acquisition for the new municipal water treatment facility. During the
environmental review process for the treatment facility project, the stone house was identified
as a historic site that met the criteria for listing in the National Register. Stabilization measures
to preserve the building were completed as part of an agreement between the City, the State
Historical Society of Iowa, Corps of Engineers, and the National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. The City set aside 4.28 acres within the future Waterworks Park, including the stone
house, to be developed as a cultural resource. The house was “mothballed” in 1998 and a formal
nomination for the property to the National Register was prepared through the HPC in 2001 but
not finalized.
A feasibility study to evaluate reuse options for the Montgomery-Butler House was completed
in 2001. A community planning workshop was facilitated by a consultant and attended by
representatives of bicycle, open-space, historic preservation, and civic organizations as well as
City staff. Of the options evaluated, the concept of reusing the Montgomery-Butler House as
a historic site and interpretive center was determined to be the most feasible. Since submittal
of the study, measures to further stabilize and monitor the property have continued. A paved
bicycle access to the site from the park has been completed. No interpretative measures have been
completed and a non-municipal sponsor or leader for the project has not been identified.16
Objective 1: Make completion of the final steps of the National Register nomination process for
the Montgomery-Butler House a priority for the HPC.
Objective 2: Designate the Montgomery-Butler House as a local landmark. It is important to
complete this process to provide design review authority for the HPC as a part of
the evaluation of reuse options for the building in the future.
Objective 3: Now that Waterworks Prairie Park is completed and the new water purification
facility is completed, Review the findings and recommendations of the
Montgomery-Butler House Feasibility Study Report ( Svendsen Tyler, 2001) to
determine if they remain valid. Update and prioritize the recommendations.
Identify leadership to take the project to the next phase of completion.
23. Tank Town17
Tank Town includes the eastern-most portion of the North Planning District. According to old
timers, the Tank Town neighborhood included the hilltop blocks that surrounded the municipal
water tower that was erected at 900 North Dodge Street at the turn of the 20th century, hence the
name. Several grocery stores and a saloon were located nearby on Dodge Street. North School at
928 North Dodge Street was part of the north end enclave since it opened in the 1880s. Originally
populated by Bohemian and German immigrants, Tank Town also included blocks that fronted
on the route of the Military Road (currently State Highway 1) where it entered Iowa City from
the northeast. Scattered dwellings and farmsteads were in place along this route before the Civil
16Marlys Svendsen, Svendsen Tyler, Inc. Montgomery-Butler House Feasibility Study Report (Iowa City, IA:
Department of Planning and Community Development, City of Iowa City), 2001.
1Marlys Svendsen, Svendsen Tyler, Inc., North District Reconnaissance Survey, Iowa City, Iowa, (Iowa City,
IA: Department of Planning and Community Development, City of Iowa City), July 2, 2000.
War and within a few decades both
immigrant groups were taking up
residence in substantial numbers
in the blocks north of Goosetown
along the Military Road. In
recognition of the area’s strong
Bohemian connections, North
School was renamed “Shimek
School” for Bohumil Shimek,
a lifelong resident of Johnson
County and the son of Bohemian
immigrants, who went on to
become a noted professor of botany at the State University of Iowa. The old Shimek School closed
in 191 when Horace Mann Elementary School opened. Shimek’s local fame lives on in the name
adopted for the modern day Shimek Elementary School at 1400 Grissel Place and the Shimek
Neighborhood.
In 2000 the “North District Reconnaissance Survey” identified several buildings in the North
District that were potentially eligible for the National Register including a potential historic
district along Dubuque Road that is discussed below. A cluster of adjoining blocks of Tank Town
along Dewey and North Summit streets south of Oakland Cemetery was also evaluated for
historic district eligibility and was determined to not meet the level of physical integrity required.
Objective 1: Complete intensive level survey work on historic resources identified as potentially
individually significant in Tank Town. Focus on properties that relate to the
historic context recommended for “Iowa City’s Bohemian History, 1855–1945”
for scattered historic resources found throughout the North Side, Goosetown,
and Tank Town that are linked to the story of immigrant Bohemian and German
families. Identify four to six individually eligible properties for preparation of
individual National Register nominations to include with submittal of the MPD.
Objective 2: Determine whether any parts of Tank Town should be included in a potential
Goosetown conservation district. If so, incorporate measures for these Tank Town
areas under 11. Goosetown, Objective 2 above.
Objective 3: Maintain and preserve existing stretches of brick-paved streets within the North
District. The most intact section is located in the 800 block of North Dewey Street.
This block represents a continuation of the paved route along Brown Street that
provided access to Oakland and St. Joseph’s cemeteries from churches in the center
of town.
24. Dubuque Road Neighborhood
North of Tank Town and the settled portions of Iowa City, farmland and wooded areas dotted
the country side during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A number of the farms located
Tank Town, Old North School or Shimek School, 928 North Dodge Street.
100
101
along the original route of the Military Road or present day “Dubuque Road” where it turns north
off Highway 1, were operated as dairy farms with their herds furnishing a significant portion of
Iowa City’s milk supply. A dozen large residences and barns along Dubuque Road date from ca.
1890 to the 1930s when the dairy industry in this rural neighborhood peaked. By the 1930s one
of the larger local creameries in the area—the Swaner Farms Dairy—had relocated its business
to 1103 North Dodge Street. The company processed milk for home delivery to consumers and
manufactured butter, ice cream, cheese and other dairy products under the brand “Hometown.”
In 1981, Swaner Farms Dairy became part of a group of dairies in Omaha, Des Moines, and
Concordia known as Robert’s Dairy retaining its “HomeTown” brand until the mid 1990s. The
dairy continues to process milk from its location along Dodge Street. Other north end dairy
operations identified in the North District Reconnaissance Survey Report included the Queen
Dairy Farm located at 129 Dubuque Road and run by various members of the Ruppert family
beginning in ca. 1912 and the Model Dairy, which operated from the intersection of North Dodge
and Dubuque Road. These properties have potential for National Register or local landmark
designation. The Robert’s Dairy merits closer evaluation once the principal buildings reach the
50-year time frame for National Register eligibility.
In the intervening years, residential construction along Dubuque Road has diminished the
significance of this “country neighborhood.” The design and location of new dwellings now
precludes National Register eligibility of this neighborhood but it still may meet the criteria for a
conservation district.
Objective 1: Evaluate the properties along Dubuque Road for designation as a conservation
district. This nearly one mile stretch of “country road” was originally built as
part of the U.S. Military Road between Iowa City and Dubuque in 1839. Located
within the corporate limits since before World War I, it continues to retain some
of its rural quality. The significance of this route itself as well as the collection of
residences and barns built along it from ca. 1860 make this an area that may merit
protection. Recent new construction of large residences precludes its National
Register eligibility and may have diminished its rural landscape qualities making it
ineligible for a conservation district designation as well.
Objective 2: If a determination is made that the area is eligible for conservation district
designation, maintain the remaining open space, deep set-backs and wide-spacing
between remaining residences along Dubuque Road as part of the design review
standards for the district.
Objective 3: The North District Reconnaissance Survey identified several important secondary
structures for former farms and active farm properties along Dubuque Road
including two large barns. In order to provide alternative uses for these properties
to support their preservation, consider providing zoning incentives and property
tax abatement.
Northwest Planning District:
25. Manville Heights Neighborhood
Manville Heights comprises a distinct
residential neighborhood bounded on
the east by Riverside Drive, on the south
by the right-of-way of the CRANDIC
Railway and U.S. Highway 6, and on the
north and west by Park Road. The area
developed initially as a farm operated by
the Frank Hutchinson family in the 1840s
and was known as “Hutchinson’s Grove.”
National Guard encampments were held at
Hutchinson’s Grove shortly after 1900 and
the electric interurban between Cedar
Rapids and Iowa City was completed along
the southern edge of the neighborhood
in 1904—Cedar Rapids and Iowa City
Railway (CRANDIC). Electric power became available in the area as a result. Hutchinson’s
Grove served as Iowa City’s Chautauqua Grounds during summers of 1906, 190, and 1908
with participants able to travel by way of the new electric railway. Recreation use of the area was
further encouraged by the establishment of City Park in 1906 and construction of the City Park
bridge over the Iowa River in 1908.
The potential of the area to serve
as a residential district was tapped
in 1910 when Manville Heights
Addition was platted by Iowa City
contractor and developer, Bert E.
Manville, after he purchased 80
acres from the Hutchinson family;
house construction began the same
year. Other subdivisions in place by
191 included Manville Addition,
Chautauqua Heights, Black Springs,
and Black’s Second with the Folsom
farm immediately north of U.S.
Highway 6 added as the Capital View
Subdivision in 1938.
During the three decades leading up to World War II, Manville Heights developed as one of Iowa
City’s true streetcar and early automobile suburbs. The Manville streetcar line was extended to
City Park and Heights by 1915. Layout of Manville Heights’s additions deviated somewhat from
the grid system of east side neighborhoods. The Manville Addition also included oversized lots
Manville Heights Neighborhood, Tudor Revival Style cottage,
215 Lexington Avenue.
Manfille Heights Neighborhood, Hutchinson House, 119 W. Park
Road, University of Iowa Press.
102
103
with multi-acre, block-size dimensions that were later divided into the irregular parcels found
between Woolf and Magowan avenues. The Clara Louise Kellogg School on Woolf Avenue
(nonextant; now the site of the VA Hospital) opened in 191 and Lincoln Elementary School
opened in 1926 to further serve the growing neighborhood’s young families.
The building of Manville Heights’ houses paralleled growth in the central business district, the
University’s West Campus, and new hospital complex during this period. Early Manville Heights
homebuyers were affiliated with the University including professors, University of Iowa Hospital
physicians, and employees. Other residents included local merchants, professionals, and members
of the B.E. Manville family. Manville Heights houses were constructed in the popular designs and
forms of the day—Georgian Revival, Mission, Craftsman, Tudor Revival, and simplified Prairie
School styles and vernacular forms such as the American-Four Squares, Bungalows, and Period
Cottages. When small house designs were introduced in the late 1920s and 1930s, Cape Cod
cottages and Tudor Revival cottages were added. By the early 1960s, multi-lot parcels saw sale of
separate lots and construction of Ranch Style and Neo-Colonial Style homes.
Today, the Manville Heights neighborhood retains much of its suburban quality, with the added
benefit of good access to the sprawling West Campus via Woolf Avenue and a separate pedestrian
walkway over Highway 6. Several fraternity houses mark the eastern edge of the Heights along
Riverside Drive while more contemporary houses overlook the Iowa River bluff that delineates
the western edge. Park Road extends along the north while the U.S. Highway 6 route and a steep
topographic change mark the southern edge. Two individual properties in the neighborhood are
listed on the National Register—the Hutchinson House (119 Park Road) and the Ned Ashton
House (local historic landmark, 820 Park Road).
Objective 1: Complete a reconnaissance and intensive level survey of the Manville Heights
Neighborhood; focus intensive level survey work on individually eligible National
Register properties and on a multi-block area potentially eligible as a historic
district or conservation district. Completion of the survey should be a high
priority for the HPC given the fact that individuals with connections to early
development in the area are available to pass along recollections and historical
information. Interest in completion of a survey by residents was the highest of
any neighborhood consulted during neighborhood meetings. Encourage survey
sponsorship (volunteers and financing) by the Manville Heights Neighborhood
Association.
Objective 2: If a historic district is determined eligible for the National Register, a nomination
should be prepared and submitted for listing.
Objective 3: Encourage local designation of a Manville Heights historic or conservation district.
Follow the District Adoption Steps listed above on page 63.
Objective 4: Support the continued use of the 1840s-era Hutchinson House (119 Park Road)
as the headquarters for the University of Iowa Press or another University reuse
compatible with the building’s historic size and scale. As a part of any reuse, retain
the open space surrounding the Hutchinson House. Consider undertaking a
historic archaeology investigation at the site under the direction of the University’s
Department of Anthropology with field studies similar to those done at Plum
Grove or under the direction of the State Archeologist’s Office.
Objective 5: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
Southwest Planning District:
26. Melrose Historic District
The Melrose Historic District includes a
multi-block neighborhood along and south
of Melrose Avenue and the University
of Iowa hospital complex and athletic
buildings. Through the years the people
who researched, healed, coached, taught,
and worked north of Melrose Avenue,
frequently lived south of Melrose. The
Melrose Historic District developed
in several waves beginning in the late
19th century and extending through the
post-World War II period. Its greatest
growth was associated with the
establishment of the University’s
General Hospital and erection of
the buildings for the University’s
athletic programs during the late
1920s. Staff and faculty for these
facilities needed housing, and the
mixture of small and large lots
available in new additions platted
south of Melrose Avenue provided
ideal home sites.
Architecturally, the neighborhood retains an important collection of diverse, architecturally
significant houses and small cottages. A handful pre-World War I residences along Melrose
Avenue, a state road laid out in 1853 to connect Iowa City to points west, convey the history of
the area before the West Side Campus was established. The balance of the neighborhood contains
well-preserved examples of Craftsman Style bungalows, Georgian and Colonial Revival Style
houses, and English Period Cottages located along narrow streets and picturesque drives.
Melrose Historic District, above: Irving and Martha Weber
House, 421 Melrose Court; below: 400 block Melrose Court.
104
Like other neighborhoods abutting the University campus, the buildings of the Melrose Historic
District are impacted by University operations and hospital growth. The strategies suggested
below view this juxtaposition as a positive factor and suggest several means for sustaining the
economic vitality of the area’s historic buildings.
Objective 1: Retain designation of Melrose Historic District as a National Register district.
Regularly provide information to new property owners about the responsibilities
and advantages of owning property in a National Register historic district.
Objective 2: In the near term, focus neighborhood historic preservation efforts on an education
program to develop a clear understanding of what a local ordinance historic
district means for a designated area. Address FAQs, including questions about
“urban myths” and genuine concerns. Establish a “user-friendly” technical
assistance effort for property owners by implementing the Technical Assistance
Steps on page 65.
Objective 3: In the mid term (within two years), encourage designation of the Melrose Historic
District as a local historic district. Following up on Objective 2, follow the District
Adoption Steps listed above on page 63.
Objective 4: If the neighborhood becomes a locally designated historic district, adopt a
financial incentive program to support buildings undergoing the design review
process (see Goal 3: Economic Incentives, Objective 4) that could be extended to
district properties. See Home Ownership Incentive Program on page 65.
Objective 5: Consider establishing a regular event (annually or bi-annually) such as an Irving
Weber neighborhood walking tour in conjunction with Irving Weber Days or a
“front porch festival” in order to invite neighbors and Iowa City residents to share
the history of the Melrose Historic District. Such an event will help establish the
importance of the district’s history in the community and for University planners.
Objective 6: Where possible, retain expansive settings of older residences located along Melrose
Avenue including wide and deep lot dimensions, deep set backs and landscaping.
Objective 7: Because of the proximity of major activity nodes for the University (hospitals
and sports venues), the Melrose Historic District is at greater risk than most
campus-adjoining residential neighborhoods. It also has a high potential for
serving as a vital partner for the University by stabilizing the southern edge of its
campus, providing a source of affordable, well-preserved housing, and telling the
story of the University Hospitals and some of the University’s most prominent
sports figures. To reduce the risk for the Melrose Historic District, improved
communication and continued joint planning needs to take place. Joint issues to
be addressed include: a) affirming Melrose Avenue as the long-term boundary
between the Melrose Historic District and the south edge of the University
campus; b) developing joint efforts to sustain the availability of well-maintained,
owner-occupied housing in the Melrose Historic District; and c) improving the
visual relationship between historic residences and parking areas.
105
Objective 8: Spotlight the neighborhood’s history for University and Hospital visitors by
developing a walking tour, beginning at the University Hospital complex, which
includes Melrose Avenue’s historic residences, post-World War I residential
enclaves, Brookland Park, etc. Complete the historic signage program planned by
the Melrose Neighborhood Association.
Objective 9: The University of Iowa 2006 Campus Master Plan identified National Register listed
properties that it owns as heritage properties that should be protected. (see Section
4.5.3 : “Protect the campus’ historic landscape and architectural resources that
positively contribute to its unique identity.”) Though this policy was established
for historic resources within the current campus, it should also apply to properties
owned by the University but located “off-campus” in a National Register Historic
District such as the Melrose Historic District. An effort should be made to
engage University representatives in discussions for specific historic resources
in the Melrose Historic District. University-owned properties include individual
residences along Melrose Court and Melrose Avenue currently used as day-care
or housing, the Huston House (223 Lucon Drive) used as a student cultural
center, and the Caywood Apartment Building/Melrose Apartments (41 Melrose
Avenue).
For example, a comprehensive reuse study should be undertaken for the Caywood
Apartment Building in order to investigate historic preservation strategies
that could make it a vital part of the University campus. A task force including
representatives of the Melrose Historic District could assist the University
in investigating potential use of federal investment tax credits to finance
rehabilitation through the sale of the credits to for-profit entities. Planning
assistance from a group of specialized architects and planners experienced in
academic campus reuse issues and federal historic tax credits should be sought.
Reuse options such as the sale of condominium residential units to Hawkeye
football supporters could be investigated. A planning effort for the Caywood
Apartment Building could serve as a model for future efforts to plan for
historic resources in the Melrose Historic District with both a University and
neighborhood/community interest.
Objective 10: Pursue the Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64.
Other Planning Districts:
Scattered historic properties survive in other parts of the community. In some instances,
farmsteads have been incorporated into modern residential subdivisions. A solitary farmhouse
or barn may survive as testimony to a property’s earlier use. “Rose Hill,” the Irish family residence
at 1415 E. Davenport Street is one such example. Now located along a street of late 20th century
homes near Hickory Hill Park, the 1849 brick house survives as an example of the Greek Revival
Style that typified early Iowa City housing. The house was listed on the National Register by its
owner in 1992 and was designated a local landmark in 1996. The two measures combine good
private and public preservation efforts.
106
10
In other cases, scattered historic properties retain their early open-space settings, agricultural
use, or large acreage sites. The James McCollister Farmstead located at 2460 S. Gilbert Street was
among the first properties locally listed on the National Register when its owner nominated it
in 196. It was designated a local landmark in 1996. The property’s 1864 brick house survives
as an excellent example of the Italianate Style, its substantial size providing evidence of the
early prosperity of Johnson County’s farmers. The McCollister Farmstead is also an example
of a property that is in a location and setting that is likely to see development pressure in the
future. Together, National Register listing and local landmark designation will provide a level of
protection intended to guide changes to the McCollister Farmstead property in the future.
Objective 1: Provisions of the City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance should be retained and
administered to protect scattered historic resources, especially archeological
resources, in largely undeveloped areas of the Northeast, Southeast, South, South
Central and North Corridor Planning Districts.
Objective 2: Completion of a systematic reconnaissance level survey of outlying areas of Iowa
City should be undertaken. Farmsteads, residences, former schools, churches,
commercial buildings, industrial properties, transportation resources such as
bridges and early roadways, and other historic property types should be evaluated
in advance of development taking place.
Objective 3: When appropriate, the HPC should encourage owners to complete National
Register of Historic Places nominations and local landmark designation. Together,
these measures will provide a minimal level of protection for important historic
resources in outlying areas of the community.
Summary: A summary is provided in the table on the following page of many, but not
all, of the neighborhood strategies suggested for the 26 neighborhoods discussed under
Goal 10. Substantially completed objectives are represented by the solid • symbol and
future objectives shown with an open ○ symbol. Objectives with the highest level of
importance are designated as “A” priority and should be initiated in the next two years.
“B” priority objectives are of moderate high importance and can be deferred for two to
five years. “C” priority objectives are of lesser importance or require other activities to be
completed before they are initiated. They can be delayed from in five to eight years. “D”
priority objectives are long-term initiatives to be undertaken in eight to ten years.
101
Summary of Common Neighborhood Strategies x Completed Objectives HD – Historic District (local)
High to Low Priority: A to D ż Future Objectives CD – Conservation District (local) HD-NR – Historic District (Nat’l Register only)
Survey
DistrictAdoption Steps
Communication & Neighborhood Stabilization Steps
TechnicalAssistanceSteps
Neighborhood
Re
c
o
n
.
In
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
HD
o
r
C
D
NR
-
H
D
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
He
r
i
t
a
g
e
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fo
r
u
m
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
,
Up
k
e
e
p
,
&
Co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
Ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
-
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
C
o
r
n
e
r
Ho
m
e
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Vo
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
i
n
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
H
P
Su
r
v
e
y
/
P
r
o
j
.
/
E
v
e
n
t
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
Downtown Planning District:
1. Downtown x x ż ż B ż B ż B ż B ż B ż
2. South Side ż ż A ż B ż C ż
Central Planning District:
3. Brown Street HD x x x x ż A ż A ż A ż B xż A ż B x ż ż
4. Clark Street CD x x x ż C ż A ż A ż C x ż A ż B x ż
5. College Green HD x x x x ż A ż A ż B ż A ż B ż
6. College Hill CD x x x x ż A ż A ż B ż B ż A ż A ż
7. East College Street HD x x x x ż A ż A ż B xż A ż B ż
8. Dearborn Street CD x x x ż A ż A ż C x ż A ż B x ż
9. Dubuque Street Corridor x x ż ż B ż A ż C ż B ż C ż C ż ż B
10. Gilbert-Linn Street HD-NR x x x ż B ż A ż A ż A ż B xż A ż B x ż ż C
11. Goosetown x x ż ż A ż A ż A ż B ż B xż A ż A x ż
12. Governor-Lucas St. CD x x x ż A ż A ż C x ż A ż A ż
13. Jefferson Street HD-NR x x x ż B ż A ż A ż C ż B xż A ż C ż żA
14. Longfellow HD x x x x ż A ż A ż C ż B x ż A ż B x ż
15. Muscatine Avenue Moffitt Cottages HD (in Longfellow)x x x x 16. Oak Grove - Kirkwood Avenue Corridor ż ż B ż ż C ż B ż B ż C ż B ż C ż
17. Lucas Farms - Ginter, Friendly, Highland, Pickard, & Yewell Streets ż ż B ż ż C ż B ż B ż C ż B ż B ż B ż
18. Morningside-City High ż ż C ż ż D ż C ż B ż C ż B ż C ż B ż
19. Rochester Avenue ż ż C ż C ż B ż C ż B ż C ż C ż
20. Summit Street HD x x x x ż A ż A ż C ż B x ż A ż C ż
21. Woodlawn HD x x x x ż A ż A ż C ż B ż A ż C ż
North Planning District:
22. North Dubuque Street/
Montgomery-Butler House ż ż A ż B
23. Tank Town x ż D ż B ż B ż B ż B ż C ż B ż
24. Dubuque Road x ż D ż C ż C ż D ż B ż D ż D ż
Northwest Planning District:
25. Manville Heights ż ż A ż ż B ż B ż A ż C ż B ż B ż C ż ż B
Southwest Planning District:
26. Melrose HD-NR x x x ż A ż A ż A ż B ż B x ż A ż B x ż ż A
Other Planning Districts
ż ż D ż C ż C ż D ż D ż D
108
109
VI. Model for Evaluating Economic Impacts of Historic
Preservation
As part of the update of the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan, Iowa City has requested information
on methodologies to examine the economic benefits of historic preservation. While the cultural,
social, and aesthetic benefits of historic preservation are well known, the economic benefits
have been less well documented and publicized. In recent years, a growing body of studies has
also addressed the economic impacts of preservation. Through this work, researchers have
documented widespread economic activity generated by historic preservation – activity that is
often triggered with modest public investments and incentives.
This growing body of scholarship is making the case for preservation as a vital and cost-effective
economic development tool. In the past, some have considered preservation activities to be
luxuries, undertaken only in a thriving economy – and cut when leaner times forced difficult
budget choices. Yet these new studies demonstrate that preservation can be a powerful economic
engine. Public preservation incentives, such as federal and state tax credit programs, as well
as local incentives such as those described in Appendix K and recommended under Goal 3,
Objective 2 above, can be used to leverage significant amounts of private capital, create local jobs,
and stimulate a wide range of economic activity.
A recent study published by the Brookings Institution reviewed more than 300 studies that have
evaluated some aspect of the economic impacts of preservation. While the study acknowledges
that methodologies vary and that improvements are needed to better gauge these impacts, overall,
the results of the various studies are consistent in their findings:
Historic preservation is typically judged to be a sound investment. By most accounts, it is more efficient and
profitable to preserve a historic building than to construct a new one. Designating a landmark or district
as historical typically maintains if not boosts the value of the property, and as an economic development
tool, historic preservation has proved its worth. Nearly any way the effects are measured, be they direct or
indirect, historic preservation tends to yield significant benefits to the economy. 18
Comments during our Iowa City interviews regularly suggested that, while those involved in the
field of preservation were aware of these positive economic impacts, the message was not reaching
the general public. In addition, there were concerns that, even if positive economic benefits
could be shown in other locations, they may not be valid in Iowa City. Therefore, a study of the
economic impacts of preservation in Iowa City could be extremely valuable and is recommended
as an important first step under Goal 3, Objective 1.
The discussion below outlines a methodology for measuring the economic impact of preservation
in three key areas: rehabilitation, property values, and heritage tourism. In each case, the
methodology is based on successful previous studies. In each case, the methodology proposed
is conservative in that it focuses on only a few, selected economic activities, generally those
that are most easily tracked through established preservation programs. Less accessible, yet still
18Randall Mason, “Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the Literature,” (Brookings
Institution Metropolitan Policy Program), September 2005.
economically significant, data collection areas (such as lodging taxes in historic hotels, or historic
rehabilitations that have not utilized the main public incentives) would yield additional valuable
insights, but would be more difficult and costly to complete. Also, by focusing solely on dollars
generated, we have not addressed preservation activity that cannot be easily quantified, such as
the work of the dedicated volunteers in the community.
A. Rehabilitation
Money spent on the acquisition and rehabilitation of historic properties is the most obvious
economic impact of preservation activities. Studies of this impact generally focus on projects that
take advantage of federal or state tax credits or other funding mechanisms, as these programs
require documentation of expenses in a manner that is difficult to obtain for other similar
projects. In Iowa City, this could include an analysis of projects taking advantage of federal tax
credits, state tax credits, and any grant programs available.
Any economic activity, such as the rehabilitation of historic properties, generates an original, or
“direct” impact, which consists of the actual purchases of labor and materials for the project. In
addition to these direct impacts, any economic activity creates “indirect” impacts. The indirect
impact is the purchase of goods and services by the various industries that produce the items
for the original direct activity. For example, a contractor may purchase paint for a rehabilitation
project. The contractor may also use some of his earnings to buy groceries at a local store. The
purchase of the paint is a direct impact, but the purchase made by the paint factory to produce the
paint, and the purchase of groceries, are the indirect impacts. Economic multipliers can be used
to calculate these indirect impacts.
The combined direct and indirect costs associated with these projects can also be translated
into other metrics, such as jobs created, total household earnings, and tax revenues. Those
various metrics can also be compared to other industries to establish how preservation rates as
an economic activity. For example, in a study of the economic impacts statewide in Colorado,
rehabilitation was found to create 32 jobs per $1 million of direct impact, more than computer
and data processing, trucking, banking services, and manufacturing semiconductors.
A general methodology for the analysis of Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) projects follows:
1. Data Gathering
For ITC projects, administration responsibility is shared between the NPS and the Iowa State
Historic Preservation Office. Thus, there are essentially two sets of records—NPS and SHPO
—that track the same projects. Records for all ITC projects in Iowa City should be obtained for
as long a period as possible, preferably in electronic format. It is likely that only hard copy data
is available for at least some years. This date should be compiled into a computerized database,
and cross-checked against one another for accuracy. As an additional data source, we suggest
examining the NPS-compiled annual statistical report and analysis of the federal tax credit, which
provides an annual total dollar amount and the number of approved projects dating back to 1988
should also be consulted. It is likely that some discrepancies will occur between these various data
sources. Resolving these inconsistencies will demand judgments about the reliability and accuracy
of the various sources.
110
111
Once date is finalized, the total direct value of rehabilitation efforts should be calculated both
annually and cumulatively.
2. Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts typically are calculated using the RIMS II multipliers. RIMS II multipliers
estimate the amount of household economic activities among employees either directly or
indirectly involved with the economic impact. Household economic activities generally reflect
local consumer purchases and general household expenditures. Employees are counted by
job-years – full time employment for one person for one year – and many individuals may fill
a job year. For example, the worker in the lumber factory who produced the porch beams is
represented here, along with the medical services purchased by the contractor who oversaw the
installation of the beams. Of course, the beams may be only one small component of the total
rehabilitation project; the multipliers are intended to approximate the total impact of the entire
rehabilitation project.
RIMS II multipliers are available for a variety of industries and at a variety of regions. The
primary multiplier that should be considered in a study of this type is “other maintenance and
repair” (industry number 12.0300). Additional multipliers are available to compare rehabilitation
with new residential and commercial construction (11.0101, 11.0102, and 11.0800).
RIMS II multipliers have been shown to be statistically similar to survey-based input-output
tables and are updated regularly to include the most recent information on area wage and salary
and personal income data. RIMS II data is also readily available and considered a standard tool
in economic impact studies of all kinds. An important note: These multipliers should not be used
at scales different than those for which they were originally developed. For example, a statewide
multiplier should only be used on statewide data, not on data particular to a county or city. A
specific multiplier may need to developed (based on the statewide RIMS II methodology) if the
city wishes to examine Iowa City data in isolation from other statewide data. Also, multipliers
represent an average and are not indicative of the specific dollar impact of a particular firm or
project. RIMS II multipliers are calculated by historical economic relationships based on national
industry data from 1992 and 199. Because there have been some changes in these relationships
over time, there is bound to be some slight error in the RIMS II multipliers, but generally not
greater than 10 percent, and probably less than that.19
19“Regional Multipliers from the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II): A Brief Description,”
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; available online at www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ regional/
rims/brfdesc.html; accessed 9/21/06.
B. Property Values
In addition to the community-wide
impacts of preservation activities on
the local economy, preservation also
pays dividends to the owners of historic
properties. The most obvious benefit is in
the generally positive impact on property
values of designated properties.
Critics of preservation often claim that
the regulatory requirements associated
with designated historic properties have a
negative impact on property values. Studies
nationwide have repeatedly demonstrated,
however, that property values in designated
areas generally increase at the same level or
faster than for similar properties that are not designated. This conclusion is similar for residential
and commercial areas nationwide.
The property values debate – “What effect does local historic district designation truly have
on property values?” – is a complex issue that involves multiple variables that change widely
depending on each area studied. Analysis of the impacts of historic designation on property
values in Iowa City should ideally look at four indications that express several different aspects of
value over time: rate of appreciation, value comparison, rate of value change, and sale price.
• Total Appreciation Since Designation, or, how have properties in locally designated districts
increased in value compared to the surrounding area?
• Value Comparison and Rate of Value Change, or how much “house” do you get for your
money in a local historic district versus the surrounding area?
• Median Sales Price, or how do homes sales in the historic district relate to sales in the
nearby area?
In addition, because of the prominent role that conservation districts play in Iowa City’s
preservation program, looking at these same questions separately for conservation districts, and
making comparisons between historic districts and conservation districts where possible, would
add additional value to the study.
Key challenges in performing this type of analysis include: identifying appropriate and reliable
data sources; selecting case study neighborhoods for comparisons; and, isolating the impacts of
historic designation from other factors that influence property values.
Federal tax credits aided the restoration of Union Brewery at
Linn and Market Streets.
112
113
C. Heritage Tourism
Another key area in which historic preservation acts as an engine for economic activity is heritage
tourism. Historic areas attract visitors who provide a significant source of revenue for the local
economy.
The term “heritage tourists” refers to both travelers who incorporate at least one visit to a historic
site or landmark among other activities during their visit, and also to the smaller subset of visitors
whose primary reason for traveling is to visit historic places. There has been considerable research
conducted throughout the country on the particular characteristics of “heritage tourists” versus
other pleasure tourists. As documented in studies in both North Carolina and Texas among many
other states, heritage tourists tend to spend more money and stay longer on their trips than do
other travelers.20
Just as with historic rehabilitation projects, the economic impacts of heritage tourism go far
beyond the direct expenditures. Indirect impacts “ripple” through the local economy, as direct
expenses at hotels, restaurants, and retail establishments circulate in the economy.
Data on heritage tourists is generally collected by surveys. A detailed survey of the characteristics
of visitors to Iowa City would be invaluable in establishing the role of this industry in the
community, as well as the impact of those visitors qualifying as heritage tourists. Key issues to be
considered in such a survey include:
• Attributes of Iowa City that Attracted Tourism (e.g., natural features, shopping, events,
museums, etc.)
• How Money was Spent During Visits (e.g., lodging, transportation, entertainment,
etc.)
• Characteristics of Heritage Tourists:
- Length of Visit
- Type of Lodging
- Sightseeing Activities
- Entertainment Activities
- Sports and Recreation Activities
- Household Income
- Age
- Residence Location
This survey information should be supplemented with data from local historic
sites, including regional sites such as the Amana colonies that would likely provide
economic activity in Iowa City.
20Donavan Rypkema, The Impact of Historic Preservation on the North Carolina Economy, (Raleigh: Pres-
ervation North Carolina), 199; and The Center for Urban Policy Research. Historic Preservation Work for the Texas
Economy. (Austin: Texas Historical Commission), 1999.
D. Selected City and Community Level Economic Impact Reports
Other communities have completed similar economic impact studies. A bibliography of some of
these studies that may provide additional assistance in establishing an economic impact study for
Iowa City follows:
Athens-Clarke County Planning Department. Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in
Georgia, A Study of Three Communities: Athens, Rome and Tifton. Atlanta: Historic Preservation
Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1996.
Avault, John, with the assistance of Jane Van Buren. Economic and Fiscal Aspects of Historic
Preservation Development in Boston. Boston: Boston Redevelopment Authority, 1985.
Center for Business and Economic Studies, University of Georgia. Economic Benefits from
the Rehabilitation of Certified Historic Buildings in Georgia: Case Studies. Atlanta: Georgia
Department of Natural Resources; Parks, Recreation, and Historic Sites Division; Historic
Preservation Section, 198.
Clarion Associates. The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Colorado. Denver: Colorado
Historical Foundation. 2005.
Chen, Kim. The Importance of Historic Preservation in Downtown Richmond. Richmond: Historic
Richmond Foundation, 1990.
Gale, Dennis. The Impacts of Historic District Designation in Washington, D.C. Washington:
Center for Washington Area Studies, 1991.
Hammer, Siler, George Associates. Economic Impact of Historic District Designation: Lower
Downtown, Denver. Denver: Office of Planning and Community Development, City and County
of Denver, 1990.
Pearson, Roy L., Ph.D., and Donald J. Messmer, Ph.D. (Mid-Atlantic Research, Inc.,
Williamsburg, Virginia). The Economic Impact of Colonial Williamsburg (Executive Summary
only). Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1989.
Rypkema, Donovan and Katherine M. Wiehagen. The Economic Benefits of Preserving
Philadelphia’s Past. Philadelphia: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, 2000.
Youngblood, Col. George L., et. al. The Economic Impact of Tourism, Generated by the Gettysburg
National Military Park, on the Economy of Gettysburg. N.P. 198.
114
115
IOWA CITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN 2007
Appendices
Appendix A: Chronological Overview of the Historic Preservation Movement in Iowa City,
Iowa: 195-2006
Appendix B: National Register of Historic Places Iowa City Listings
Appendix C: Public Meeting Comment Summaries (North Side/Goosetown, Longfellow, West
Side, and Downtown meetings)
Appendix D: Interview Questions; Summary of Responses; and Individuals Interviewed
Appendix E: Outline for Update of “Iowa City Historic Resources” Multiple Property
Documentation Form including Bibliography
Appendix F: Clarion Associates Recommendation Memorandum
Appendix G: Historic Preservation Commissioners, 1983–2006
Appendix H: Projects Receiving Design Review, 1985–2006
Appendix I: Historic Preservation Award Winners, 1983–2005
Appendix J: Related Historic Preservation Websites
Appendix K: Tax Incentives for Historic Buildings
Appendix L: Maps of Completed and Proposed Historical and Architectural Survey Areas
Appendix M: Map of Iowa City Subdivisions Recorded, 1924–1965
Appendix N: FHP History