“Tearing down the city to save it? ‘Back-door regionalism’ and the demolition coalition in Cleveland,” by researchers Emily Rosenman, of the University of British Columbia, and Samuel Walker, of the University of Toronto, argues that demolition is in fact a limited response to an extremely complicated housing market. Yet Cleveland’s demolition coalition, led by Jim Rokakis, has been “instrumental in cementing and promoting a political consensus that frames curbing housing devaluation as the primary municipal role in housing crisis recovery. This consensus is grounded in an underlying post-industrial logic of municipal governance: pursuit of growth at (nearly all costs.”
When Scene spoke with councilman Jeff Johnson for a story about a Cleveland housing survey and demolition funding this summer, he said he knew Rokakis was deeply concerned about housing in Northeast Ohio, but that his philosophy was underpinned by a belief that residents were gone and not coming back.
“There is not a true, sincere, holistic approach to housing in this region,” Johnson said.
Rosenman and Walker would say that the demolition approach, spearheaded by Rokakis, arose out of failed efforts (or lack of meaningful attempts) on the Federal level to challenge the private interests responsible for the root causes of the housing crisis — banks — but that the demolition efforts in Cleveland “add up to a nascent urban regime of ‘austerity urban renewal’ … in which the land-based interests of the growth machine collaborate to tear down the city (as a place) in the hope of saving it (as a site attractive to a new round of capital investment).
The paper shows how effectively Rokakis has preached his gospel – “the consensus is powerful enough that local politicians associate high demolition rates with ‘sound planning’ in the ‘fight against blight’ — and that though demolition has indeed had “appreciable effects” on local housing values and has opened up vacant lots for community use, there is also a great deal of potential collateral damage:
“A surprising number of key elements of what define “the urban” will be sacrificed in attempts to restore the attraction of a place for outside capital,” Rosenman and Walker write.
In summary: “The city is literally razed to the ground in a desperate attempt to save it.”
This article appears in Oct 7-13, 2015.
Watch this forum video form last week on housing with Jim Rokakis and Thomas Bier. It talks about demolitions and other aspects of housing in NE Ohio:
http://teachingcleveland.org/index.php?opt…
Welcome to the next generation of gentrification, as career politicians bulldoze the decline and fall of Main Street, USA; the brownfields of desperation and despair — that they legislated into reality — as countless urban areas and old ring suburbs are no longer necessary for the new world economy. The final straggler cannot pause to turn out the lights, because the switch was removed years ago.
I’m pretty sure that the properties that are being knocked down aren’t going to be missed. At least someone is doing something, as opposed to everyone standing around with their hands in their pockets saying “how do we handle this?”
What a ridiculous article. I love this line, “”A surprising number of key elements of what define “the urban” will be sacrificed in attempts to restore the attraction of a place for outside capital,” Rosenman and Walker write. ” What arrogance from academia. Don’t remove the blight as we define urban as dilapidated houses. God forbid we give the poor people of these communities safe streets free of abandoned houses that attract crime, lower property values and often become targets of arson. Come down from the ivory tower and talk to the people living in these communities. As someone living in an area that has benefited from the “demolition coalition” I assure you my neighbors all agree, we want less not more dilapidated houses. Mr. Rokakis please don’t listen to these dumb dumbs and carry on.
“This consensus is grounded in an underlying post-industrial logic of municipal governance: pursuit of growth at (nearly all costs.”” Yes exactly, the pursuit of growth at all costs is what all politicians are elected for. No one gets elected promising to shrink the economy and eliminate private sector jobs. “Post-industrial logic”…I’m pretty sure this logic prevailed pre-industry as well….I think for the last few millennium we have torn down the old to make way for new investment. Obvi! Don’t these people have to go through some sort of peer review before spewing this nonsense around
This is a tough question.
Can I buy the house above for $10k to get off the street or out of an apartment? Sure. But that house will need easily 6x that amount to bring it up to code and modernize. Maintaining an older home is a nightmare emotionally, financially and logistically. All of the wires in your house are no longer supported, cracks in the walls cannot be fixed without a specialist who knows how to lathe with spackle, even the studs in the house are not spaced to modern standards, doors, windows, closets? All custom-sized. The masonry is all rotting away from the inside out as it has outlived it’s intended life-span. Money-pit & death-trap all rolled into one.
Better to tear it down and hopefully attract someone who can build anew on the site.
Will Cleveland recover thermodynamic savvy in time? Will it realize it’s poor people are occupying the best buildings America ever built? The 2012 first ever (first ever?!) NYC Building Energy survey found that buildings built before WWII use less energy per square foot, those built before 1920–Cleveland’s heyday!– used the least energy of all. Yes, the 1930-built Empire State Building was found to be more energy efficient than the latest LEED-certified building! The tradesman’s old-fashioned radiant-heating paradigm (requiring thermal mass ) coupled with natural ventilation and Victorian window systems can be very energy efficient. Of course, the building must be properly used–that’s the savvy part. Education is desperately needed!
Rokakis and Frangos created the crisis – and their friends continue to make out on demolition contracts and shady “Land Bank” deals. Sickening.
It makes me sick to have stood and watched a house come down that had nice old mantels woodwork and good kitchen cabinets they didnt save anything what a waste to haul this stuff to the dump why not save it someone could have used it donate it to habitat for humanity there are so many beautiful empty homes on the east side that still has reusable items that should be saved