Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge pause on Firestone Building demolition, cite bid discrepancies and reuse options
Summary
Public commenters told Akron City Council the $5 million demolition plan needs further study, pointing to bid inconsistencies, historic features at risk and potential adaptive reuse.
Several residents urged Akron City Council on Tuesday to delay demolition of the Firestone Building and to re-evaluate the project’s costs and scope. Public commenters said bids submitted for the work contain inconsistencies and that demolition could jeopardize historic features and potential reuse of the structure.
The most direct warnings came from Dana Noel, who said she reviewed the three bids and found “two flawed aspects” in the apparent low-cost proposals. Noel said one bidder, identified in the bids as Esalich, proposed replacing the front building’s roof for about $3.9 million and removing historic skylights — work she said would “jeopardize the tax credits” and was not necessary. She also flagged roughly $2.4 million listed as new construction to secure openings after demo in the front building, which she said produced a combined total of about $6.2 million on some line items.
Noel said she discarded one bid because the bidder could not be identified online. She told the council she found a “million dollar discrepancy” between the cost to demolish the back part of the building and the price listed for other components and urged the council to “pump the brakes” and gather more information before spending $5 million.
Other speakers framed preservation as a community and historical priority. Acacia Reynolds told the council that “our history is a key resource to this city” and suggested the building could be repurposed and the grounds used for community services. William Reynolds also referenced the Firestone demolition while urging broader council accountability.
No formal action on the Firestone Building was taken during the meeting; the remarks occurred during the public comment period. Council staff told one commenter she could email additional documentation for council consideration.
Why this matters: Commenters pressed for more detailed cost breakdowns and for the city to weigh historic-preservation and adaptive-reuse options before proceeding with a demolition that residents say could cost millions and remove key architectural features.
What’s next: Commenters were told they could provide additional material by email. Council did not schedule a vote or formal motion on the Firestone Building during this session.
