Choosing Which Buildings to Demolish
IN THIS SECTION
Demolition should be targeted and strategic. Municipalities running demolition programs should use funds cost-effectively, pursue cost recovery from property owners where possible, and integrate demolition with broader revitalization strategies. Effective demolition programs are built on three elements:
- applying clear criteria for which buildings to demolish and which to retain
- linking demolition priorities to specific stabilization, redevelopment, and reuse goals
- engaging key stakeholders to ensure all relevant perspectives inform decisions
Most communities experiencing systemic vacancy have far more distressed buildings to potentially demolish than resources to do so. The right choice for any given building depends on the building’s condition, its relationship to surrounding structures, neighborhood characteristics, and planned activity in the area. Market context matters too: In a severely disinvested community with little demand, demolition to a vacant lot may be appropriate. In a stronger market, however, it may be important to have a concrete reuse plan for the resulting lot.
Because most decisions involve balancing multiple competing factors, communities should use a structured decision-making process to guide choices—particularly for non-emergency demolitions. The table and decision tree below illustrate how these factors can be organized into a decision-making framework for residential properties, though similar approaches apply to commercial and industrial structures.
Table: Key Questions to Answer about Residential Property Demolition
| Category | Criteria | Key Issues/Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Market | Citywide/regional demand | Is area-wide demand potentially adequate to absorb housing supply? |
| Neighborhood demand | Is neighborhood demand potentially adequate to absorb housing supply? | |
| Neighborhood | Emerging trends | Are there key emerging trends, such as houses being rehabilitated, or speculative buying, that may affect neighborhood demand? |
| Revitalization activities | Are there other revitalization activities in the area that will be affected by the decision to demolish or not demolish the building? | |
| Social fabric | Does the neighborhood have a strong social fabric that can be mobilized to help build greater demand? | |
| Physical texture | Is the physical texture of the area strong, or has it been compromised through abandonment and demolition, or through inappropriate development? | |
| Building | Quality and character | Does the building have architectural or historical value, either in itself or as part of a coherent ensemble? |
| Condition | What is the condition of the building and what is likely to be the cost to rehabilitate it for productive use? | |
| Hazard/nuisance | Does the building constitute a nuisance, hazard, or threat to public health or safety? | |
| Contribution to texture | Does the presence of the building contribute meaningfully to the existing neighborhood texture, and would it be compromised by the building’s removal? | |
| Harmful effect | Does the building have a harmful effect on the value and livability of surrounding properties, and the quality of life of surrounding residents in its present state? |
Source: Adapted from Alan Mallach, Laying the Groundwork for Change (Brookings Institution, 2012), 24.
Neighborhood Texture and Demolition Decisions
“Physical texture” describes the way a neighborhood’s buildings, spaces, and rhythms between them create a coherent whole. In the best cases, buildings share enough common features to feel harmonious even when they aren’t identical. Urban designers refer to the balance of built and open space as the “rhythm” of solids and voids, and it contributes significantly to a neighborhood’s character and sense of place.
In many communities experiencing systemic vacancy, that texture has already been damaged by incompatible infill, incremental demolition, or decades of property abandonment. In the most severely disinvested neighborhoods, so few structures remain that no coherent texture exists at all.
Where distinctive texture does remain, however, it’s important to seriously consider how demolition will affect it. A neighborhood’s physical character is often closely tied to its stability and revitalization potential. In these cases, mothballing a vacant building rather than demolishing it may be the right short-term strategy, even at greater cost. Planners, urban designers, historic preservation professionals, and neighborhood residents should all have a voice in these decisions.
Balancing Demolition and Historic Preservation
In many communities, the tension between demolition and preservation is deeply contested. The case for demolition is often compelling, but so are the costs: lost buildings of historical, cultural, and architectural significance, and the erosion of the physical character that gives neighborhoods their identity and revitalization potential. These are not trivial concerns. No single metric can resolve this tension. Communities must weigh multiple factors when determining the best outcome for a given property.
Demolition Decision Framework
The table below outlines key considerations for communities dealing with widespread vacancy.
Considerations for Demolishing or Preserving a Vacant Property
| The building is obsolete by virtue of its size, physical character, or poor quality of construction. | Quality of Building | The building is attractive, of high quality, or of architectural, cultural, or historic value. |
| The building has deteriorated to the point that it cannot be restored or the cost of restoration would be prohibitive in light of the economic value of the property. | Condition of Building | The building is largely intact, or could be restored at a cost that is feasible in light of the economic value of the property. |
| The building, by virtue of location and physical character, is not likely to draw the investment needed to bring it back into productive reuse. | Reuse Potential of Building | The building, by virtue of location and physical character, is likely to draw the investment needed to bring it back into productive reuse. |
| The building is located in an area where the neighborhood fabric has largely been lost through incompatible land uses, abandonment, and demolition. | Quality of Neighborhood Fabric | The building is located in an area which still has a strong neighborhood fabric, and its physical presence contributes to that fabric. |
| Demolition will contribute to the opportunity to carry out a rebuilding or reuse strategy for the area, which may involve either/both rebuilding or alternative “green” non-development reuses. | Reuse Potential of Vacant Land | The demolition of the building will result in a potentially unusable vacant lot rather than an opportunity for meaningful revitalization or green reuse. |
| The nuisance created by the building in its present condition and the harm that it is doing to neighbors or the surrounding area outweigh the benefits of saving it for possible future reuse in the absence of immediate reuse potential. | Nuisance Level of Building | The reuse potential of the building, even if not immediate, outweighs the current harm that the building is doing in its present condition, particularly if enhanced efforts are made to secure or stabilize the property. |
Source: Adapted from Alan Mallach, Bringing Buildings Back (National Housing Institute, 2010) 177.
In some cases, a property may warrant preservation but lack the financial resources for rehabilitation, either because the market is still strengthening or because sufficient subsidy hasn’t yet been secured. In these situations, “mothballing”—a process of structural stabilization and ongoing maintenance—can protect a building while it awaits its future. This typically includes reinforcing structural integrity, eradicating vermin, securing the property against vandalism and moisture while maintaining ventilation, winterizing or disconnecting utilities, and establishing a routine maintenance plan. See here for a mothballing checklist.
Ultimately, planners, public officials, community leaders, and preservationists must think creatively about what preservation means in the context of addressing widespread vacancy and ongoing harm from abandoned buildings. As historic preservation consultant Ned Kaufman argues, the most valuable frame may be preserving neighborhoods as living social and economic entities, not just individual buildings as physical artifacts. In his words, “the heritage ‘object’—the core value to be protected—is the urban community as a living entity.”
Once a community has identified which properties to demolish, it will almost certainly face a familiar problem: The list exceeds available resources. That means making strategic choices about which demolitions are urgent, and which can wait.
Importantly, municipalities should avoid two common pitfalls:
- Do not demolish properties in an arbitrary queue.
- Do not spread demolition dollars evenly across the community—while this may be politically convenient it does not produce meaningful neighborhood-level change.
Instead, communities should develop a clear priority system guided by three considerations: market and neighborhood conditions; other revitalization activities underway in the area; and how severely the abandoned buildings are undermining the vitality of their immediate surroundings.
A few core principles should shape that system.
Prioritize stabilization over clearance. Demolishing a single “blighted” structure on an otherwise stable block will often do more for resident confidence, property values, and future tax revenue than demolishing 10 buildings in a heavily abandoned area. In most cases, priority should go to areas where demolition can help stabilize conditions and unlock reuse potential—not simply to the 100 “worst buildings” or the most disinvested neighborhoods.
Connect demolition to reuse. In heavily disinvested areas, demolition priority should focus on sites with specific reuse potential, like traditional development or lower-cost green reuse strategies that can turn vacant land into a community asset even without strong market demand.
Tie demolition to other investments. Demolition is most powerful when coordinated with other activities in the same area: an active community development corporation (CDC), a planned public investment like a new school or transit station, a strong neighborhood anchor institution, or emerging private market activity. Timing matters, too. If a new school is opening, for example, surrounding blocks should be cleared before opening day, not after. Where new or rehabilitated housing is being marketed, no abandoned buildings should remain on the same block face to undermine buyer confidence.
Clear whole block faces, not partial ones. When resources allow, all non-reusable buildings in a target area should be demolished together. Removing two of three derelict buildings on a block face leaves nearly as much harm as removing none.
Finally, setting demolition priorities is not a purely technical exercise. It requires input from community residents and stakeholders inside and outside municipal government to ensure decisions reflect market realities, neighborhood needs, and local knowledge.
Engaging Stakeholders in Vacant Property Demolition Decisions
No single municipal official has the necessary knowledge and expertise to decide which buildings to demolish, in what order. Opening up the decision-making process to the right players is essential to getting those decisions right.
Local government officials must lead the process, as they hold ultimate legal authority and responsibility. But they should actively seek input from CDCs, neighborhood planning organizations, and neighborhood associations in areas targeted for demolition. These stakeholders bring on-the-ground knowledge of local conditions, priorities, and revitalization strategies that municipal staff may lack.
Communities should create either a formal standing committee or a regular working group to review proposed properties for demolition. A few design principles matter here:
- First, there should be a clear procedure for resolving disagreements between municipal departments. The building official responsible for carrying out demolitions should not have unilateral authority to override other agencies.
- Second, the review process should be prospective, allowing demolitions to be reviewed and approved in advance so that the building official can maintain a ready pipeline of approved projects to bid out as funds become available.
At the same time, the process should never become a bottleneck. Emergency demolitions required to address urgent health and safety concerns must be handled swiftly and remain the exclusive purview of responsible public officials.