The fate of the Firestone Plant #1 building remained up in the air Thursday, with members of Akron City Council choosing to delay for another 15 days a decision regarding whether the entire building should be demolished.
“There are things we do for money and things we do for love,” said Council Member Sharon Connor, who represents Goodyear Heights. “If there’s a way to save it, we need to save it.”
City employees asked that council members agree to tear down the entire 115-year-old building, including its iconic clock tower, after determining that the cost to save it would be too high. City officials said it would cost just over $7 million to demolish the building, while the preserving a portion of it would be upwards of $12 million.
The demolition request came to elected officials after members of Akron’s Urban Design and Historic Preservation Commission denied the city’s request to raze it. Previously, the commission had agreed that most of the building could come down, if the front portion and the clock tower were saved.
At a public hearing Thursday afternoon, members of the historic preservation commission and others pleaded with council members to make more effort to save the building. Mark D. Smith, a member of the commission, said he didn’t believe city officials had done enough to inform potential developers about tax credits and other incentives to reuse the building. Mark Schweitzer, another commission member, said he thought any developers who had been pitched on the building had been looking at the entire structure — not just the front portion.
That piece could be a good anchor for Firestone Park, Schweitzer said, and a way to preserve the identity of the community.
“You’d be able to sell developers on it,” Smith said after the public hearing. “It would be expensive to do, but you’re never going to find that out until you make the effort and put it out there. These guys did not do that.”
CIty official says it costs too much to save Firestone plant
“These guys” are city employees like Kyle Julien, Akron’s planning director, who said it’s been well-known for years that the building at 1200 Firestone Parkway would likely need to come down, despite being on the National Register of Historic Places. He said council members had previously rezoned the area for industrial use, and that the low-ceilinged former tire plant isn’t compatible with modern industry.
Additionally, Julien said, an agreement with Ohio’s Environmental Protection Agency precludes the building from being turned into residences, prohibits retail uses and limits other options for the property.
While he said it’s possible some of the facade — like the face of the clock — could be saved and included in any new development, Julien said tearing down the plant and building something new would provide a better opportunity for the area.
“It’s not an easy decision that we are coming to,” he said.
Julien said it would cost $5 million up front to try to shore up the front of the building for potential development later — something he said the city doesn’t have. Akron borrows about $15 million a year to help fund its capital budget, and Julien said a decision to spend money to save the Firestone building would result in cuts to other areas.
That figure was called into question by Dana Noel, the advocacy chair of Progress Through Preservation, a group that promotes the preservation, restoration and adaptive reuse of significant buildings in Summit County. Noel who said the city was not referring to the low bid for demolishing part of the structure.
If there was truly a $5 million difference between tearing the building down and saving it, Noel said, “the decision is a no-brainer.” But he said there were discrepancies between the report submitted to members of council and the description city employees gave of the building, including questions about the condition and how much might be salvageable.
“This is one of Akron’s truly magnificent landmarks and it would be such a shame to lose it,” Noel said. “This is really what makes Akron unique.”
Who might help preserve Firestone Plant #1?
Members of City Council agreed that they should look for a way to preserve the property. Council Member Bruce Bolden suggested reaching out to Firestone — now a Bridgestone subsidiary — to see if the company would be willing to help fund a preservation effort. And others suggested community members might step up to save the building.
In any event, a decision shouldn’t be made without input from residents, said Council Member Donnie Kammer, who represents the Firestone Park neighborhood. He said he was concerned that tearing down the property would erase the identity of the area. If it must be razed, he thought a park with some architectural elements to help keep the story alive would be an important part of the plan.
Council Member Johnnie Hannah, who worked at Firestone, said he hoped the clock tower could be saved.
Jeff Wilhite, a member of Summit County Council, asked City Council members to “pump the brakes a little bit” on allowing the demolition, saying there’s “obviously no turning back” once it’s begun. Tearing down Plant #1 would take Akron further down the path of homogenization, he said, and limit its uniqueness.
James Loveman, who re-developed a former Firestone 1926 shipping warehouse at 1180 S. Main St., said he thinks a partial demolition — as has already been approved — would right-size the building for new development. Loveman, a director of Amerimar Realty, said there are more incentives for redevelopment with tax credits than there are for someone to come in and build something new once the plant has been torn down.
Only one person not employed by the city, Steve Charles, suggested council members should vote to raze Plant #1. Charles, who said he worked for the company for 40 years, said he was proud of his work and had spent a lot of time in the building, but thought it was in “really bad shape” now.
“I’m not sure what the value or use of it is anymore,” he said. “It just makes no sense to keep it.”