By Jason Segedy
July 8, 2014
Follow me on Twitter @thestile1972
There is a widespread belief that Americans hate cities. I think it is probable that Americans hate city failure, but, from the evidence, we certainly do not hate successful and vital city areas.
-Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities
An abandoned house on York Street, up the street from where my grandparents (both the children of Sicilian immigrants) lived in Akron’s North Hill neighborhood. The neighborhood is suffering from increasing blight and abandonment - although hope remains, as a brand-new wave of immigrants from Southeast Asia and Latin America is slowly breathing new life into portions of it.
A vacant lot on Vesper Street, in Akron’s North Hill neighborhood, where my wife’s great-grandparents lived after moving here from West Virginia. Her grandparents lived just down the street. Both of the houses where they used to live recently became meth labs and had to be torn down.
The Grey Town
In C.S. Lewis’s book, The Great Divorce, an allegorical meditation upon the afterlife, many of the dead are denizens of a shadowy city called the Grey Town, which is either purgatory or hell (depending on how long one chooses to stay there). The people of the Grey Town are free to leave it any time that they wish, but most, in their state of near-total narcissism, choose to stay.
The Grey Town is a place where (unlike Earth) anyone can get any material possession that they wish (although not of very good quality) simply by imagining it. Unable to cooperate (or even to coexist) with others, each person finds their neighbors so intolerable that they simply wish themselves a new house, and continually move further and further outward from the town’s center, leaving nothing but abandoned buildings behind.
As each person continues to act in (what they mistakenly think is) their own self-interest, all semblance of community, civic life, social cohesion, and basic human kindness is lost; as the town continues to grow exponentially, ultimately consuming millions and millions of square miles, with an astronomically large central area of abandonment surrounded by a thinly-settled, ever-expanding urban fringe, populated by inhabitants that are increasingly estranged from one another.
What they end up creating is, quite literally, hell - a lonely and hopeless place extending out into infinity, in which each person freely chooses to remain utterly and completely self-centered. It is a place of self-imprisonment, where the metaphorical door is locked from the inside:
"It seems the deuce of a town," I volunteered, "and that’s what I can’t understand. The parts of it that I saw were so empty. Was there once a much larger population?"
”Not at all,” said my neighbour. “The trouble is that they’re so quarrelsome. As soon as anyone arrives he settles in some street. Before he’s been there twenty-four hours he quarrels with his neighbour. Before the week is over he’s quarreled so badly that he decides to move. Very likely he finds the next street empty because all the people there have quarreled with their neighbours - and moved. So he settles in. If by any chance the street is full, he goes further. But even if he stays, it makes no odds. He’s sure to have another quarrel pretty soon and then he’ll move on again. Finally he’ll move right out to the edge of the town and build a new house. You see, it’s easy here. You’ve only got to think a house and there it is. That’s how the town keeps on growing.”
"Leaving more and more empty streets?"
“That’s right. And time’s sort of odd here. That place where we caught the bus is thousands of miles from the Civic Centre where all the newcomers arrive from earth. All the people you’ve met were living near the bus stop: but they’d taken centuries - of our time - to get there, by gradual removals.”
"And what about the earlier arrivals? I mean - there must be people who came from earth to your town even longer ago."
"That’s right. There are. They’ve been moving on and on. Getting further apart. They’re so far off by now that they could never think of coming to the bus stop at all. Astronomical distances. There’s a bit of rising ground near where I live and a chap has a telescope. You can see the lights of the inhabited houses, where those old ones live, millions of miles away. Millions of miles from us and from one another. Every now and then they move further still. That’s one of the disappointments. I thought you’d meet interesting historical characters. But you don’t: they’re too far away."
"Would they get to the bus stop in time, if they ever set out?"
"Well-theoretically. But it’d be a distance of light-years. And they wouldn’t want to by now…
"Wouldn’t want to?"
"Then the town will go on spreading indefinitely?" I said.
-C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
Lewis’s description is powerful, regardless of whether you are the least bit religious, spiritual, or believe in an afterlife - for its power comes from what it says about human nature in the here and now.
His description is sobering: a town full of people who are so completely self-deluded and estranged from one another, that they think they are acting in their own self-interest, when in fact, they are actually destroying the place that they live, and along with it, any chance that they will ever have for real happiness.
For those of us that live in shrinking cities in the Rust Belt, in regions with negative net-population growth and continued outward expansion that are simultaneously suffering from widespread abandonment, Lewis’s allegory is more than a little bit disturbing in its familiarity.
A dilapidated house on Carpenter Street, in Akron’s North Hill neighborhood
Increasing Abandonment in Northeast Ohio
Brent Larkin of the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote two pieces recently, discussing the many problems associated with the ever-increasing spread of blight, vacancy, and abandonment in Cleveland and its inner-ring suburbs.
Larkin makes the case that this problem and its antecedents are not limited to the ones that are commonly perceived as only affecting city residents - crime, poverty, hopelessness, inequality, and paying more in taxes for less in services. He reminds us that the holistic, interconnected nature of our modern world means that everyone in our region is ultimately affected by the abandonment of our urban core areas, in one way or another.
I addressed this same issue recently in a blog post discussing population loss in our region:
What goes on within a given city’s actual municipal boundaries has incredibly important ramifications for its tax base; its employment base; the performance of its schools; the distribution of everyday amenities like grocery stores, shops, and restaurants; the delivery of public services; and less tangible, but equally important things like its sense of place and its sense of itself. As cities are abandoned, decline, and become hollowed out, access to social and economic opportunities diminishes along with the population: the jobs disappear, the doctor’s offices disappear, the grocery stores disappear – relocated, often, to a distant and increasingly inaccessible locale. To pretend as though the economic and social well being of city residents is not directly impacted by population decline is to turn a blind eye to reality itself.
But it is not just city residents that are affected by decline. The health of the entire region suffers as a result. The shrinking tax and resource base of City “A”, is not simply counteracted by economic growth in nearby cities “B” and “C”. In a region anchored by a declining central city surrounded by dozens of separate municipalities, the redundant duplication and proliferation of local government services (education, public safety, public utilities, transportation infrastructure, social services) ends up costing all taxpayers more.
The worst-case scenario is a shrinking central city and a shrinking region with an overall population decline, coupled with continued central city abandonment and continued outward expansion. In a region like this, there is not only more costly “stuff” (redundant public services and physical infrastructure) than there needs to be, but there is more “stuff” with ever fewer taxpayers to pay for it.
It’s an issue that is hauntingly familiar to every resident of a shrinking Rust Belt city. The statistics on abandonment in places like Akron, Toledo, Dayton, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, St. Louis, Cleveland, Flint, Gary, Youngstown, and Detroit range from the sobering to the horrifying.
As I’ve written before, there are explicable, rational reasons for why these cities are experiencing such high levels of abandonment - although no one seems to be able to agree on precisely what they are.
But I’m not so sure that agreeing on why the abandonment of our core city neighborhoods is occurring is all that important. Yes, there is a logic (that I cannot argue with) behind the notion that understanding the root causes of the problem is important if we are going to address it.
On the other hand, I would argue that even if we perfectly understood why the problem is occurring (and for the sake of argument, let’s assume that we could adequately understand such a complex socioeconomic phenomenon), I’m not sure that we would be any further along the path toward actually doing something to change it.
In my experience, the discussion of why our cities are being abandoned is largely a useless distraction, and I continue to believe that those who are the most dogmatic and reductionist in their account of how these problems came about in the first place, also happen to be those that are the least interested in actually doing something to solve the problems.
So what should we do about the decline of our cities and the abandonment of our neighborhoods?
The first step is for people to be aware of the magnitude of our vacant and abandoned property problem in Northeast Ohio.
The term “awareness” is itself, multifaceted. It entails: a) knowledge of the facts; b) acknowledgement that these facts translate into an actual problem that we should be concerned with; and c) a sense of felt, shared responsibility for doing something to address the problem.
I would argue that (a) is somewhat widespread; (b) is debated by some, with many more people in our region simply living in denial; and c) is still virtually non-existent.
When I say that people lack a sense of felt, shared responsibility for doing something about the problem, I don’t mean that we simply need to throw lots of public money at the problem, or create a bunch of new, intrusive government rules and regulations, or transfer wealth from some communities to other communities.
I mean that citizens from all sectors, and all walks of life, from all over the region need to recognize their shared destiny as one civic community, and work together in myriad ways great and small (most of them yet-to-be-determined, because we don’t feel the collective sense of urgency yet) to solve an incredibly complicated, mutual problem that manifests itself in different ways, in many different places.
A common reaction to the abandonment of our city neighborhoods is the belief that it will somehow correct itself, and goes something like this: “Well, eventually the free-market will assert itself, and people working in the private sector will be able to buy these properties so cheaply that they will swoop in and rebuild the neighborhoods.”
This has happened here and there, to be sure, but it is very much the exception, rather than the rule. For every gentrifying neighborhood like Ohio City, Tremont, or Highland Square, we have a dozen neighborhoods that are disintegrating before our very eyes.
There are a couple of problems with the theory that the free market will save the day. For one, the market value of many of these properties is already at (or near) $0, and they can’t get any cheaper. So it’s not just a matter of dollars and cents.
For another, the abandonment of our cities is largely a consequence of the free-market doing what it does, as it has always done it.
But, it is equally a consequence of short-sighted public policy decisions regarding infrastructure, education, housing, and other social services.
And, of course, we can’t leave out the untold billions of individual choices, great and small, which are incrementally making our cities places that are either becoming better to live in, or becoming worse.
If the free market were solely the answer (and I do believe, incidentally, that it is part of the answer), then the problem would already be solving itself.
But it isn’t.
Clearly, something needs to alter the behavior of the free market. Just as clearly, our current public policy regimen is not working either, and needs to be altered as well. Ditto for our societal priorities and many of our present-day cultural norms regarding the individual, society, and place.
But how? And, just as importantly, altered to do what?
Well, that’s a great question. Because what do we want to see happen in our cities? What is our vision for what they should look like in the future.
I’m not sure that we have one.
An abandoned warehouse on Cuyahoga Street in Akron’s North Hill neighborhood
Today’s Reality in Akron
Here in Akron, where I live, the problems of vacant and abandoned property, disinvestment, and depopulation get a little bit worse every day.
It’s an issue that has perhaps been more difficult for those of us living here to see as clearly as those living in other shrinking cities do - for a couple of reasons.
Compared to our neighbors in Cleveland and Youngstown, we have been relatively untouched by the scourge of abandonment and massive disinvestment in our neighborhoods. Yes, we’ve seen our share of abandoned properties (there are roughly 2,300 right now) and population loss - we’ve lost 31% of our peak population, declining from 290,000 residents in 1960, to 199,000 residents today.
But most of the population decline has been very gradual, and has been relatively dispersed throughout the city. Even our most distressed neighborhoods are nowhere close to experiencing the scope and scale of the abandonment that is seen across large swaths of Cleveland or Youngstown.
While I personally believe that a lot of this is due to a strong civic leadership culture and a solid history of successful public and private collaborations, some of it is also due to “dumb luck” - historical factors largely beyond our control.
Akron is a newer city than Cleveland and Youngstown. By the time that Akron began to grow in earnest (around 1910, when the rubber and tire industry exploded), Cleveland was already a very large, established city; and Youngstown was well on its way to becoming one.
Akron was also able to annex many neighborhoods that were developed between 1920 and 1960, while many similar neighborhoods in Greater Cleveland and Youngstown ended up in outlying communities.
In addition to containing a newer stock of housing, Akron had the advantage of being home to not just tens of thousands of blue collar industrial workers, but to the white collar industrial workforce, which numbered in the thousands.
Unlike Youngstown, which contained numerous steel mills that were headquartered elsewhere, Akron was home to the production facilities and headquarters of four Fortune 500 rubber and tire manufacturers (Goodyear, Firestone, B.F. Goodrich, and General Tire).
This fact was incredibly significant for the city’s neighborhoods and for the quality of its housing stock, because the numerous executives, managers, engineers, scientists, and other highly-paid workers all built extremely nice houses within the city limits, especially in the neighborhoods located throughout the northwestern quadrant of the city (not coincidentally, uphill and upwind from the noxious air pollution generated by the rubber and tire plants).
To this day, roughly one-quarter of the City of Akron (primarily in the northwest) is still composed of neighborhoods that meet or exceed the levels of education and wealth found in all but the most affluent suburban communities.
So we’ve had a lot of advantages, and we have managed to weather the abandoned housing storm storm pretty well.
But our time is coming, and the chinks in our armor are appearing. They are easy to spot, especially if you know where to look.
Akron has enjoyed strong, visionary leadership from Mayor Plusquellic for close to 30 years now, and it has paid-off, especially in terms of the city’s economic prospects relative to its Rust Belt peers. Job retention and economic development have been fairly robust compared to other cities in the region (the retention of the Goodyear corporate headquarters and the Bridgestone/Firestone Technical Center, serving as two recent examples).
The city has also done an admirable job of keeping up with the increasingly vexing problem of vacancy and abandonment, and has been quite proactive when it comes to tearing down abandoned properties.
While all of this is extremely important, I would argue that tearing down abandoned properties is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for creating a strong, healthy, and vibrant community that people want to call home.
So, we’ve done pretty well with job retention and economic development, and we’ve done pretty well at tearing down houses.
But what about keeping people here? Cities are first-and-foremost a place for people to live - and our population continues to decline.
The 2000s were a wake-up call in that respect. After losing a fairly modest 6,000 residents in the 1990s, we lost nearly 18,000 residents in the 2000s.
Why? I think a lot of it has to do with housing supply and demand. There is an over-supply of housing that people do not want, and an under-supply of housing that people do want.
Akron was the fastest growing city in the United States between 1910 and 1920, exploding from a population of 69,000 to 208,000 in that one decade. This means that a very large proportion of the city’s housing stock, which was built during those boom years, turns 100 years old this decade.
Lots of that old housing is blighted, vacant, or abandoned, and much of it is being torn down right now - and at a much faster rate than new housing is being built.
So, we will continue to lose population unless we figure out how to do more than simply tear houses down - we need to figure out how to rebuild our neighborhoods from the ground up. It’s simple math: less occupied housing units + less people per household = less people.
No matter how great of a city this is to live in (and it most certainly is), no matter how much we do right (and we do a lot that is) we will inexorably continue to lose population if we don’t learn how to build lots of marketable new housing.
Yes, a city can succeed if it is smaller. Yes, things like urban gardening, and open space have their place. But I would argue that for a city our size, with the types of everyday neighborhood amenities that we have come to enjoy and are currently in the process of losing (grocery stores, neighborhood retail, restaurants, doctor’s offices, churches, synagogues, schools, etc.) it is paramount that we figure out how to grow our population again:
Detroit is so far gone, the argument goes, that the only conceivable use for all that abandoned real estate is to re-ruralize it. This speaks to our lack of confidence in architecture and urbanism per se, and leads to the current default remedy whenever our cities fail: tear things down in favor of green space.
Such thinking is the result of architecture’s decades-long inability to provide buildings worthy of our affection; municipal planners’ design ignorance and extreme reliance on traffic engineers; the environmental movement’s focus on wilderness, wildlife, and disdain for human activities; and, of course, suburbia itself, which prompts most of us to despise any human imprint on the landscape. Detroit is rotting from the inside out. The inside, the old city center, the part closest to the river, is destined to be the urban site of highest value in the future. Although it may never resemble the Detroit of 1960, we have the skills and knowledge to rebuild something of appropriate urban quality there again….
But the USA doesn’t need more architectural fashion statements, moral status posturing, or art stunts. It needs places to live that are worth caring about and compatible with the capital and material resources that we can expect to retain going forward, which are liable to be scarcer than what we’re accustomed to.
I don’t think there’s any question that we have to return to traditional ways of occupying the landscape: walkable cities, towns, and villages, located on waterways and, if we are fortunate, connected by rail lines. These urban places will exist on a much smaller scale than what is familiar to us now, built on a much finer grain. They will have to be connected to farming and food-growing places. A return to human scale will surely lead to a restored regard for artistry in building, since the streetscape will be experienced at walking speed.
-James Howard Kunstler
Our only possible means for growing our population are: 1) increase average household size; 2) rehabilitate/renovate existing housing; and/or 3) build new housing.
Long-term demographic trends tell us that option #1 isn’t going to be happening anywhere in the United States. As for option #2, however you feel about historic preservation (and that’s a topic for a separate blog post), it is clear that it’s an option that becomes more difficult (and impractical on a large scale) every year, as more structures succumb to the wrecking ball.
That leaves us with option #3. We need to develop a replicable, scalable model for learning how to rebuild entire neighborhoods (both housing and commercial structures). I think that Akron has the human capital, and the innovative and collaborative culture to pioneer something that we could transfer to other shrinking cities in the Rust Belt.
But we have to get intentional about it. It’s not going to happen on its own. On the ground, here in Akron, I don’t see much awareness of this fact yet. I think that we still think that things are going to somehow take care of themselves. We have not yet recognized that the greatest challenge of the 21st Century in this town is going to be to learn how to embark upon an ambitious, comprehensive, coordinated, collaborative effort to rebuild large parts of our city.
The abandoned corner of Cuyahoga Street and Mustill Street, just up the street from where my Sicilian immigrant great-grandparents lived in Akron’s North Hill neighborhood.
Thinking Big, But Doing Small
But when I say “ambitious”, I’m talking about something that is the polar opposite of urban renewal. It’s not a top-down, big government, command-and-control, out-with-the-old/in-with-the-new approach.
I’m talking about something that is human-scaled, context sensitive, and collaborative - something that requires public, philanthropic, non-profit, and private sector leadership, in partnership with everyday people working together, one block at a time, one neighborhood at a time, to rebuild and transform their community.
I’m not sure exactly what that looks like yet. But I’m starting to get a general idea…
Several weeks ago, I had the distinct privilege to meet Jason Roberts of The Better Block. The entire premise of Jason’s work is to take one block at a time, start small, and actually do something. It could be some temporary new bike lanes; it could be some temporary street art, or street furniture; it could be a makeshift coffee shop, or art gallery, or beer garden. The important thing is to do something new in a neighborhood, let people see it, let people experience it, and, most importantly - let them participate in actually creating it. People build, borrow, or (as a last resort) buy the materials that they need to transform their block. The process of working together to build something is even more important than what is physically built, because what is really built are relationships and a sense of community.
At a recent event in Akron, Jason talked about the need (especially in the community-development professions - planning, engineering, economic development, public administration) to learn how to think small, and to implement modest, low-cost improvements that can lead to transformative changes later on.
Instead of simply talking about intangible future plans that will never be realized due to fiscal considerations or bureaucracy, people work together to accomplish small things that they can actually see and touch; and learn to savor that first taste of success, which leads to building the kind of trust and inspiring the type of hope that it takes to transform an entire city.
It’s a simple, but incredibly powerful and profound concept - get people working together on small, but significant and visible projects in their own community, and watch the trust build, see the relationships develop and grow, and watch the hope begin to infect other people throughout the community.
The Better Block concept isn’t a panacea. But that’s kind of the point - there is no panacea. We need to start somewhere. The work of rebuilding our cities begins one person at a time, one block at a time, one street at a time, one neighborhood at a time. When a grassroots effort like The Better Block is coupled with visionary and innovative leadership from the public sector, the private sector, non-profits, and the philanthropic community, the results can be truly transformative.
I am looking forward to being a part of it here in Akron - and I’ll be sure to keep you posted as it moves forward.
A potential Better Block location on Jefferson Avenue in Akron’s Highland Square neighborhood.
A potential Better Block location on Kenmore Boulevard in Akron’s Kenmore neighborhood.
A potential Better Block location on Aster Avenue in Akron’s Firestone Park neighborhood.