IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/houspd/v34y2024i6p1012-1031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Demolition Planning” in a U.S. Legacy City: Using Stakeholder Input to Plan for the Demolition of Blighted, Vacant Properties in Flint, Michigan

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria Morckel
  • Melissa Hertlein
  • Christina Kelly

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of participatory “demolition planning” for blighted, vacant properties in the legacy city of Flint, Michigan. It outlines how the Genesee County Land Bank Authority (GCLBA) used residents’ responses to a survey about demolition priorities to create an algorithm that assigns demolition scores to blighted properties in Flint. The survey results showed that residents’ top priority was demolishing blighted properties located directly next door to occupied properties. Fire-damaged properties, blighted properties in proximity to schools, and blighted properties located in highly occupied neighborhoods were the next highest priorities. There were few spatial differences in survey responses at the neighborhood (i.e., city ward) level. We discuss the implications of these findings and how other communities can adapt and improve upon the GCLBA’s surveying and algorithm creation efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria Morckel & Melissa Hertlein & Christina Kelly, 2024. "“Demolition Planning” in a U.S. Legacy City: Using Stakeholder Input to Plan for the Demolition of Blighted, Vacant Properties in Flint, Michigan," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(6), pages 1012-1031, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:34:y:2024:i:6:p:1012-1031
    DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2237008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10511482.2023.2237008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10511482.2023.2237008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:34:y:2024:i:6:p:1012-1031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RHPD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.