The following was originally published in the Cleveland Restoration Society's Façade, Issue 94, Winter 2014.
Between January 2010 and June 2013 over 3100 homes and over
200 commercial buildings were torn down in the City of Cleveland. An additional
8,000 city homes identified by inspectors as vacant and distressed will cost
approximately $80 million to demolish. In
October 2014 the Cuyahoga County Council approved a $50 million bond issue for
additional demolition.
Supported by a James Marston Fitch Charitable Foundation
Mid-Career Grant, I explored the impact of demolition efforts on Cleveland’s
neighborhoods. With assistance from project intern Eugene Basile I used mapped
GIS data from NEO CANDO and the City of Cleveland to analyze implementation of
existing plans related to rehabs and demolitions and to explore patterns of
demolition, rehabs, and density change from January 2010 to June 2013. I used maps of land use and building form to
rapidly identify remaining intact clusters of historic commercial fabric and
surrounding neighborhoods.
Building stock is being lost at significant rates in some
neighborhoods. Overall, Cleveland lost 2.7% of its 1-3 family housing stock and
1.6% of commercial buildings from January 2010-June 2013. Twelve neighborhoods
lost more than 5% of their 1-3 family housing stock during this time, and two
of those neighborhoods, Fairfax and Kinsman, lost more than 10%. Within Landmark
Districts, less building stock is being lost, but the protective value of the
Landmark designation is limited. Eighty-five percent of demolition proposals
that went before the Landmarks Commission, and 93% of demolition proposals that
went through a local Design Review Committee and then to the Planning
Commission, were approved in 2010-2013.
Increasing property values are a goal of using public funds
for both rehab and demolition. In a 2013 study commissioned by the Thriving
Communities Institute,[i] in
higher priced markets the benefit of demolition on property values was
significant, but in weaker markets, which included most of the City of
Cleveland, demolition resulted in property value benefits that are less than
the cost of demolition. Subsidies for rehab several times greater
than the cost of demolition may be justified if rehab is shown to have an
equivalent higher impact on property values compared to demolition. More
research is needed to quantify this impact. The majority of the
community development respondents I surveyed would choose to invest $100,000 of
subsidy in one rehab, assuming that it would result in a successful sale,
rather than using the $100,000 to tear down ten houses.
I wanted to determine if demolitions were occurring at a
rate high enough to significantly affect the density of Cleveland’s
neighborhoods. Density is a city’s basic competitive advantage over the
suburbs. Dense areas supply enough people to create a sense of energy and
liveliness, and they support transit and walkable retail areas close to where
people live. Less car use means less
need for parking and more ability to create a pedestrian and bike-friendly
environment. Historic neighborhoods were
often built at high urban densities that contribute to an area’s character and
sense of place.
The Enterprise Green Communities Standard identifies 10 units/acre as the threshold for urban density, a threshold that 24 of 34 Cleveland neighborhoods currently meet[ii]. Some neighborhoods in Cleveland are transitioning from urban densities to more suburban densities, including Fairfax and North Broadway. Woodland Hills, St. Clair Superior, Stockyards, South Collinwood, North Broadway, Mt. Pleasant, Glenville, Forest Hills, Fairfax, and Clark Fulton all lost 0.4 net units per acre or more from 2010-2013– more than twice the city average.
If a shrinking city cannot sustain high densities
everywhere, identifying concentrated areas of density surrounded by lower
densities and greenspace is a relevant strategy. I proposed focusing residential density around
historic commercial clusters.
While many isolated buildings are architecturally significant or have storied pasts, they have relatively little competitive advantage to contribute to neighborhood revitalization, compared to historic buildings that are grouped together. When they are concentrated next to each other they create a sense of place that gives identity to a neighborhood. The effect of an outdoor room is created by buildings that are built up to the sidewalk and enclose the space. With enough storefronts, a sense of vibrancy and community is created that helps support retail businesses.
 |
| Woodhill and Stoughton Historic Commercial Cluster, Aerial View (Credit: Google Maps) |
 |
| Woodhill and Stoughton Historic Commercial Cluster, Street View (Credit: Google Street View) |
A series of historic commercial clusters (HCCs) creates a strong
historic district that might be anchored by a theatre or a market, but HCCs can
be smaller and still have the critical mass necessary to support urban life. In
terms of retail capacity an HCC can be thought of as the size of a neighborhood
convenience strip center of 4000 – 20,000 sq ft, unanchored by a grocery store
or drug store chain.
I used land use and building footprint maps in concert with
Google Street View to identify HCCs within the city of Cleveland. In a
departure from traditional historic preservation planning, I focused only on
historic building form, and not on architectural significance, condition or
historic legacy. Pre-1940 buildings in any state of disrepair, alteration, or
use could be renovated and contribute to the sense of place in an HCC. To
identify the clusters I looked for commercial buildings with storefronts adjacent
to the sidewalk, with 5 storefronts on three corners of an intersection, or
with 10 contiguous storefronts on both sides of the street (with a few caveats
and variations). The clusters were then verified with an on-the-ground check.
Many of the HCCs outside of designated landmark and design review areas are
deteriorated and in danger of being lost, with several disappearing between
2011 (when the Google Street View image was taken) and 2014.
 |
| Historic Commercial Clusters with 5 minute walk radius, west side Cleveland (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Historic Commercial Clusters with 5 minute walk radius, southeast Cleveland (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Historic Commercial Clusters with 5 minute walk radius, northeast Cleveland (click to enlarge) |
The idea of focusing rehabs and density in neighborhoods around
HCCs received mostly positive feedback from representatives of community
development corporations. The HCCs could
each form the heart of a higher density, walkable, historic cluster
neighborhood in an area within 1/4 mile radius of the HCC. The walkability of
the higher density neighborhoods would support the commercial cluster by
providing foot traffic for businesses while the historic retail development
would support the sense of place and urban feel of the surrounding
neighborhood.
[i]
Griswold, Nigel G. et al. Estimating the
Effect of Demolishing Distressed Structures in Cleveland 2009 to 2013: Impacts
on Real Estate Equity and Mortgage-foreclosure,, Western Land Conservancy
Thriving Communities Institute, February 2013. Http://www.wrlandconservancy.org/pdf/FinalReportwithExecSummary.pdf
[ii]
Enterprise Community Partners. 2011 Green
Communities Criteria, page 28, 2011. http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/solutions-and-innovation/enterprise-green-communities/criteria
