Register Now for the Reclaiming Vacant Properties Conference

From the Center for Community Progress:

REGISTRATION IS OPEN FOR OCTOBER’S RECLAIMING VACANT PROPERTIES CONFERENCE IN CLEVELAND!

Community Progress is pleased this year to partner with Neighborhood Progress, Inc. to bring you Reclaiming Vacant Properties: the Intersection of Sustainability, Revitalization, and Policy Reform. Join with us, and hundreds of your peers from communities across the country, to learn about the policies, tools, and strategies to catalyze long-term, sustainable revitalization. Share your experiences and insights, and become a part of the only national network focused on building the knowledge, leadership, and momentum to reclaim vacant and abandoned properties to foster thriving neighborhoods.

This engaging conference offers you three days of opportunities to build the skills and relationships to transform your communities:

• Pre-conference training seminars on key strategies, including land banking, re-imagining older industrial cities, data and research, selling houses in weak markets, and taking nuisance abatement to scale.
• Mobile workshops showcasing some of Cleveland’s successes, including adaptive reuse, community visioning, and legal tools in Slavic Village, historic preservation and brownfield revitalization in Detroit Shoreway, urban agriculture and green building throughout the city, and transit oriented development along the Euclid Corridor.
• 35 interactive breakout sessions covering the full range of issues related to revitalization, including assessing tax incentives, accessing REOs and other foreclosure innovations, state and federal policy, temporary uses on vacant land, creative financing, decision making for site reuse, municipal code enforcement, and much more.
• Plenaries highlighting innovative leadership and a keynote by Alex Kotlowitz (award-winning journalist and best-selling author.)
• Networking opportunities allowing you time to exchange ideas with and get to know peers.
• A new Poster Session designed so you can talk directly with even more experts.

We look forward to seeing you in October for this unique conference! Visit the conference web site to download the program and register.

A few additional notes about the conference:

• One more opportunity to present: There is still an opportunity to participate as a presenter through the Poster Session. The Poster Session will offer conference participants one more way to hear about interesting case studies, research efforts, or projects. Proposals are due July 15th so don’t delay. If you already submitted an idea for a poster through the program RFP, you do not need to resubmit. Visit the program page on the web site to find out the details.
• Scholarships: We hope to be able to post the application for registration scholarships soon. A limited number of scholarships will be available to nonprofit, public sector, or grassroots individuals. Watch for an update soon.

 

Shrinking Cities News Round-Up: Cleveland Shrinks, Rochester Downsizes

After a spate of news about Detroit, this edition of the news round-up focuses on three other cities: Cleveland, Rochester and Buffalo:

Cleveland Tops Census’ Shrinking List; Local Columnist Says City is Stabilizing
Last week, the U.S. Census Bureau released population estimates for 2009, showing Cleveland with the largest numerical decline of residents last year – followed by two Michigan cities, Detroit and Flint. According to the Census’ estimate, Cleveland lost 2,658 residents, or nearly 1 percent. But a local columnist at the Cleveland Plain-Dealer points out that the decline is actually about 0.6 percent, indicating that the city’s population may finally be stabilizing.

• Read: Cleveland Tops List of Shrinking Cities
• Read: A Shrinking Cleveland May Have Hit Population Bottom

In New York, Rochester Embraces Downsizing, Buffalo Still Reluctant
Rochester has joined the ranks of fellow shrinking city Detroit, and embraced downsizing. The city has acknowledged its dramatic loss of population, and is now to committed to “consciously and intelligently shrink.” Over the next 20 years, the city will relocate residents to eliminate at least 40 residential blocks, and convert the land into parks, greenways, gardens, and farms. Buffalo – another shrinking city about 70 miles away – is still reluctant to embrace the notion of downsizing.

• Read: Shrinking of Cities Catches Traction

 

Urban narrative in Shrinking Cities

Please check out Al Letson’s State of the Re:Union (SO TRU) from NPR, with two first person reports on Shrinking Cities: Motor City Rebound and Milwaukee: City of Vision.  Also, check out the inaugural episode of this program, focusing on DC and neighborhoods such as Shaw and H Street.  About State of the Re:Union:

“For every episode of State of the Re:UNION, we travel to a different American city or town and ask the questions; What makes Community? Who are the people that help bring it together? What issues do they face..?”

 

The Things We Say But Do Not Do

Some of you may remember the movie “Jerry McGuire.”  In it, Tom Cruise plays a sports agent sickened by the exploitation of his clients.  He has a crisis of concience, which leads him to write a memo, which morphs into a book on reshaping a more eithical sports management profession, “The Things We Think But Do Not Say.”  It’s core elements are: fewer clients, less money, more personal contact.

The day after printing this document and circulating it at an industry convention, Jerry realizes he’s sabotaged his career and desperately tries to get every copy back.  He’s not successful; as he walks through the lobby of the convention hotel, expecting a stoning, he instead recieves a standing ovation.  Jerry– and the audience — think that people have understood the rightness of his cause.

Then the camera focuses in on two of his co-workers as they applaud him.  “How long before they fire him?” one asks.  “I’ll give him ’til the end of the week” says the other, which turns out to be about right.

In the article “The Suburban Exodus: Are We There Yet?” New Geography writer Wendell Cox makes a compelling case that, despite the message from the design and planning professions that Americans are in the midst of abandoning the suburbs for dense urban neighborhoods, what the preference for — and numbers of — detached housing is actually rising.  Cox sites as a major element of his arguement the failure of condo conversions in multiple urban areas around the country.

In the commentary on this June 4, 2010 article, commentor epar states that Cox’s  conclusions are wrong because he is conflating the failure of the condo market with people’s desires for the urban lifestyle.

Maybe epar is missing the point.  It seems that the credit bubble, as the shrinking cities studio saw in Cleveland, would affect properties in all classes equally.  Homes, condos, etc. would go begging and the effects would be more determined by the credit profiles of a community than their planning/design profiles.  Also, to the extent that the multi-story urban condo is pretty much the antithesis of the mcmansion on the big lot, if people really were rejecting the suburban model this typology would be a strong selection.  Cox’s data indicates that is not the case.  Despite the existence of surveys in which people say they want more urban communities.

Shrinking cities like Cleveland are places that suffer the most from “wishful planning;” design, development and zoning decisions that don’t take a good, hard look at what people really do.  The explosion of condo development is due, at least in part, to the professions’ promotion of this typology as a key example of smart growth.

Is it possible that the built environment professions are engaging in “wishful planning” regarding dense, urban, live-work development?  Is this type of develop even necessary in shrinking cities, when land is often readily available to build suburban-style developments in the urban areas?  Can we afford to promote the ‘best’ typologies and uses, when so many communities just need bodies?

 

Obama refocusing on suburbs?

In a recent commentary in Newsweek, Lawrence C. Levy wrote that as a part of the push for healthcare reform, President Obama has “rediscovered” the suburbs, i.e., remembered that many of America’s swing voters live in suburban communities.  Also, that these communities are represent a more complicated and diverse demographic than in previous years.

Levy points out that today’s suburbs have many of the same problems that have been endemic to urban areas for decades.  He also makes the case that suburbs are challenged in solving these problems precisely because of their disconnected nature.

The article  seems to suggest that the administration will refocus their efforts on rebuilding the suburbs, beyond the needs of this particular legislative effort.  How true do you think this is?

Has Obama rediscovered the suburbs?

 

Shrinking Cities News Round-Up: Vacant Properties and Public Safety

In addition to being eyesores, vacant and abandoned properties also threaten public safety. These properties can become breeding grounds for criminal activity and arson, placing strain on the city’s resources and police and fire departments – as evidenced by these recent news stories from Detroit:

• Early Morning Arson Claims Vacant Properties
  Arson investigators are continuing their investigation of eight fires set early last Tuesday morning, all of which were vacant buildings.

• Police Officer Killed in Shootout at Vacant Duplex
  Earlier this month, one officer was killed and four others wounded while responding to a report of gunshots at a vacant property. According to neighbors, drugs were being sold out of the building.

• City Leaders Plan Demolitions to Cut Crime
  Buoyed by the police shootings, the Detroit City Council is working with Mayor David Bing to expedite a new city ordinance to hold property owners more accountable for their properties. The Mayor’s office is also using data to examine the correlation between crime and vacancies, which will inform the demolition of 3,000 rundown homes this year that will “cut crime and improve quality of life.”

 

East Baltimore Redevelopment Project a Model for Effective Eminent Domain

Real property in the United States is deeply entrenched in constitutional statutes that protect the rights vested through ownership.  The vast web of legal control is designed to support private enjoyment and curtail unnecessary interference from the government.  These fundamental characteristics of American property law can create enormous obstacles for cities and towns striving to remedy issues of property abandonment and vacancy.  Abandoned properties often slip into a state of legal limbo because the motivation of ownership has been lost through financial hardships, or diluted by the anonymous nature of institutional investment vehicles.  This is where the powerful yet controversial tool of eminent domain comes into play.  The Kelo backlash has put shrinking cities in a difficult position in that eminent domain is a critical component to redeveloping vacancy induced blight on a neighborhood scale.  As noted in a previous post, the East Baltimore Development project run by EBDI has created a very equitable relocation program for displaced residents of the Middle East Baltimore neighborhood.  This relocation program is just one several components that make the East Baltimore project a model for effective Kelo prescribed eminent domain authority.  The foundation of the east Baltimore model is community involvement. Neighborhood residents have substantial interaction with the project in all phases. Numerous channels of communication have been established, and multiple organizations such as the resident-formed Save Middle East Action Committee (SMEAC) and the Annie E Casey Foundation ensure resident voices are heard.  These measures have created an open and collaborative dialogue between EBDI and neighborhood residents.  While progress has been made, statutory reform is required to make the East Baltimore model the standard rather than an outlier.  As Jim Kelly, director of the Community Development Clinic at the University of Baltimore puts it, ‘if eminent domain is ever to play its essential role in a just redevelopment of a severely deteriorated urban neighborhood, then the rights of residents to plan the redevelopment and remain in the redeveloped community must be guaranteed by law.”

 

What can Baltimore teach other Shrinking Cities?

As the previous post on this blog pointed out, there is no one-size-fits-all model for right-sizing shrunken cities (I’m increasingly drawn to this term rather than the more conventional shrinking cities, as several of the places that we focus on appear to have finally stemmed their population loss in recent years). However, just as Baltimore can learn from the like of Cleveland and Philadelphia, there is little doubt it can also teach other cities a thing or two. In particular, I was impressed with Baltimore’s demolition and relocation programs:

• Demolitions – Before I visited Baltimore, I had only considered the social implications of demolishing vacant structures, not the public safety aspect. While it is relatively straightforward to bulldoze the single-family detached dwellings that are commonplace in much of America, Baltimore’s vacant homes are typically row houses, making the process far more complicated and dangerous. Rosa Hart Burenstine, a resident of East Baltimore who helped write the Demolition Protocols, claimed they have been an unqualified success when it comes to dealing with hazards such as lead dust, making them “the only steps to take when demolition is involved.” Apparently her view is endorsed by experts from institutions including the EPA and the University of Pennsylvania. I am disinclined to agree with Rosa’s assertion that the Protocols should be adopted across the country, as she has apparently failed to appreciate the empowering nature of involving residents such as herself in the process, but there is no reason why they could not be used as a starting point for other cities dealing with similar issues.

• Relocations – Whenever cities try to move people out of their homes, there are understandable tensions. The reason for the relocation might be anything from rising sea levels to building infrastructure to host the Olympic Games, but the one constant is that there are always people who react angrily to the decision. Baltimore’s current relocation program is based on two main objectives: demolishing whole rows of houses that are deemed surplus to requirements, and redeveloping houses that are in a poor state of repair. The East Baltimore Revitalization Initiative, led by East Baltimore Development Inc. (a non-profit largely funded by a TIF), has attempted to soften the blow of its relocation program by offering people a selection of houses and neighborhoods to choose from. While this choice always includes refurbished houses in their own communities, sometimes just a block away, most residents have moved to areas that have higher employment rates and that perform better against a whole host of quality-of-life indicators. Those whose previous homes are being redeveloped will also be given the chance to move back into them under a ‘first-right-to-return’ policy. Furthermore, there is ongoing support provided to people after their move to help them make a successful transition. Chris Shea, President of East Baltimore Development Inc. seemed rather disappointed that so few people (approximately 1.4%) had chosen to stay in their neighborhoods considering the high quality of the new housing stock. He shouldn’t be. Two independent surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority of those residents affected by the relocation program have a positive view of the experience. The amount of choice available, the quality of the houses on offer, and the post-relocation support are undoubtedly the main reasons for this unusually high level of satisfaction, and other cities would do well to learn from Baltimore in this regard. My main reservation is that there seems to be far more funding available for this relocation program than for other relocation programs I have heard about previously. If this is the case, it could prove difficult for Baltimore to maintain such high standards and for other cities to replicate them.

 

What can Baltimore learn from other Shrinking Cities?

One of many vacant properties in Baltimore, Maryland

The dysfunctional condition of real estate markets in shrinking cities, along with the neglect of conventional planning models to address issues of vacancy, abandonment and population loss, have directed leaders in Cleveland, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other cities, to pursue innovative revitalization strategies. One aspect of this process is the acquisition of vacant lots, in which the city of Baltimore has exceeded all expectations. As part of its anti-blight initiative, Project 5000, Mayor O’Malley established the ambitious goal of acquiring 5000 vacant and abandoned properties in order to promote new development, eliminate neighborhood blight and improve the quality of life of Baltimoreans. By 2007, the City had acquired and cleared title of more than 6,000 properties, setting the stage for development projects by different sectors and becoming a nationally recognized model for efficient partnerships and large-scale property acquisition. Furthermore, through its custom-built database and code enforcement actions, the City has created an effective toolbox for the clearance and maintenance of blighted properties, some of which have become thriving community gardens.

In spite of Baltimore’s commendable success in confronting and preventing neighborhood blight, gaining control of abandoned properties and establishing a growing network of green infrastructure, the City recognizes that effective strategies for the disposition of its vacant lots are still absent. Innovative mechanisms are needed to put these properties to good use and restructure the city’s physical environment in a way that responds to its current realities and those of its residents. As we have seen through the experiences of other shrinking cities, disposition of vacant properties is a common challenge. In response, a variety of programs and initiatives have been implemented in places like Cleveland and Philadelphia that test new approaches to right-sizing. Clearly, there is no one-size-fits-all model; however, by building on the strengths and learning from the experiences of other shrinking cities, Baltimore can design appropriate tools that are more in line with its urban context.

Urban Voids Winner: Waterwork by Charles Loomis Chariss McAfee Architects

One idea could be organizing a design competition around the issues of a shrinking city. This strategy was adopted in the Philadelphia LANDVisions project through the Urban Voids design competition, a collaborative effort partly funded by the National Endowment for the Arts.  This initiative invited entries to create new design alternatives for the city’s vacant properties and asked proposals to engage neighborhood community groups in their implementation concepts.  Cleveland has also undertaken a similar approach through its annual Cleveland Design Competition, an effort initiated in 2007 in order to start dialogue around the underutilized areas of the city. Both competitions have been considered a success mainly because the winning entries have effectively incorporated sustainability, social and economic components into their proposals, addressing some of the most critical issues of shrinking cities.

Building upon the experience of places like Cleveland and Philadelphia, Baltimore can support a design competition initiative, engaging its residents and bringing together talented minds from around the country (and the world).  This effort can set the stage for professionals in the planning, policy and design fields to work collaboratively in formulating innovative right-sizing strategies while creating a more participatory planning model.

 

The Future is Less

Those who have studied the history of the shrinking cities movement will know that many policy ideas emanated from the crisis that faced the former East Germany following reunification, as hundreds of thousands of people soon migrated to the prosperous cities of the West in search of a better life. The passage of time and the  increasingly innovative ideas that are on display in American cities such as Youngstown, Ohio have naturally meant that the German cities no longer command quite the attention that they once did, even though many of them continue to experience large-scale population loss and all of its attendant problems.

Fortunately, the city planners, academics and other interested stakeholders in these cities have apparently picked up the baton from the trailblazers that preceded them. They are once again demonstrating the kind of radical thinking that may yet succeed in changing the fortunes of such places, devising cutting-edge policies that are designed to turn adversity into opportunity. Among a host of initiatives in the city of Dessau-Rosslau, reported upon in Rainer Müller’s article for Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,688152,00.html), perhaps the most eye-catching is that of ‘city islands’. According to Heike Brückner, one of the city planners behind the concept, “buildings will be cut out and in the empty spaces we will insert countryside.”

At first glance, this may not seem like such a novel idea; post-industrial American cities such as Cleveland certainly have their fair share of de facto city islands. But therein lies the difference. In American cities, as well as those facing similar problems in my home country of Britain, we still tend to allow our cities to arrive in such a state by accident rather than by design. The economic growth imperative means that it is nearly always politically unfeasible to admit the population that had been lost cannot one day be recovered, so we uncover every stone in search of a financing mechanism that will enable us to attempt another risky infill regeneration project.

In German cities, or at least in Dessau-Rosslau, the acceptance of the permanence of the shrunken city has allowed the policy-makers to create a bold vision for the future. The means of achieving it may not to be everyone’s liking – the approach to demolitions sounds unusually aggressive, for starters – and there is no denying the report’s assertion that the German vision is ‘not exactly sexy’. However, there is also no denying that the German vision is a good deal more realistic than the rose-tinted versions that continue to prevail elsewhere. German cities may no longer command the attention that they once did among those who concern themselves with the fortunes of shrinking cities, but that does not mean that we should cease to look to them for inspiration. Dessau-Rosslau is admittedly an extreme case, having lost a third of its population in the last two decades, but other city-leaders might do well to consider if they could benefit their citizens by giving up the search for silver bullets and focusing on finding silver linings instead.