Enough of the "Knock It Down" Philosophy

(The Portland Street property in question photographed in May 2010)

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.