From SOHOOn Saturday, May 9, nearly 100 attendees joined us via Zoom for a truly outstanding program featuring a presentation by Donovan Rypkema, principal and founder of PlaceEconomics, on San Diego’s landmark study, The Urban Vitality Blueprint: A Data-Driven Analysis of Equity, Affordability, and Vitality in San Diego’s Historic Districts.
Rypkema’s presentation was followed by a robust 30-minute Q&A, which deepened the discussion and offered additional insight into the findings, implications, and broader importance of the work. Those in attendance left with a clearer understanding of how historic preservation in San Diego functions not only as cultural stewardship, but as a measurable driver of economic and community vitality.
This study gives us exactly what is so often needed in public conversations about preservation: a strong factual foundation. When preservation is questioned or misunderstood, we are now able to respond not only with lived experience and professional expertise, but with rigorous, independent research. As Donovan made clear, we now have data.
To that end, we are pleased to share with you:
- The full report, The Urban Vitality Blueprint: A Data-Driven Analysis of Equity, Affordability, and Vitality in San Diego’s Historic Districts
- The recorded presentation from Saturday, May 9, 2026
If you were not able to attend, or if you were and would like to revisit the material, we strongly encourage you to take the time to engage with this content. It is essential reading and viewing for anyone who cares about San Diego’s historic neighborhoods, its historic places, and the future of thoughtful, evidence-based planning in our region.At a moment when so many civic conversations feel fragmented or reactive, this work offers something rare and valuable: clarity. It shows, with data and analysis, what many of us already understand in practice—historic preservation is not an obstacle to progress, but one of its most reliable and underappreciated tools.
We urge you to: Watch and review the presentation for yourself, share widely within your networks, post it on social media, forward to friends, neighbors, and colleagues and with those who may not yet understand the value of preservation and bring it into your community organizations, planning groups, historical societies, and civic discussions. This is important work, and it is work that benefits from being widely seen, understood, and discussed.
We want to extend our sincere gratitude to those who made this study—and this program—possible. Major donors and preservation partners Geoff Hueter and Laura Henson, Mission Hills Heritage, and the 85+ individual donors who stepped forward in recognition of the importance of grounding preservation work in credible, independent data.
Thank you all for being part of this effort and for helping ensure that San Diego’s historic places are understood, valued, and sustained.
Save Our Heritage Organisation | (619) 297-9327 | email | SOHOsandiego.org
One of the most NIMBY things I read in a while. Please do not spread this BS, you’re better than this.
What is BS and NIMBY about the report?
For one thing, the report touts the growing percentage of homes owned by members of minorities in the historic districts – as though there are Asian, Hispanic and Black people moving into these neighborhoods. But in reality, it’s because they use the dates 2010 through 2023 as markers. That’s when parts of City Heights and other minority-majority areas were added.
Black, Asian and Hispanic people are not moving to these areas, but the report implies this. It’s easy to see the trick, but you need to look at the details.
You are incorrect, there is only one tiny historic district in City Heights, not a factor in the overall numbers.
I didn’t say City Heights was the only district added between 2010 and 2023 – I said it was one of them. Two in Golden Hill with more than 700 homes were added in like 2017 and 2019, according to the city
If it’s the case that a higher percentage of minority race owners bought in these districts between 2010 and 2023, then show the numbers, because that’s what you imply in the text of the analysis.
The reality is that more districts in minority-owner heavy areas were created. But you don’t say that in the analysis.
It’s tilted.
Once again not correct, there was was only one district added that time frame in the Golden Hill area. The South Park District of 300 homes. in 2017. The other district was addend in 1978.
300 instead of 700? My mistake.
Yet that, the City Heights addition, and the others are far more likely the reason there were more minority-race owners in San Diego’s historic districts than what your statistical analysis implies.
Still tilted.
No.
Wow, thanks. That explains everything.
Tilted stats, tilted results.
Do you have an actual question? I’ll be happy to tryto answer.