Last night’s community meeting held by the City was a meaningful step in informing the public about the constraints and efforts surrounding Firestone Plant 1. It was clear that residents care deeply — not only about this building, but about how decisions like this are made.

City representatives emphasized that previous administrations attempted redevelopment in 2013 and 2016. I understand that perspective. This building has been difficult. It has sat vacant. Engineers have weighed in. Political administrations have changed. Regardless of what happened in 2013 or 2016, however, the present decision still requires independent and transparent evaluation.

It is important to clarify something as well: this moment is not a literal repeat of mid-century urban renewal policy. But it has struck a chord in the community because aspects of the process like limited early engagement, sudden demolition framing, and language describing the building as a “nuisance”, echo patterns people associate with that era. This reaction shows that there is a lack of trust, transparency, around how public assets are evaluated through a lens of long-term civic value or  administrative efficiency.

Firestone Plant 1 is publicly owned. It helped define Firestone Park. It is listed on the National Register. It is part of Akron’s industrial and planning history and should be given more evaluation on its reuse. 

Environmental covenants may restrict residential reuse today, but the key question is whether those restrictions are legally immovable, and what the cost would be to modify them under the project’s updated scope. If modification is possible, then the choice not to pursue it becomes a policy decision, not an inevitability.

This is not about opposing the City. It is about strengthening process.

Akron now has an opportunity to model thoughtful stewardship rather than default to demolition-first outcomes when projects become complex. The lesson here is not that we are reliving the 1960s. The lesson is that bureaucratic systems still tend to favor removal over repair unless policy intentionally protects alternatives.

With SHPO review in progress and the upcoming Urban Design Review meeting on 2/17, now is the time for due diligence before irreversible action.

If you believe public assets deserve full and transparent evaluation before demolition, please:

• Complete Progress Through Preservation’s survey here

• Contact your representatives and SHPO here

• Request independent feasibility review and full preservation evaluation before demolition funding proceeds

This moment is not about delay for the sake of delay. It is about ensuring that the decision- is made through a complete, transparent, and community-informed process.

Thank you for staying engaged.