It isn't so much the buildings in cities like Boston that will become an issue, it's the suburban buildings being vacated. Being desirable, high rent properties/locations, inner city buildings will always be repurposed into condos, hotels, apts....and high end ones that will give a hefty return. If not repurposed, then new buildings are put up. But the Kmarts, Sears, huge stores that close down in the 'burbs? They're sitting empty and yes...it's a huge problem for the cities and towns. The tenants walk and the community is left to deal with abandoned buildings that now become havens for drug deals, squatters, vandalism.
We have a closed KMart in the heart of our small town that is NOT going to be re-leased; already its 3 yrs empty. It's too large to attract other retailers and too expensive to overhaul. It's a source of ongoing, very heated debates with every possible solution thrown out there. The criminal aspect in my mind is that the owner is currently constructing several new buildings less than sev hundred yards away in the same plaza while the KMart one sits empty and rots. I think towns and cities should have some control over private development in these instances. If the vacant buildings can't be leased within a certain period of time, the developer should be responsible for tearing them down and repairing the land before any further building will be allowed.
As to what happens with all these buildings in less attractive locations than economically healthy cities? Not much apparently; it's going to be a dismal landscape one day.
|