I live in what you could easily call a "blighted" area. And since I've been cycling a lot, I've started to become really familiar with the buildings and architecture of my area. However, deflationary pressures and foreclosures haven't slowed down much. I'd say around 12-15% of all the homes and about 15-20% of all the commercial real estate is now vacant.

A few days ago while riding around town, I rode past at least 5 different lots that I swear had houses on them two weeks ago. Two of the five in question I was absolutely sure they had been demolished— the mailboxes for the homes were still by the road.

But it got me thinking...

Demolition is a natural part of the expansion and contraction of development. It presents a paradox, though. How does an entity grow if it removes and displaces parts of itself? Can you really consider something net positive growth if three houses were demolished for one larger house or a gas station? Should demolition only be tool to be used when the use displacing another is higher in intensity— e.g, replacing a transient neighborhood (like an RV park) with an apartment building or demolishing a block of houses to build an office building?

And that line of reasoning brought me here...

If a city, town or other developed area begins demolishing properties during downward economic pressures, what is the longer term impact both economically and socially?

I suppose by removing blighted property and otherwise condemnable buildings one could increase or stabilize the local market by decreasing the number of offending property who contribute to devaluation. But it also could do the exact opposite by destroying confidence within the municipality if the only option left is demolition.