Several days ago, we posted about the challenges faced by proponents of preservation-based revitalization in the context of aggressive, large-scale demolition programs launched by federal neighborhood stabilization funding. This “NSP” money for larger cities comes with required Section 106 review, providing roles for both the Ohio Historic Preservation Office and for local consulting parties. Our previous post also referred to ongoing public discussion in Mansfield.Some days after our post, we received information that the City of Mansfield would be hosting a public meeting on Thursday with the purpose of setting forth the city’s obligations and intentions pursuant to a recently-received $1.5 million dollar NSP grant. I attended the meeting for three reasons – first, as Ohio’s statewide preservation organization, we are extremely concerned over the ramifications of the use of such funds if spent on piecemeal versus strategically focused demolition; second, to find out first-hand not only how communities are using such funding, but justifying their approaches; and third, to support the strong downtown and neighborhood preservation programs in Mansfield.
Some aspects of the public meeting are shared at the same link that we provided in our previous post. Here, however, are additional objective perspectives from an “outsider” – someone who knows the city of Mansfield well but who is nevertheless not acquainted with any of the civic leadership in that community.
There are certainly positive aspects to report from the meeting. Although city officials shared and repeated that the meeting was to dispel rumors and allegations that the city was setting out to erase local history, it is commendable that the get-together was held. The invitation list was expansive, and included the city’s historic preservation commission, non-profit groups such as the Richland County Historical Society and Downtown Mansfield, Inc., other interested parties and local media. The City Development Director’s overview of Section 106 requirements, policies and procedures was comprehensive and spot-on.
That shared, there were several areas of serious concern, including the following:
• Slides of Blight - First, there was a slideshow of “blighted” properties from around the city. I was immediately reminded of the “horror story” photos shared by school districts talking about the need for new school buildings – photos taken from the most alarming visual viewpoints, and not necessarily from the most revealing from a replacement or renovation point of view. For example - one photo showed a Mansfield house with trees obstructing its front view, with the observation that that growth rendered the house more susceptible to illegal activity. Instead of the obvious, easy and inexpensive solution, however – cutting down the trees – the unstated assumption was that demolition of the house provided the most logical answer.
Fully half of the photos showed properties that had no historic integrity or interest whatsoever; almost half, however, were properties which would likely be considered to be contributing structures in any potential National Register Historic District. These are not vernacular structures devoid of detail; many retain substantial amounts of original detailing, and some – including Greek Revival and Second Empire houses on South Main Street – are of a style which has almost completely disappeared from the community and should have strong preservation support.
• A Need for Context - This last point brings up a major topic that was completely missing on Thursday evening – the idea of context. There was nothing shared in terms of the possible impact that demolition of selected properties would have on a neighborhood’s historic character, something which is integrally tied to its ability to attract both investment and incentives tied to listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
This is a time where the input and advice of the city’s own historic preservation commission could prove extremely important. By ordinance, the City of Mansfield Historic Preservation Commission acts “…in an advisory role to other officials and departments of local government regarding the protection of local cultural properties,” and “…as liaison on behalf of the local government to individuals and organizations concerned with historic preservation.” Section 1171.04, City of Mansfield Codified Ordinances. In other words, the HPC acts as the city’s own expert when it comes to such matters. Excluding it from the Section 106 consultation process and/or demolition review is not only counter-intuitive, it means that the city would be ignoring its best source of advice – the very body it created to provide that service.
In Mansfield, you also have a ready and willing non-profit partner – Downtown Mansfield, Inc. – ready to serve as the champion for a truly comprehensive neighborhood development initiative centered on capitalizing on historic integrity and character. No one, including DMI, is saying that just because a structure is old should render it immune from loss – rather only that a careful, considered approach is needed to maximize the benefits of selective demolition. The City of Mansfield is incredibly fortunate to have such a partner waiting in the wings.
• Demolition for Demolition's Sake is Not an Answer - There appeared to be an overriding message that the only or even the best way to eradicate blight is to remove an offending property – in other words, to blame a structure for what happens inside of it. The Police and Fire Chiefs shared dramatic numbers about the problems associated with neglected structures. At the same time, however, their own statistics shared that with properly securing such properties, that risk would be substantially reduced. And, as the National Vacant Properties Campaign has shared, demolition does not eliminate blight, or the social costs inherent with it. The following is from their 2005 publication, “Vacant Properties: Their True Cost to Communities" (click here for the entire report).
“Demolishing crumbling vacant buildings does not completely eliminate the costs associated with abandonment. The resulting vacant lots still require maintenance. A study of vacant lots in Philadelphia estimated that the city and closely related public agencies spent $1.8 million annually on cleaning vacant lots. At the current level of activity and assuming a three percent inflation rate, this adds up to $49.6 million over the course of twenty years. The study only included the costs of five out of the fifteen agencies that have a role in vacant property management.
Rehabilitation is clearly a better choice. An examination of the St. Paul, Minnesota budget for maintenance and security costs associated with vacant buildings revealed that while demolition saves $4,697,25 the rehabilitation of a vacant building will save an estimated $7,141 in maintenance costs over a twenty-year period.”
The publication goes on to note that vacant lots dramatically reduce the property values and reinvestment potential of surrounding property, and profiles why piecemeal demolition is not the answer.
At the end of the meeting, an attendee questioned city officials on why their presentation centered on the idea of sharing the problems of “blight” which, he stated, needed no explanation. Indeed, the evening seemed to center on the problem, and not on the solution. The City of Mansfield could, if it chose, do something dramatic and pacesetting with this and future NSP grants. Unlike many other communities, it has citizens ready to help -- a trained and willing local historic preservation commission, and a non-profit partner with demonstrated expertise in downtown revitalization. It could – and should – examine the affected neighborhoods and ascertain their eligibility for National Register status (in fact, some of this work has probably already been done through the Ohio Historic Inventory process). It could – and should – allow a non-profit partner to review the affected neighborhoods and obtain expert advice on the best paths toward revitalization. It could – and should – set the model in Ohio for innovative and successful traditional neighborhood revitalization.
Photo: Downtown Mansfield - Creative Commons License
What happens when you ask the right questions of the right people? You get great responses, that’s what. Such is the case with the results of the Fall 2009 Survey recently conducted by Preservation Ohio.
A handful of items which have recently come across the Preservation Ohio desk – or items which we would like to bring to your attention:
Over the last few months, several Ohio preservation and downtown revitalization organizations have established a more thorough presence on Facebook with the creation of an official “Page.”
Tuesday’s day-long workshop in Columbus, co-sponsored by Preservation Ohio and the Columbus Landmarks Foundation, turned out to be more of a conversation than a series of staid presentations. From the beginning breakfast panel discussion on local building issues in Columbus, all the way to the final session of the day, the emphasis was combining the latest information on financial incentives for preservation with the opportunity to dialogue with experts on each of those tools.
On Tuesday, I will be speaking on the subject of historic conservation easements at “Financial Incentives for Historic Properties,” a day-long workshop on tax benefits for preservation work co-sponsored by Preservation Ohio and the Columbus Landmarks Foundation.
Its always a pleasure to report on positive news concerning current and former listings on the annual List of Ohio’s Most Endangered Historic Sites – and we’ve heard some over the last several weeks that we’d like to share.