The City of Akron will lose access to funds it is counting on to tear down Firestone Plant #1 unless it makes a plan to preserve and interpret the building’s clock tower, which city officials confirmed in November they intended to demolish.
Since then — as a result of a dispute with the State Historic Preservation Office, which signed off on the demolition as long as the clock tower and part of the easternmost building were preserved — the city has changed course.
In an emailed statement Tuesday, city officials said they are exploring “a variety of options” to stay in compliance with the initial agreement to preserve the 116-year-old structure.
The five options to preserve all or part of Firestone Plant #1 are:
- Retaining the 1910 portion of the building, including the clock tower.
- Retaining the full easternmost structure and the clock tower.
- Retaining only the clock tower.
- Preserving elements of the clock tower in a new structure, either on site at 1200 Firestone Parkway or elsewhere in Firestone Park.
- Preserving clock elements for inclusion in a yet-to-be-determined on-site development.
After the feasibility of each option is determined, the proposals will be presented next month to the city’s Urban Design and Historic Preservation Commission. That commission, in August, rejected a request from city officials to demolish the building in its entirety.
In September, members of City Council overrode that decision, allowing for the building to be demolished if no viable developer was identified by Nov. 21. One proposal, to turn the building into the city’s new police headquarters, was rejected, and no other developers stepped forward.
The fact that the city is now looking at options to preserve some or all of the clock tower and surrounding building is “kind of wild to me,” said Ashley Martinez, a historic preservationist who runs the Facebook and Instagram pages for Naturaclaimed.
“I feel it’s a very mishandled situation,” she said. “I don’t even know what to say. This is a mess.”
What are the challenges with each option to preserve the Firestone clock tower?
Martinez said she did not believe the clock tower could stand on its own. Internal demolition took place, she said, and the tower itself isn’t structurally stable without the building on either side. She called the current situation “very disheartening,” considering preservationists had been calling on the city not to tear the building down.
“It’s going to be very difficult to preserve,” she said of the clock tower alone. “They should save the clock tower and part of the front wing. Moving it, I don’t think would be in anyone’s best interest.”
There are challenges with each of the proposals, the city said in its statement. To keep part or all of the building, the city would need to worry about the cost, the building’s structural integrity, securing the site from vandalism and how it might be redeveloped.
The cost and the structural integrity of the clock tower alone are the key questions for a preservation plan that includes the tower by itself. Ambiguity about plans to incorporate the clock tower elements into a new building are key challenges of plans to preserve only the components.
Donnie Kammer, the Akron City Council member who represents the area, said he’d like to see the building itself be saved. But he thinks it’s most important to save the clock tower.
“I just think the city has to work really, really hard to try to preserve history,” Kammer said.
Akron asks for additional extension to submit proposal
The city has largely completed asbestos remediation on the site and is waiting to begin demolition until the dispute with the State Historic Preservation Office is resolved, Akron’s statement said. Mayor Shammas Malik said in the statement that he appreciated the continued collaboration of the state agency, as well as the Ohio Department of Development, as the city looks for a compromise.
“I am optimistic there is a solution that finds the right balance between addressing a nuisance property and preserving our history,” Malik said in the statement.
Reimbursement funds Akron is set to receive as part of the Building Demolition and Site Revitalization Program would be lost if the city doesn’t come to an agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office. A spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Development, Mason Waldvogel, said in an email that if the State Historic Preservation Office rescinds a waiver it granted that allowed the demolition to go forward, the city will no longer be in compliance. Sites on the National Register of Historic Places — such as Firestone Plant #1 — are not eligible for grant funding without a waiver.
Kammer said he was not aware of the dispute with the state office and no one provided the letter to members of City Council. He found out, he said, from a local preservationist who has been fighting to save the building.
“I believe I was misled,” Kammer said. “I’m still trying to digest that letter.”
While the city originally had 30 days from the State Historic Preservation Office’s Nov. 24 dispute letter to resolve the issue, the office granted Akron a 45-day extension — until Feb. 6 — to submit a revised proposal for how it will mitigate the issue.
Akron has not yet submitted a proposal. Instead, State Historic Preservation Office spokesperson Neil Thompson said, the city requested another extension, until Feb. 17. The office is reviewing the request and will respond to the city this week.
Preservation advocates believe city wants Firestone plant to be demolished
The additional extension request will allow for the special convening of the city’s Urban Design and Historic Preservation Commission, the city’s statement said. While the commission has a scheduled meeting Feb. 3, the city’s statement said “the time to add new agenda items has already passed.”
The Feb. 3 meeting has already been canceled.
In its statement, the city said it had been working with the state preservation office since the summer and had a productive meeting late last week.
But Dana Noel, the Progress Through Preservation advocacy chair, who shared the letter with Kammer, said he remains concerned by the timeline and the fact that there won’t be an opportunity for the public to review the city’s proposals before the planned Urban Design and Historic Preservation Commission meeting.
Progress Through Preservation intends to host its own meeting Feb. 5 at 6:30 p.m. at St. Vincent de Paul Parish School’s Corrigan Hall, at 17 S. Maple St. in Akron’s West Hill neighborhood. While Noel said the clock tower defines Firestone Park, he said he doesn’t see the proposed demolition as only a Firestone Park issue.
“You take that away, you’re losing a cultural connection,” he said. “It’s about what policy the city has to our historic assets, which is basically no policy.”
Additionally, Noel said, demolishing the building eliminates millions of dollars of tax credits that could be used to help redevelop the area.
“This could be a catalytic project,” he said. “It’s kind of a trite word, but it’s true.”
Instead, Noel said, he thinks city officials had predetermined that they wanted the building to go. Martinez, the preservationist, also said she thought the city was unwilling to work to save the Firestone plant. Martinez, who said she went by the site weekly, said it had been left open for people to access.
“It’s a premeditated effort because the city did not want this building,” she said. “It would be a shame to lose another icon from Akron’s skyline.”