COMMENTARY
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-Albert Einstein
(Editor's note: one would think that a glimpse into recent past history would provide a demonstration that destroying vintage buildings in our downtown neighborhoods is not the path to progress. Stand at the police station and gaze across the street at the vacant lot where the beautiful Victorian City Hall used to stand - a building, by the way, for which the Police Station serves as pale imitation. Streetscape is important in urban renewal. Think of what the revived Harlem would be like if every abandoned building had been leveled as blighted during the sad days at the end of the 20th century. People enjoy Middletown's Main Street precisely because it largely survived the wrecking ball of urban renewal. We cannot make downtown neighborhoods better by eliminating existing housing stock and replacing it with modern apartment blocks like Wharfside Commons, or by creating vacant lots. Detroit is not an example we want to emulate. Architect Catherine Johnson has spent years studying urban development, livable cities, smart growth and workable density. Here are her thoughts on the city's plans to demolish two houses in a tough neighborhood because no one in city government has enough imagination to find a different solution to a difficult problem.)
FOR WANT OF A SCREW, IS A NEIGHBORHOOD LOST?
Commentary by Catherine Johnson, Architect & Town Planner
The mayor, after a discussion with city planner Bill Warner, has approved the demolition of two houses at 20 Portland St. The planner stated in a Hartford Courant article that no one would buy the building and that kids are breaking in. He said that the only recourse is demolition.
This is a terrible decision, with terrible consequences.
I think the mayor and the city are not being well served because of an incomplete set of facts and personal opinion from a planner who cannot imagine an alternative. The only actual problem is the planner’s perception: he has a hard time imagining anyone would want to live downtown. He writes in the city plan of development in the chapter he originally entitled The Urban Dilemma: “As evidenced by the success of the Village district, there is a segment of the population that wants to live in a more urban setting. However most will only invest in areas that have potential, have stabilized and are on the upswing.”
Just because the city planner can’t imagine living in an urban setting, doesn’t mean no one else can.
If the building is erased, the message this will send to everyone else on that street is, “The city doesn’t think you’re worth it! We aren’t going to help anyone fix these houses up and we aren’t going to fix the street up either.” Is this the message the mayor wants to convey?
The message to potential investors (homeowners, landlords) is "We can't figure out how to prevent crime, so if we knock enough buildings down, maybe the criminals will go away."
We can’t take a building down because someone can’t screw in a piece of plywood big enough to keep a child out. The effort so fare to secure the premises is spectacularly laughable. I think my mom could do a better job than what has been done thus far.
Instead of turning the building over to someone and starting the upswing for that little street, the decision is demolition? Look at Providence and Northampton where blighted buildings were deeded to artists who became, as they often are, the forward platoon of revival.
Middletown has been using a portion of its federal Community Development Block Grants to demolish buildings instead of, as intended in the title of the program, rebuilding community. The amount of grant money dispersed is based on the proportion of people in the neighborhood living below the poverty line. However, our city planner, takes every chance he gets to erase buildings and opportunities for regular people to make a living, and to find a place to live downtown. I think it’s time to do something different with this money.
What other cities do is advertise for a buyer and then GIVE THEM the money that would have gone toward demolition to jumpstart the renovation or to secure it until renovation (mothball it). The building is sold for $1. The goals are simple:
- get the building off the city’s hands
- give the building to someone who will look after it.
- get the building occupied as soon as possible
- get the property back on the tax rolls.
Then do it again to another building.
New Haven has had a very successful record over the past 10 years of private reinvestment in their historic housing stock. I think because the city government has a very thorough understanding and appreciation of the value of their walkable neighborhoods, which offer a wide variety of housing to a diverse population, they know that when they support one building owner, they start a chain of successes. They don’t put money toward demolitions, instead they have an entire support system that educates people about options, connects people to programs, grant money and technical support. Instead of looking at the sizeable number of houses as a liability, they decided to look at it as an opportunity to attract new residents.
This lot offers something few lots in town offer: two houses on a single lot. A couple came to me a few years ago looking for this exact setting: one for them, one for their parents, small enough to be environmentally and economically sustainable, within walking distance of the college. They couldn’t find a lot that allowed them to do this new in the city, so they bought a lot out of town. We lost them.
Another scenario would be that someone buys the houses, lives in one and works in the other. I can picture one house opened up entirely in the interior and renovated as one open space, like a loft. Throw in a 2-minute walk to O’Rourke’s or Eli’s for lunch, and baby, that’s my idea of a workday.
What’s missing here is a lack of imagination, not to mention a lack of knowledge.
At the very least, the city is entitled to a second opinion. How about we take this chance to experiment? We already know what happens when we demolish (NOTHING), how about we try something else? I personally volunteer to chair the effort to find a new owner to turn it around. I like old buildings, and I am committed to helping people make the best of theirs.
The city is sending the wrong message if it demolishes these houses. I think it’s time to stop the “lobotomy” approach to managing housing stock and start to reinvest in these neighborhoods. It would take very little effort to turn this street around if the buildings stay, but a gargantuan effort if the buildings are removed.
One final argument, and a green one. The most environmentally positive approach to creating housing is to use existing stock. The environmental equity is in the timbers. Most of the energy has been expended to build something that has lasted at least a century. The trees have been felled and the timbers cut. Developers argue that to renovate is more costly than to build from scratch, but when this environmental equity is figured into the equation, the renovation, is by far the most economic route.
I consider the mayor a reasonable man. I think he hasn’t been given all the facts nor has been presented other options. I invite him and all of you to take a ride down there over the weekend to see the houses for yourselves. They are both in good condition, with better roofs than my own. I agree not every person should be a building owner. We shouldn’t push people into homeownership who aren’t cut out for it. But for those who want to start somewhere and have a modest income, these two houses seem to be a perfect place to start. Let’s give them that chance. Let’s start the chain of success here in Middletown.
18 comments:
Redevelopment destroyed many lovely buildings including the beautiful Romanesque revival city hall. However, not everything old has equal merit. The worker housing of the North End – early 1900s – typically represents shoddy construction beginning with the brick on rubble foundation and undersized floor-joists. Still, it’s better than a vacant lot. The best route would be to decide on several vernacular styles and to rebuild. But that would take imagination.
I grew up on Portland St in the 50's and early 60's. Both sets of my grandparents lived there and owned two of the largest apartment house which had rental apartments.
The neighborhood was mostly Italian back then, but there were other nationalities mixed in here and there, as it was a poor area back then too. It was a great place to grow up. There is one big difference from then to now.
The owners of the houses also lived in them. Being on the premisies, the landlord was able to police his own property, and ensure the area and building were taken care of. All the property owners looked out for each other and would give a homeowner a call if something shady was happening with renters or strangers.
Absentee landlords have created the mess which is now Portland and St John St. They allow the buildings to deteriorate as long as they continue to recieve their montly rent and subsidy money.
Some of these landlords don't know or care what their tenants are doing; which is the main reason the area has become blighted.
The area needs a couple of new owners to buy property, fix it up and allow their new tentants to assist: for a reduced rental rate. The owner and tenants will take a renewed interest in the neighborhood, and be more committed to what they want the area to become, and strive to achieve more and more. Just like when Main St blossomed, and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon, the same can happen in a neighborhood.
Other properties will see the transformation, and join in the resurrection of the community.
Respectfully,
John Milardo
YES!
I am one of those people that would love to take an old building and repair it to live in. Financially I do not have the means to buy a place that is already in move-in condition. However, my husband and I do have the manual skills and working knowledge of anything it would take to repair a building. I have long dreamed of a program for people like us that takes abandoned/blighted buildings and turns them over to skilled owners at a steep discount. It's called pride in your home, and in your work.
Those reading Ms. Johnson’s commentary might want to take a stroll over to Portland Street and check out this “historic” structure under threat. It is little more than a tarpaper shack squeezed between two dilapidated structures in the midst of a slum. It's not politically correct to make that observation, but it's the reality. Thus, comparing this to North Hampton (which has Smith College) or Providence, whose cobbled streets were lined with gorgeous domestic Greek revival houses (albeit rundown at the time), is rather silly. The real problem is that the really attractive homes within the city –the ones young professionals would want to move into – are mostly owned by Wesleyan. Revitilization is always top-down and that starts on the Hill.
Dear Anon @ 5:46 pm on Saturday:
I'm hoping you'll reconsider your condemnation of the potential of our downtown housing stock.
Concerning Portland Street, although I understand why the words dilapidated, slum and shack might seem appropriate to you, they are the result of a policy of neglect and absentee ownership rather than the fault of the buildings themselves.
I understand that downtown living doesn't appeal to everyone, but it DOES appeal to some. In the past 15 years since I moved to downtown, I've seen many families invest in historic downtown houses, at all income levels, and sometimes, in buildings that others would want to demolish.
As a result, our neighborhood has become a vibrant and interesting place to live again -- it seems like I meet a new family every few weeks who has been attracted to our downtown for its quality of life and the character of its buildings. The diversity of long-term and new residents, of renters and owners, of students and elderly, mixed with engaged business owners who spend their days here, is not just "politically correct" - it's a great way to live.
In fact, Portland Street is a fantastic location, with amazing eye candy including the bridge, the river and St. John's Church. It is now part of the Macdonough district, which an enlightened buyer might also see as a plus, if they have young kids.
It is - at this writing - still plagued with uncivil behavior and crime, as are many parts of downtown and Westlake. But there are other remedies for that, and one of the cheapest and most efficient is to create incentives for stable and responsible homeowners to make investments. Whether you take it from Jane Jacobs or Rudy Giuliani, the point is the same: security comes from neighbors who refuse to tolerate bad behavior and decline.
Again, investing downtown might not be a choice that you personally would make, but to me, Ms. Johnson's suggestion is one that is long overdue. Let's open it up for offers - and let's put the money we would have used for demolition into preserving the tax base by saving these houses!
Just on a factual level, I wanted to update the idea that Wesleyan has a lock on the kind of downtown houses that people would want to live in. For several years, Wesleyan has actively been selling many of the historic houses that they owned, and they probably have one or two for sale right now! But most of the downtown housing transactions take place between non-Weselyan owners.
-Jen Alexander
Ms. Alexander, It’s always interesting to see how worked up you folks at the Eye get when anyone even mildly criticizes one of the disciples. The law unlike religion deals in facts, and I did not condemn downtown housing stock but one particular house in one specific neighborhood. The place has charms to be sure. However, I believe that to truly help neighborhoods such as these we must embrace ideas of 1930s housing advocates such as Catherine Bauer Wurster and Lewis Mumford and replace the shoddy speculative construction of the past with attractive, well-built dwellings with playgrounds and greenery. To turn this into an argument about downtown living is to miss the point. The downtown, as we all can plainly see from our own backyards, it not created equal.
Growing up on Ferry Steet I can understand the importance of those who want to save these types of buildings for young families and interested landlords. I agree that there may be a better option for these buildings. Being a part of our city's emergency responders, I can tell you these neighborhoods get a bad rap at times because of certain elements in them. Portland Street is no exception. However I do not think our City Planner just picks these buildings out of the blue. I am fairly certain there have been some issues there, and the state of the buildings themselves come into the thought process at some point.
If we take Ferry Street as an example, I see that neighborhood as one that has prospered from the Wharfside Commons approach. Many good strong families live there, and contribute daily to what Middletown is all about. It may have come as an expense to the homes I grew up around, but it is not as bad as people make it out to be. I am watching the same rebuilding process going on on Green Street.
I love the approach of the author of the article. However instead of posting your issues here, I suggest sitting down with the Planning Department and the Mayor and floating the idea. How great would Middletown become if we all worked together to find a common ground? These are fantastic neighborhoods full of Middletown History. We should all look at ways to offer our talents to save them if we can. Great ideas come from many talents working together to find one answer! It's what makes Middletown so special!
How about selling city owned properties for one buck and give them a discount for five years or so on property taxes, say phase in at twenty percent a year, some sharing on profits if they sell and no absentee landlords on multi-family houses. Just a few ideas I'm sure there are more.
At present there are no tax incentives for families to buy distressed North End properties, and the high downtown taxes (when you add in 5 mills for the fire district and excessive water and sewer and sanitation fees) make it just too costly for average folks, however appealing downtown living might be. Meanwhile, a glance at local property assessments reveals great inequity in the system, with the favored few paying far less than their fair share. Such a system only encourages speculation.
While I agree that for the most part, we're too quick to bring the wrecking ball, in this case, it would take a really committed individual to rehab this property.
These two houses have been a terrible problem for the neighborhood for many years, and most recently were the inspiration for NEAT to take on rewriting Middletown's blight ordinance. While people were living in the house, the landlord abandoned it, and people lived there for two years without any responsable party. This may seem like a dream (no one to pay rent to), but for the people who lived there, it was awful. Major things broke (utilities, appliances) and no one was there to fix them, so they lived without. The building was literally falling down around them. Some of them were active in pushing the city to get some teeth to its ordinance.
This building is in terrible shape, I can send you pictures from two years ago. You'd be horrified to learn that people were living there.
Why is it that people only start to care about a terrible situation when a building is in danger? This property was in the papers two years ago because it was falling in around the tenants.
http://middletownpress.com/articles/2009/06/24/news/doc4a42eb41da46d594926981.txt
http://middletownpress.com/articles/2009/09/09/news/doc4aa86ac8bf04e007042146.txt
There was ample opportunity at that point to come and speak about how the city had let down the families and buildings on Portland Street. Two years later, residents are still living with an unsafe neighborhood, deteriorating rapidly because of this building. Now that a blighted building is at-risk, people come out of the woodwork to champion its cause.
There should be more concern for the families that suffer these conditions and people putting pressure on the city to make good on its codes. BCFire is right on. While Wharfside Commons is disproportionate, low and moderate income families can now live in a decent apartment that is safe for their children. That wasn't the case before.
The homes on Green Street that Nehemiah Housing has just rebuilt are available for sale at amazing prices (appx. $125,000 for a 3 bedroom). They're historic homes that have been rehabbed....They're incredible. I hope everyone here who is interested in living in a fixed up historic home gets themselves a realtor (or call NEAT) and checks them out. They are downtown (historic) improvement at its best. In that case, we saved what was good, rebuilt what couldn't be saved, and in the end, are left with quality, attractive buildings that will last generations and add to our downtown.
Izzi: While I always respect your opinion and perspective, I can't agree with you on this.
To portray anyone who cares about buildings in a neighborhood, as uncaring for people is just not fair.
It is not the building's fault or responsibility that the landlord is rotten.
It is not the building that is ruining the neighborhood.
I'm sure the building is in terrible shape, but at the right price I bet a committed owner would be willing to take on the task.
I'm thankful that you and NEAT are looking our for the tenants and residents of Portland Street, but we don't need to tear down a building to make a street better.
Ms. Johnson premises her argument that they Mayor's decision to demolish these buildings is flawed on her claim that "the only actual problem is the planner’s perception: he has a hard time imagining anyone would want to live downtown." Obviously, the problems are far in excess of whatever flaws might exist in the planner's perception. Further, I think that the planner's perception is misstated by Ms. Johnson, and he is actually spot on in his assessment. Mr. Warner is quoted as saying “As evidenced by the success of the Village district, there is a segment of the population that wants to live in a more urban setting. However most will only invest in areas that have potential, have stabilized and are on the upswing.” That is far different than Ms. Johnson's claim that he can't imagine people wanting to live in an urban setting. Rather, he has accurately assessed that people do not want to invest their money in a house in an urban setting unless they feel that it is safe, secure, and likely to yield a profit. Put another way, as much as Ms. Johnson would like to see old homes preserved for their asthetic appeal, most people are not willing to spend large amounts of their own hard earned money preserving blighted buildings in bad neighborhoods just for the purpose of preserving the asthetic feel of the city.
While I agree that destroying neighborhoods and building giant apartment buildings, or just knocking neighborhoods down a la urban renewal is a bad idea, we need to recognize that not every building is salvagable or worth saving. Abating the asbestos and lead in the buildings on Portland St. and the rehabilitation that would be needed to make the buildings habitable would probably cost twice as much as clearing the lot and building a new house, and would certainly cost twice what the house would be worth when completed. Why spend that kind of money to save a building just because it is old? I am not in favor of spending that kind of premium to preserve building like this. There is certainly a value in preserving buildings that are run down but essentially sound, but these buildings aren't sound.
Catherine's ideas about giving someone the house and the cost of demolition is interesting, but not practical. Apart from the Fed's legal requirements which probably would not allow this use of the money, this house is so far gone you would have to invest far more than the cost of demolition just to make the house safe and legal to live in. How are you going to make sure that the homeowner is going to actually spend the cities money on fixing the property and will have the additional money needed to actually complete the job? Catherine looks to New Haven as a model for preservation of housing stock. However, as she points out, the investment that was used for the preservation in New Haven came from private sources, not the city. The largest, if not the only, private source of investment in New Haven is Yale, which has financial as well as altruistic reasons for doing so. They have also significantly restricted this endeavor since their endowment took a big hit. It is unlikely that Wesleyan or any other investor would invest significant money in Middletown to save buildings like these.
If the city decides not to demolish the buildings the most likely outcome will be the buildings will be boarded up for years until they fall down or are burned down. A vacant lot is not a good thing for a neighborhood, but a boarded up abandoned building is far worse.
If you want to improve this neighborhood, the most feasable way to do so would be to demolish these buildings then offer the land to Habitat for Humanity or a private individual for a steep discount with the condition that a house be constructed there that is owner occupied. A new house might not be as asthetically pleasing to some members of the community, but I bet everyone in that neighborhood would rather have a new house on that lot than an old house that is boarded up.
The issue with the right price right owner idea is when does one stop waiting? In a perfectt world one could pick purchasers. Also there is a risk a low price brings in a slum lord and the cycle continues. We can all agree that valueable historic homes should be saved however at some point vision and imagination can't fix something that was poorly constructed to begin with and it is time to allow new construction. These homes were poorly constructed to start. Not all old construction is good architecture to be held onto for eternity. People never understand this. I agree save what is worth saving and look at each case individually with realistic eye. Stereo typing some buyers and developers because they saw not to preserve asuch as desired has driven away many potential investors
from middletown. And while caring single owner occupied is ideal as John M points out, multi family and supportive housing can be done and maintained appropriately as well, it is a delicate balance and to say one scenario works and one does not is not thinking rationally.
New doesn't have to mean poorly built or poorly designed, in fifty years it could be the new historic.
This should be made into the senior center!
YES make this the senior center! Catherine- if these decrepit buildings are such "diamonds in the rough" why don't you buy them design them for free and renovate them?
Post a Comment