Renewed interest from a developer to turn Firestone Plant #1 into a residential mixed-use project is a “moonshot,” Akron’s economic development director said in an email, but one the city would pursue to try to save the 116-year-old building.
In a Jan. 21 email to the State Historic Preservation Office, obtained through a public records request, Suzie Graham Moore said she’d talked to “a developer familiar with the building who has renewed interest in developing the site.”
The city wanted to pursue conversations to see if the proposed residential redevelopment was a “feasible inquiry,” Graham Moore said in the email, while continuing to work toward an agreement with SHPO regarding Akron’s plan to demolish the historic property.
A month later, Mayor Shammas Malik said there still had not been a formal proposal from that or any other developer, but the city continued to be willing to engage with anyone interested in transforming the property, which has environmental deed restrictions limiting its allowable uses. Malik said the city has gotten multiple inquiries, and “some of them are more serious than others.”
“We’re happy to talk to anybody,” the mayor said in an interview Thursday. “I still think that’s a very challenging hill to climb.”
The discussion comes as the city is renegotiating an agreement with SHPO that allowed it to use $6 million in state funding to demolish part of the building. In the existing memorandum of understanding, signed in 2024, the city agreed to preserve the clock tower on the front facade of Plant #1 and the eastern-most building on the property.
Since then, City Council has voted to tear down the whole complex, which violates the SHPO agreement. In light of that, SHPO has asked the city to terminate the existing agreement and propose a new one, Neil Thompson, a SHPO spokesperson, said in an email.
What are the options for Firestone Plant #1?
There is no timeframe yet for when Akron might offer a new proposed agreement to SHPO, Thompson said. Malik said he expected the city’s Urban Design and Historic Preservation Commission to weigh in on which of five proposals for Firestone they prefer at the group’s April 7 meeting.
Those options, and their costs, are:
- Demolish the entire building — $7.35 million.
- Keep a portion of the building’s front section and the clock tower — $12.35 million to $13.35 million.
- Keep the entire front building and the clock tower — $14.85 million.
- Keep only the clock tower — $15.35 million to $15.85 million.
- Reconstruct the top portion of the clock tower on a new site — $10.45 million to $11.15 million.
- Incorporate the clock face and mechanism into a new development — $8 million to $8.27 million.
Malik said the fact that the state had asked to terminate the existing agreement was not a surprise, saying the city had wanted to make revisions since last year. He said the city hoped to generate consensus around one of the existing proposals before it drafted a new agreement to share with the state.
Thompson, in an email, said SHPO wanted a new agreement “that reflects current conditions, stakeholder input, defined responsibilities, and clearly identified funding commitments.”
He said SHPO is working with Akron in good faith and would not speculate on potential outcomes.
Demolition funds are not likely to expire
The city needs SHPO’s approval, via a memorandum of understanding, to access $6 million of state Department of Development money earmarked for demolition, said Patrick Bravo, executive director of the Summit County Land Bank. The land bank administers the money. Because Firestone Plant #1 is a historic building, Bravo said, a waiver from SHPO was necessary for the city to use the money it was granted.
There is currently a June 30 deadline for the money to be used, said Stephanie Marsh, a spokesperson for the city. But all parties said the state was being flexible about when the money would have to be used.
“Everybody wants to see the city move forward with whatever they need to do,” Bravo said. “There’s not a concern of whether the funds expire. … The deadline is somewhat malleable.”
Dana Noel, the advocacy chair of Progress Through Preservation, said he was concerned that a new agreement — without restrictions on demolishing the clock tower — would allow the city to tear the whole structure down. If that’s the path Akron takes, Noel said, it would be “a terrible loss.”
“It’s such a fundamental thing to Akron,” Noel said of the building.
‘Be careful with expectations’
Malik said he understood the close, personal relationship many people have with Firestone, calling it and Goodyear “two of the most omnipresent brands when you think of the history of Akron.”
But he cited the expense of maintaining the abandoned building — $50,000 a year — and the cost of multiple police and fire calls to the complex in calling it a nuisance and a safety issue.
“It’s a really hard sell, when the money could be invested in housing, economic development,” Malik said. “It’s a really hard sell to spend $15 million preserving a building.”
And those costs, he said, are before there’s a use for the building.
Malik said he thinks if the building is completely demolished, the most likely redevelopment option for the land is manufacturing or industrial reuse.
The options that were shared with the urban design commission and the public “remain the most likely” outcomes, Malik said, because of the need for environmental remediation to lift restrictive covenants.
Graham Moore, in her January email to SHPO, said she wanted to “be careful with expectations and hopes,” particularly in the community. Her message to the state said she expected a proposal to be submitted no later than Feb. 11, a deadline that was not met. Marsh, the city spokesperson, said the potential developer had not reached out to tell the city they were uninterested.
State Historic Preservation Officer Diana Welling, in a Jan. 22 email to Graham Moore and others, called the redevelopment interest “exciting news.” She said SHPO “does not want to stand in the way of a viable long-term use for this site” by requiring a certain timeline.
“A credible development proposal that meaningfully incorporates preservation of the front bay and clock tower would, of course, be a very positive outcome for a building of this significance to Ohio’s history,” Welling wrote.
Regardless of the outcome, Malik said, the impact of Firestone would not be lost.
“This is a city that knows how to reinvent itself,” he said. “There will be some way of preserving this history. Not to be corny, but the spirit of Firestone is not going away.”