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.”

Advertisements

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.

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.

Baltimore interest groups are using a range of initiatives to handle the pressing issues of a shrinking city. Many neighborhoods are facing the same problems – too many vacant properties and abandoned buildings – but they are dealing with them in different ways. For instance, we saw how the City’s Code Enforcement Department is dealing with the issue from an economic perspective, in which code enforcement fees will assist in repairing or demolishing some of the properties. This enforcement process will even help acquire some of the properties (through a receivership process), which can then be sold to private developers in attempts to revitalize certain distressed areas. In addition, we witnessed how grassroots efforts at the neighborhood level could create community spaces that beautify the neighborhood, help the environment, and raise surrounding property values when led by residents themselves, as was the case with the Homestead Harvest Community Garden . On a larger scale, we learned how a nonprofit public/private partnership, East Baltimore Development Inc., was transforming East Baltimore through community initiatives and economic development, with a new neighborhood school and in cooperation with developers and Johns Hopkins University to create a science and technology park. The range of actors involved is also very broad, ranging from community groups led by residents, to small non-profits, large partnerships, and the City of Baltimore itself.

The proposed Science & Technology Park in the East Baltimore neighborhood

(http://www.forestcityscience.net/hopkins/sciencepark.shtml)

The diversity of the groups involved has led to a diversity of solutions, and I think that in the end, it’s going to need to be a combination of all these initiatives and actors that will help Baltimore successfully tackle this issue. There doesn’t seem to be a one-size-fits-all approach to handle these problems between or within shrinking cities, so the combination of social, economic, and environmental initiatives is what will bring the greatest improvement to the city. The City of Baltimore should continue to embrace initiatives by these groups and encourage more ideas and projects to occur at the neighborhood level. Essentially, we learned that it takes team work to stabilize shrinking cities!

Abandoned rowhouses, Baltimore. http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tags/northave/interesting/

Walking through East Baltimore’s blocks of abandoned rowhouses and vacant lots, it’s hard to imagine what was. In the 1950s, the city was a thriving port and manufacturing center, the landscape of smokestacks indicating prosperity. In the second half of the twentieth century, Baltimore struggled severely, losing thousands of middle class manufacturing jobs that had once propelled this strong economic engine. When the jobs left, so did people–to the tune of almost 300,000 people since 1970. This incredible loss of population and jobs is laid bare in the built environment, with 17,000 vacant homes and lots across Baltimore. The abandoned homes, in particular, provide a haven for drugs and other illegal activity, exacerbating the pervasive social problems that plague the city.

Much has been written about the East Baltimore Development, Inc. plan to completely reinvent Middle East Baltimore adjacent to Johns Hopkins University’s medical campus; this effort will certainly make inroads on the vacant property problem in Baltimore, but it’s not a solution that will work anywhere else. In my opinion, small, incremental efforts at the neighborhood scale will be key in reducing the number of abandoned homes and lots; I find the most compelling of these strategies to be creating parks, open space, urban farms, and community gardens. This green infrastructure doesn’t just reclaim vacant property; it also offers an opportunity to strengthen connections among residents, to improve the quality of the land and water in the city, to provide Baltimoreans with healthier food options, and to teach technical skills to an underdeveloped workforce.

Harvest, http://cdn0.mattters.com/photos/photos/1081251/salads.jpg

Parks and People is the foremost resource for those who want to create green space in their neighborhoods. They offer a number of tools on their web site, including the comprehensive Guide to Greening Neighborhoods: Creating and Caring for Neighborhood Open Space.  The guide gives detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to plan, design, build, and maintain community space, including technical details about what to plant, advice for organization roles in each step of the process, and instructions for navigating the legal aspects of using the property.

Once a community green space is established, Baltimore Green Space is one of the resources that can help protect the space from redevelopment in perpetuity. The organization is a new land trust that works with communities to preserve the green infrastructure they have built and maintained, even though according to existing zoning the green use might not be the fullest and best use of the land. The land trust approach allows the community to have control over their green space, doing the planting, weeding, and other work, while Baltimore Green Space handles the details like taxes, legal papers, and technical assistance.

The City of Baltimore has begun to show formal support for green infrastructure as a strategy for dealing with their vacant and abandoned property problem. The 2009 Sustainability Plan outlined an effort to modify the city’s zoning code to allow for urban agriculture, increasing the number of gardens, farms, and cultivated green space in the city. Furthermore, the plan calls for incentives for urban agriculture and a strong urban agriculture strategy that can respond to the underserved market for healthy foods in the city.