Use this thread for demolitions that are being funded by the Neighborhood Stabilization Program or are planning to be funded by the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.

 

Second wave urban renewal here we come...(also posted in Toledo demolition thread)

 

Article published March 09, 2010

2 historic buildings in West Toledo likely to be history

By JC REINDL

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

A pair of 120-year-old vacant apartment buildings in Toledo's Old West End neighborhood could soon be razed following a demolition vote yesterday by the Old West End Historic District Commission. Although aesthetically unique from the exterior, the three-story buildings of reddish-brown brick and decorative stone at 2127 and 2131 Collingwood Blvd. have suffered frm neglect in recent years and are crumbling — particularly inside...

 

The buildings, which date to 1890 and were once known as “Collingwood Manor” and “Georgian Manor,” suffer from multiple roof and ceiling leaks, a weather-exposed interior, hollowed-out walls, and filthy, trash-strewn conditions...

 

Mr. Mossing said he anticipates using Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant money for the demolition, which he hopes can happen soon...

 

Resident Robert Davis of Lawrence Avenue noted how the buildings sit along a very visible part of Collingwood and told commissioners he hopes someone can quickly redevelop the site. “To tear those buildings down and to leave the properties empty would be tantamount to walking around with your two front teeth out,” Mr. Davis said...

 

“It is going to be a humongous hole in what is one of the strongest streets in the neighborhood,” Mr. Sullivan said. “It's mind-numbing to me that we're going to take it down and decide what we're going to do with it later.”

 

READ FULL STORY AT BLADE SITE (thank God people are angry about this)

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS16/100309740

Aw crap.

Great Stuff, C-Dawg.  The Fed linkage is pretty good, too. 

 

Looks like Urban Ohio is going to be a little less Urban after this is all finished. Except for Cleveland and Canton, which seems to be focusing on rehab.

Although I believe Cleveland is a seperate allocation than Cuyahoga County.

 

If I recall, Cleveland's which was something like 40 million was heavy on the demolitions. 

I believe the city and county collaborated on a proposal through the land bank that garnered an additional $40.8 million in NSP funding. 15% of the money is slated for demolition: http://www.cuyahogalandbank.org/clippings/20100114_pr_consortium_nsp2_award.pdf. Assuming that the $11.2 million is in addition to that, that's just under $7 million in demolition.

 

The one thing I will say for Cuyahoga County is that they've developed a really strong protocol for when and where to demolish as a component of their greenprint plan: http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/green/elements.html. The concept is to look at the natural environment of the county (watersheds, soil quality, etc.) to determine where greenspace is most desirable, to limit demo to these areas (in order to gradually build green corridors moving southward from the lake) and to concentrate on increasing housing density elsewhere. Assuming they would adhere to this plan, I have less of a concern about demolition than I would with piecemeal disassembly of neighborhoods. Of course, it remains to be seen how much this plan will guide demolition, given the sheer volume of deteriorating housing stock locally and the amount of time and resources it would take to assemble these corridors. And again, even with the benefit of increasing natural space within the county, an argument could still be made that this is a new version of urban renewal.

Well many of the things Ive read regarding Cleveland, indicated that the mayor wanted to spend the majority of their share for demolition (in this article 14.5 million of the 25.5 million share).  So not exactly 15%.

Thats 1700 demolitions.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/mayor_frank_jackson_wants_fede.html

 

The article was from earlier last year so maybe (and hopefully) they have developed some coordinated and sensible approach, as opposed to the mayor just making a willy nilly and uninformed announcement of what he thinks would be best.   

This may be a distinction between NSP I and NSP II as well. Not really an expert on this at all, but I believe NSP I was more formula-based and gave municipalities greater discretion over how they used funds, while NSP II was more competitive in nature and required municipalities to be very detailed in how the funds would be used. With NSP II, it appears local leaders are applying funds toward demolition a little more judiciously ... There is as much money earmarked for Reimagining Cleveland (the public-private partnership exploring innovative strategies for activating vacant lots) as there is for demos.

The stuff CDawg linked to are local case studies of NSP I allocations announced in 2009- Cleveland received $16M on its own in addition to that allocation to Cuyahoga county.  NSP I had relatively strict requirements for usage, which will limit the demo it funds.  [The limits were so strict, in fact, that local governments are having trouble spending the money in the required time line.]

 

A couple months ago, NSP II allocations were announced- which includes the $41M to the Cuyahoga County land bank.  A lot more of this is going to be spent on demo, though not sure how much.  The land bank/consrotium's proposal called for $10M on demo (1000 homes) but as part of a larger ($70M+) proposed funding amount.  Demo is going to be a big part of this, for sure.

 

8Shades, unfortunately I think the green plan concept won't be a driving factor in demo choices- though I wouldn't call the alternative "piecemail disassembly of neighborhoods either"- the disassembly happened when the foreclosures hit and properties were left vacant or flipped for pennies on the dollar to vulture speculators.  The demos will most likely be complaint driven/blight relief to rid neighborhoods of the worst properties.  I really can't argue with this strategy.  It's just going to tidy up the dissassembly.  But it's also going to make me sad.  Time to take those photos of East Cleveland while we can!

Dayton's NSP 2 application was for 790 demolitions in the city and 525 in the county...So, adding the NSP 1 number 2315 units are coming down in the Dayton area.

Here is what the local governments DO NOT want you to know. Federal law requires that cities conduct a proper section 106 review. That is there must be a public process for comment on the proposed demolition of ANY property more than 50 years old for which Federal dollars are used.

 

Most cities do not have that process in place and they are REQUIRED to have it.

 

You need to file a citizens complaint with HUD's state level office. Contact is Ross Carlson ([email protected]) or robert milburn ([email protected])

 

If there is a property that is in eminent danger of demo and you believe no public hearing process has taken place I woudl contact Ohio Preservation office. They have put the brakes ona a couple of demolitions of late.

I really hope they distinguish between cheap woodframe houses and higher-end brick structures, doing far less demo on the latter.  Much of Ohio's previous demo work decimated the main streets and left the sidestreets relatively untouched.