A New Context for Downtown Buildings
Our historic downtown buildings are a community asset, even when they're privately owned. Shifting the context we view them through can open up possibilities that the old approach never will.
By Charles Harris Rudd
Downtown revitalization is my passion. It is normal for me to spend part of my vacations driving to small-town downtowns around the country, and even overseas, to see the condition of the buildings, parks, sidewalks, and businesses. Basically, checking out the downtown to see how it is doing. By the time I leave, I usually have the framework of a revitalization plan in my head, if the town is not already thriving. And even if it is thriving, I usually see opportunities to take it to the next level.
It is heartbreaking, sometimes, to see great old buildings in small towns languishing in various states of disrepair and decline — or to see small towns showing signs of life but having glaring eyesores that could actually be assets to the downtown. These are the buildings that you see in the old historic photos of the community.
The context we're operating in
Unfortunately, the context for building improvements that these old beauties find themselves in is that they are private property, and it is up to the owner to make the improvements, repairs, and restoration. Even though the dilapidated state of the building is impacting the neighboring properties and, in fact, the entire downtown and community, it is up to the property owner to take action. And if the owner is doing just enough to meet the code requirements — for either maintenance or securing the building — often there is nothing the city can do. I once served in a community in Florida in which a local building "hoarder" had a death grip on the downtown, owning nearly a dozen signature, historic buildings and leaving them boarded up and empty.
In this context, Code Enforcement is a tool communities often use to convince, and sometimes club, property owners into getting with the program and reinvesting in their property. In addition to the "stick" of Code Enforcement, communities often use a "carrot," such as matching grants. My experience is that the grants are usually so small, and require at least a 50% match, that not much work can be done under the program. The reason for the match is usually phrased as "having skin in the game."
I hate this expression and concept! I have actually had to tell business owners — who have invested everything they have, sometimes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, to open their business in the town I served when they could have opened anywhere else — that they have to show they have "skin in the game" and match our $2,500 grant! Or, in some cases where the grants are actually substantial, we received grant applications for nearly every building except the buildings we wanted to apply to. We spent money but didn't hit our desired targets.
In short, it is no mystery that we need to fix up, preserve, and restore our treasured downtown buildings. But the approach is that it is really up to the property owner. Our treasure, our town, our fate, is in their hands.
A different lens
I am not saying that this context is "right" or "wrong." It is just a context that is giving us what we are getting. I would like to create another context, or lens, through which to view these buildings. Again, not the "right" context — just a context in which we might realize different results. Shifting the context can create new possibilities. The context is decisive.
If you take a look at old historic photos of your local downtown, you usually recognize your favorite buildings. You know, right away, that it is your downtown. You have no idea who owned the buildings at the time of the photo, and you may not recognize any of the people in the photos, but you recognize the buildings. It is almost as if the downtown is only there because of the buildings, not the other way around. The buildings are the downtown.
Consider that, over the decades, property owners have come and gone, most of whom have long been forgotten. The buildings remain, as a community asset. As the downtown. In this context, the building owners of today are but temporary stewards of a community asset. They are very much like tenants, and the community is the landlord.
Like any landlord, we want to attract a good tenant who will take care of the place and pay their rent (property taxes), utilities, and fees on time. And like any landlord, if we want to attract a good tenant, we need to keep the property in tip-top condition. We all know those vacancies that require lots of buildout, or require the tenant to bring their own AC unit — they seldom rent, or are the last to rent. Landlords can, and often do, require their tenants to make their own repairs and improvements to the building. However, these landlords often have high turnover rates and are considered little better than absentee landlords.
So let's take this one step further. I had a great property owner, in one community I served, who really understood that his commercial tenants were his customers. If he wanted to keep his customers, he had to keep his product (his buildings) in top condition and looking good. Consider that, as communities, our customers are the current owners of the downtown buildings. It behooves us to keep our product in tip-top condition so that we get a good customer who will take care of the place. Inside this context, spending money to improve our asset/product not only makes sense — it is necessary. The property owner mentioned above would literally tell his tenants things like, "I'm going to replace your awning. It looks bad and it is detracting from not only your business but my other tenants as well as the neighboring businesses." In this context, it makes sense to approach property owners of downtown buildings and say, "If you will do these improvements — that will maximize this asset for the community, help create a draw for the entire downtown, and increase business for everyone — then we will pay for it."
The counter-points, and why they don't hold up
This brings up some interesting counter-points. You may say: (1) if you fix up someone's building, they may just sell it and make a profit; (2) you are rewarding them for doing nothing and letting their building deteriorate; or (3) you will train property owners to wait for the city to make the repairs.
For the first point, this brings up the repayment clause that is in many grant agreements: if you sell the building within X number of years, you have to pay back all or some percentage of the grant money — even though the improvements are still there! The grant funds pay for permanent improvements, such as plumbing, electrical, AC, drywall, and flooring, which are still there after the sale. This provision always baffles me. It has been expressed to me by some elected officials that there is a fear someone will get a grant, improve their property, and then sell it and make a profit. Isn't making a profit exactly what we want to happen when you invest in downtown? Yes, we want folks to buy buildings and sell them at a profit. Yes, we want people to open businesses and make a profit, and maybe then sell the business and make a profit. All of our redevelopment efforts are to make investing in downtown profitable and a great investment.
To the second point, the notion that absentee landlords should not be rewarded for letting their properties languish — so we won't give them grants or fix their buildings — is the current context, not the one I am creating here. It is being right, at all costs. It feels good to be right, but there is always a cost. We are rarely present to the cost, and the cost has been downtown revitalization and building restoration. But at least we are right about "shoulding" all over them!
To the third point, consider that the property owners who are maintaining their buildings today do it because of their view of their investment and the responsibility of maintaining it. That is not likely to change if they find out that, by letting it deteriorate, at some point the city will come in and restore it. I maintain my house, and even if I found out that the city would restore it if it seriously declined, I am not going to just let it go and watch it decline. Time would tell and, after a period, dilapidated buildings would no longer be an issue. Even in this context, you can use the "stick" of Code Enforcement as a building begins to show signs of wear and tear. The city would be saving buildings, not maintaining buildings.
Bear in mind that, even in this context, the property owner can decline the improvements. I have heard, more than once, property owners decline grants because the improvements will "just increase my property value so I have to pay more taxes!" In that case, Code Enforcement again would still be a viable tool.
Again, let me reiterate: this context is not "right" and the old context "wrong." This context is not "good" and the old context "bad." It is just that the old context gives us what we are getting — small towns struggling to revive, with buildings that could be catalysts instead bringing them down. This new context would have saving those buildings, fixing them up, and rehabilitating them be a foregone conclusion and a priority, not a pipe dream or a burden.
This piece is part of a larger field guide on downtown redevelopment for Florida communities.