The night was dark, stormy and headlined by high winds.  My dad had gone to drop my grandma off at her house.  She lives in a neighborhood that like her is getting old.  He walked her up her steps and said his goodbyes.  When he came back down the steps, to his surprise, the entire right side of his car was scraped up.  The culprit was still there—a section of shingles from the empty, decaying home across the street.  What would have happened if my grandmother was still standing there when the chunk of roof flew by the car?  Cities need to tear down buildings that have been abandoned long enough for them to fall into disrepair.

Buildings that are not properly maintained need to be demolished because they become hazards to their neighborhoods and the people who live there.  For starters, the empty housing often turns into a fire hazard.  Without people living in and upkeeping the property, it is not regulated and many important and potentially dangerous systems go unchecked.  For example, “one cause of fires in older buildings is the deterioration of electrical systems over time,” says Donna Shai, PhD at Villanova University.  Also, there is no one to remove the build up of other potential fire starters such as old leaves and papers, leaving the filthy, decaying structures to become more of a threat to their otherwise clean kempt communities (Shai).  Also, the disregarded structures are prone to collapse. Shai says, “buildings have a finite life span that decreases with lack of maintenance, resulting in collapse.”  It only makes sense that these hazards not receiving regular and proper inspection collapse (Shai). Finally, the still standing abandoned buildings cause death and injury to thousands every year, especially first responders to fires and collapses that plague these buildings.  “The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) indicates these buildings kill six civilians and injure 6,000 firefighters annually,” says The U.S. Fire Administration (U.S.).  These casualties are unacceptable and show that these buildings need to be torn down. The danger of fire, collapse, and death show that abandoned buildings are more than just eye sores.  They are hazards that need to be removed.

Opponents to the demolition of decaying abandoned housing suggest that revitalization and preservation efforts are better alternatives to demolition.  It is true these solutions have worked well in some small cases, but in most situations were abandoned housing exists it is better to tear down the building because often these neighborhood need to downsize and the buildings are dangerous to enter.  Urban planner Brian J. Connolly of Cornell recognizes that if people are leaving an area and no one else is moving cities should consolidate.  Looking at Detroit, the fastest shrinking city in the nation with plenty of vacant homes, he sees the need for a downsize.  He says, “by shrinking Detroit, Bing [the mayor of Detroit] rightly recognizes opportunities for the city to save resources and focus development efforts in healthier areas.”  Eliminating abandoned structures allows governments to better use their resources instead of pouring more money into houses that will continue to sit empty.  Knocking down old buildings is also safer than trying to fix them.  Connolly realizes the danger of trying to help buildings that have been neglected stating, “preservation is important but in many neighborhoods, remaining buildings are too burned-out or unsafe for rehabilitation.”  Not only is revitalizing abandoned homes not the most economical approach to dealing with the problem, it can outright dangerous (Connolly).  Demolition is the safest and smartest option for cities.

Thankfully, the abandoned home across from my grandma has since been torn down, but others still stand in her neighborhood.  The list of hazards posed by the buildings is frightening, especially when combined with their track record to injure and kill.  It is imperative that cities start to tear down these houses so their hazards do not claim any more lives.  Ever.