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.
Demolition Decision Tree
[ADD DECISION TREE GRAPHIC]
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.