John S.

Either the honorable Mayor has an evil twin or there is a total disconnect between what he claims to advocate and what he allows to happen under his mayorship. Demolitions of old structures, both homes and buildings, have been brutal over the past 2 years. That in itself is regrettable but at this time there is actually a program put forth by the Ohio Atty. General called "Moving Ohio Forward". The goal set by this program is the demolition of at least 100,000 structures state-wide by the end of 2013. (equal to the number of houses total in one of the "3 Big C's" such as Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati) Cincinnati's "allotment" from this program required the City to match state and federal funds to come up with enough money to demolish 1,000 structures by the end of 2013. To do so, the City quietly raised property taxes to come up with the additional revenue needed for this project. A half million less than the matching amount was not required to be raised by the city under the program. In the Price Hill neighborhood alone, a target was set of demolishing 100 homes with the other 900 in other neighborhoods to be reached by the end of 2013. My question is: and I don't know how else to word it, where in the hell was Mayor Mallory when these demolition quotas were being made? Oh wait...I seem to recall it is being done partially under the auspices of the Port Authority, and some kind of County "land bank" with a stated goal of putting together parcels of land for redevelopment. Who put the Port Authority in the demolition and redevelopment business? Anyone ever heard of the great Urban Renewal programs of the 1950's and 60's? The concept back then was to eradicate urban "blight" via wholesale demolions of entire neighborhoods (usually augmented with an unspoken minority demographic control component) and thus free up near downtown land for new development. In most cases, the demolitions happened but the redevelopment didn't or was far less in scale than envisioned. A good example would be the Kenyon-Barr neighborhood which was replaced by the Queensgate industrial-warehouse complex. This "new" state backed program is nothing more than a second try at Urban Renewal. For some reason, our society refuses to accept that anything old can be made to be as good as something new. The OTR (Over-the-Rhine) near downtown neighborhood is arguably one of Cincinnati's success stories with millions in investment and rehabilitation work on the district's 19th century buildings. Yet just over a decade ago when ugly riots were still fresh in the collective memory, the "solution" to OTR's problems many felt was wholesale district demolition followed by hopefully new development. Thankfully, the 3CDC appeared with an alternative solution of rehabilitation and restoration rather than razing everything. In hindsight, that was a courageous decision that is now paying off profitably. If Mayor Mallory truly believes in the successful OTR approach then he and his council should go on record opposing demolitions on the order of 1,000 at a time. One thing is certain, once these structures are razed, there's no bringing them back, mere lip service towards historic preservation does not appease anyone and makes the Mayor look deceitful and insincere. A community cannot demolish itself back to prosperity no more than amputating injured limbs will restore a person back to perfect health. When the dollar amounts spent on the rehabilitation of Cincinnati's 19th century homes and buildings equal the dollar amounts spent on demolitions, I'll take the Mayor's words to heart. But right now, they ring hollow and without substance.

It's my understanding that she did not like the (her husband's) old family home and cared not if it were demolished but hard to pin down whether that is negative hearsay or a proven fact. In any case, the Foundation applied for and received a demolition permit and that is the basis of the on-going legal dispute. I've never heard of any penalty against the foundation for not carrying out the demolition or it would have surely been presented by them in court. They spent something like 3 million dollars restoring an Indian Hill historic home but nothing on the Gamble House. Some members (younger?) of the Gamble family apparently do wish to see it preserved and restored while arguably having the company founder's home to tour would be an excellent public relations/corporate image gesture for P & G, but the legal process has to be played out first however long it takes.

Hardly...ownership and site management passed long ago to the Greenacres Foundation and they are on record as wanting the Gamble House demolished. Were it not for the on-going legal tug-of-war we would now be talking about the Gamble House in the past tense. It's fate is far from decided at this point and the Foundation has access to enough funds to fight this battle in court for years and probably will. The passing of a family member with the closest connection to this property has no direct impact on its fate. We can only hope that at some point common sense will come into play and a reasonable compromise can be achieved without dragging this through the court for years. Only time will tell.

Thanks to fracking and natural gas, we are making a comeback! Our economy has been the fastest growing in Ohio since early 2011. Since 2011, $2.186 billion has been invested here alone in the preparation stages of natural gas development. Once the drilling commences and the workers expand in numbers locally, you can really expect this area to take off. Let's hope CNN Money was right when they said.... "Youngstown is America's Next Boomtown!" Caution is in order regarding expectations of continued boom times. The Barnett Shale Gas drilling boom in north Texas (where I live) has been winding down in recent months due to declining natural gas prices. The mild previous winter helped push down gas price levels and some exploration companies are mothballing their rigs and laying off workers in Texas right now. It is my understanding that the Marcellus-Utica Shale exploration also includes oil as well as gas being discovered so the combination might make it more profitable to drill there. Just one really cold winter would firm up prices but given the evidence of warming climate hard to say when that might happen. It would be good if more vehicles burned CNG as fuel-it's domestically produced and less polluting than petroleum based fuels. So as long as the gas drilling phase lasts, its certainly good economic news for northeastern and eastern Ohio.

Because drugs and prostitution are basically "cash and carry" businesses... demolition only means the purveyors of the trade will relocate and set up shop again nearby. Demolition impacts (historic) buildings, not so much unsavory people who can and do move around frequently. Religious institutions and hospitals are among the most egregious destroyers of historic homes and buildings under their ownership. Christ Hospital is certainly not unique in tearing down historic homes. Children's Hospital has eradicated many historic homes in its periodic expansions with those great old brick Victorians across the street on Erkenbrecher highly threatened by any new expansion. Changes in technologies and health care policy may render mega-size hospitals obsolete in the future but there's no bringing back what was lost in their frequent expansions. No one would shed a tear for demolishing a former hospital in the future since they were never built to last a century or more like the old houses were. And once grand houses they were...

Yeah, its got that kind of hip, cool, vibe to it and that's a major selling point appealing to multiple demographic segments. I personally think the Northside someday could give the OTR a serious run for the residential money. (and commercial too in some aspects as in along Hamilton Ave.) It just needs more investment and new residents. Just a week ago, I learned the City was going to demo 1317 and 1526 Chase-two neglected but once grand brick Victorian era townhomes-which in other places might have been nicely rehabbed into choice dwellings. Cincinnati is both blessed and cursed with an overabundance of historic homes and buildings. With the City's aggressive "nuisance property" enforcement and abatement program-which often leads to demolition-the supply and demand equation should soon come into balance. The American Can Factory Lofts are a rare exception to the routine practice of razing old industrial buildings and sites. It's success indicates maybe more of these old buildings Should have been repurposed and adapted to residential uses by more creative developers. Some of those already razed represented missed opportunities, IMO. Industrial lofts are very popular in some cities; why not add Cincinnati to that list?

First, you can contact the city code violation inspector (find the CPOP site and type in the property address) and sometimes he or she will give you the straight story about the property and/or owner. The Hamilton Co. Auditor's page for the property gives the owners name and last known mailing address. Usually, these absentee owners are not that hard to locate if you are determined but the city finds it easier to slap on a nuisance declaration and then throw it in the pipeline for demolition. Contact the City's Urban Conservator Larry Harris, or property maintenance director, Ed Cunningham in the building and planning dept. Once they become aware someone is interested in preserving the property, they may assist or at least advise you in your efforts. There's also a somewhat complex legal maneuver explained to me by Matt Strauss over at Price Hill Will by which one can acquire ownership. Keep in mind this property probably has a VBML (Vacant Building Maintenance License, typically $1,000 for each year its vacant) slapped on the property which can either be collected or waived by the city from the new owner. Check with the Cincinnati Preservation Association for more info. A project like this is doable, but proper procedure must be followed for a successful outcome.

Thanks for the clarification...the Facebook posting indicated the house itself was at risk. But given its state of neglect and long period of vacancy, the house itself remains at risk. The objective of local preservation advocates should be to get the house out of the ownership of a long-distance absentee individual and into the hands of someone who will commit to restore and live in it.

This area has long deserved an economic boost and now it has it. While I think the long term prospects are for the area to gradually come back, for a few years, an economic boom may take place with many new residents coming in for the jobs after the local job market gets tight. Wish I had a crystal ball to look a decade down the road as the new Oil & Gas economy may transform the region and completely change our perceptions of it. But with economic prosperity comes changes and "progress". In this instance it may means a whole new (modern) look for these faded towns (big box retailers, strip shopping centers, and national chain stores/fast food joints as well as McMansions and tract housing) along with the sacrifice of their frozen-in-time quaintness. It was the chronically weak local economy that preserved (via benign neglect) all of the picturesque remnants of the past.

The Steele Mansion rescue and restoration is one of the most inspiring and uplifting preservation stories to come out of Ohio recently. Whatever praises, awards, or credits the project receives are all well deserved. This amazing transformation defies the current trend towards "right-sizing" and "Blight abatement" via demolitions underway in many other Ohio cities. I mentioned this successful example today in the Cincinnati demolition thread as a major landmark home there (the former Christian Moerlein House of Moerlein Brewery fame) is now facing a city nuisance declaration followed by demolition despite it appearing to be in much better condition than the Steele Mansion was prior to restoration.

And I totally agree with you about the urgent city policy changes needed-new development (especially in older neighborhoods) was so scarce in past decades that developers were avidly sought and almost any concession they requested was granted. I won't argue that developers willing to do projects in marginal neighborhoods should not be encouraged and/or given incentives. However, right now almost everything old seems to be expendable with the City's blessings and encouragement. The City itself is pursuing an aggressive "blight abatement" policy that provides few exceptions for significant historic structures. I realize this falls under the "marketing of the City image" banner to outsiders but recent regional and national media attention is focused more on the HISTORIC architecture of Cincinnati rather than the new. (The Banks project excepted) Both the Wall Street Journal as well as the New York Times had articles last year about the Over-the-Rhine renaissance with the focus on its unique architecture. The resulting recent widespread losses, as you mention, appear to be as numerous now as they were during the highway construction project days. Looking back to those dismal days, many now see forever lost opportunities. No doubt, in the future others will look back on this period and reach the same hindsight conclusions-unless, before the losses reach a level of oblivion, a more sensible city policy towards helping neglected historic properties become compliant as an alternative to demolition is adopted. The notion of demolishing the former Christian Moerlein Home would simply be intolerable in any other enlightened community-so why must it be acceptable today in Cincinnati? (as well as for so many other endangered historic Cincinnati homes and buildings?) The old Urban Renewal planning model ("redlining/blockbusting") of the 1950's failed in its mission to revitalize cities so why re-adopt it now?

No point in trying to sugar coat it and suggest bringing this former mansion back is or will be easy. But if there are any doubts about the feasibility of doing so, please look at the Steele Mansion restoration in Painesville posted on U.O. This house is in far better condition than the almost lost Steele Mansion, at least at first glance. The absentee owner is apparently living in California. (the State of, not the Cincinnati neighborhood by that name) Houses in the same or even worse condition are routinely rehabbed in the OTR, so instead of demolition, the City needs to help get this property into the hands of someone who cares. And if the City can pony up nearly three-quarters of a million dollars to assist a Soul food restaurant owner at the new Banks development, why not chip in at least the costs of demolition to help preserve this landmark home? As noted, this was an important residence for the Christian Moerlein family. The Moerleins were among the most prominent brewers in 19th century Cincinnati at a time when the City was known far and wide as a center of the American brewing industry. I can understand the city's efforts to clean up "blight" and present Cincinnati as a 21st century progressive community, but it seems lately the city is trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are over 5,000 properties on the city's nuisance property list with new ones added every week. While some will be spared the bulldozer blade, many will not. Imagine knocking down thousands of homes in one neighborhood? (such as Evanston, Avondale, or Walnut Hills) That neighborhood would cease to exist entirely. But the demo problem is happening all over town because as the thread above reveals, developers are chipping away at historic homes and buildings as well. The supply of extant 19th century architecture is finite and may be one of Cincinnati's greatest untapped and unrecognized resources. The Moerlein House sits on a prominent corner as it has for nearly 150 years. While such classic Italianate style homes are not (yet) rare in Cincinnati, the added connection to the Moerleins makes the property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It would also qualify as a designated local landmark. We may soon lose the James Gamble (as in Proctor & Gamble) house in Westwood despite almost heroic efforts to save it. Is it wise to add the Christian Moerlein home as well to the thick, discouraging volume of images known as "Lost Cincinnati"?

Every rehab developer in town should be reading your message. Between projects like this and the OTR renaissance, there's without question a robust market for "cool" housing for those wanting the excitement and experience of living in the urban core. I expect this strong housing demand to continue as more folks (especially those in the younger demographic) seek to live in an urban environment rather than the sprawling Suburbia of their parents. The back-to-the-cities movement is alive and well in Cincinnati.

The deferred maintenance you mention was not limited to the Steele Mansion but to nearly all Victorian era homes. By the outbreak of WWI in the teens, critics were lampooning and verbally ripping apart everything Victorian including architecture. The ornate homes of that era were labeled as examples of "dishonest" architecture. By the 1950's, Victorian era homes were so despised that they became associated with the dead and macabre. Alfred Hitchcock used a ghostly towered Second Empire home in his movie PSYCHO. Cartoonist Charles Addams used creepy Victorian backdrops for his Addams Family cartoons. Against this negative backdrop which lasted over 50 years almost countless formerly grand homes from the 1800's were neglected, abandoned, and razed. The Urban Renewal era of the 1940's, '50's, and 60's razed many thousands more of the old style homes. Even legendary Euclid Avenue in Cleveland where John D. Rockerfeller and Charles Brush (founder of General Electric) lived with their millionaire peers in lavish mansions saw most of them disappear in the following years so that now only archival photos provide a hint of how grand it once was. Not surprisingly, the Steele Mansion suffered a similar fate and pattern of neglect. Like so many large Victorians, it was probably divided into apartments and the only goal of the landlord was to maximize rent revenues, not keep the old home in pristine condition. It's truly amazing that we have as many Victorian era survivors as we do considering the hazards they faced when everything Victorian was considered worthless. But they built these grand old homes to last back then and when permitted to stand they have held up remarkably well considering the many years of neglect.

Thanks for the old photos! I agree that most were taken when the house was starting to fade but some of the furnishings are undeniably Victorian and likely date back to the early days. More importantly, the photos show how the various rooms were originally used. The new owners-restorers might want copies of these old photos to hang on the walls but doubtful they would want to receate furnished replicas of the interior rooms. And to think this landmark home came dangerously close to being a total loss....

Huntington Place had some architecturally interesting late 19th townhomes which a number of them were apparently built by the same builder as they shared many common design details. Too bad the Hospital couldn't have designed their expansion project around these homes; they might have made for decent housing for hospital employees because they all had old architectural character and interesting details like stained glass windows and decorative interior millwork. I hope some of the better architectural elements were at least salvaged. The day is not far off when Cincinnati may find it is running short of this kind of quality Victorian era housing. Besides the frequent City nuisance demolitions, development projects all over town are rapidly chipping away at the remaining old survivors. Few examples of what gets built to replace this old architecture is of the same quality as the old originals. We seldom build structures to last a century today but that was a common practice back in the late 1800's. The unique old architecture remaining in Cincinnati is truly a gift from the past and an irreplaceable, finite resource. But all of the razing of the old for the new is "progress" I suppose...

Someone posted on FB that damage to the wall of the Firehouse was caused by the demolition work-anyone see this?

This is a win for everyone involved. Special thanks are due to the Shamakians for taking on a challenge of this magnitude. Few people even with adequate financial resources would tackle a project like this one. It shows that so many allegedly "hopeless" faded landmarks can be brought back if the money and determination are there. It's sad to see so many once fine homes and commercial buildings reduced to rubble in the name of "eyesore" eradication. Some should come down, but others had so much potential now lost forever.

Always enjoy seeing good photos of my favorite Ohio city. Keep 'em coming, please!

Perhaps because its had aluminum or vinyl siding applied to it, some of the original flavor is missing but this house fits broadly into the Bungalow family which is more of a house type than a style. Given the interior details, is does lean stylistically towards the Craftsman category but that does not necessarily mean it was ever featured in Gustav Stickley's THE CRAFTSMAN magazine. (published from 1901-1916) It could very well be a pattern book house design from Radford or a Sears (Roebuck & Co.) kit house, and/or even an Aladdin "Redi-Cut' home. More research would be needed but the formal details suggest it was a popular design for its time. The original colors were likely to have been earth tones (reds, browns, yellows and greens) favored by the American Arts & Crafts movement. Great interior details in this one.

Bowling Green is intriguing. The town shows quite a diversity in its architecture with a nice mix of mid to late 19th century architecture mixed with more recent examples. The "Lehmann" building with its Bovine head statuary is a rare example of Victorian era architectural artistic embellishment. Looks like those straight-laced, prudish Victorians actually had fun with their architecture unlike the functional, deadly serious offerings from today. To the town's credit is that they apparently recognized the value of their historic architecture before all of it was gone. I liked the photos and thank you for posting.

I don't know about that. What's left of the West End is still pretty dense, Clifton Heights, Fairview, Mount Auburn, etc. are as well. Maybe not OTR dense, but small lot dense. But I guess this could be an argument about what one considers "dense". If you mean attached buildings, then you are right. But I consider streets like Victor, Stratford, or McGregor fairly dense. Agreed, my "argument" was that newer construction is of much lower density than the old in most cases. Compare the old aerial photos of the West End with what remains there now and you can see a sharp difference between the new and old. The Queensgate development was once just as dense as the old West End but the whole Kenyon-Barr neighborhood was leveled and what replaced it was low density commercial/industrial. Until land values or zoning requirements mandate denser development we will continue to see suburban type new development built in former urban areas as the norm. Of course, one could argue that there's no need for dense development anymore because the pedestrian friendly era of the long ago past is long gone and privately owned cars will always be with us. Suburban campus type development placed in an urban setting makes more sense with that logic. (hey, it worked for Houston, TX which now takes up over 500 sq. miles) I personally like the old density, even if it is functionally obsolete.

It's a sad time for historic preservation nationally. Almost seems like the 1950's Urban Renewal days all over again and no matter how "cash strapped" municipalities claim to be, I've yet to see even ONE that ever postponed a single "nuisance" demolition citing a lack of funds. There was a CBS 60 Minutes report this past weekend about the City of Cleveland dealing with its vacant and abandoned homes "problem" via mass demolitions. The segment cited 1,000+ demolitions on track for this year alone with 20,000 more homes to go. Try to imagine the staggering costs of building 20,000 new homes, some of them being very large two story dwellings. Think how many substantial neighborhoods it would take to accomodate these 20,000 soon-to-be-gone homes? All of those materials and lost labor costs going out in dumptruck loads of splinters and dust to the landfill...and unlike rehabbing, mass demolitions do not create long term jobs (unless you subscribe to the silly myth that "if you tear it down, they will come and rebuild"). Such a senseless waste. I visited Wheeling in 2009 after a decade of absence. Much of what I saw in 1999 was gone and a local informed me with disgust how hell-bent Wheeling was in destroying its once-grand architectural legacy. It almost seemed like a case of destructive self-loathing. Of course, the chronic weak local economy is cited repeatedly as the pressing need to "right-size" but it is my understanding some of these faded areas are now seeing the beginnings of a boom brought on by regional natural gas drilling. (Marcellus-Utica Shale activity) If economic predictions pan out, locals may look back in regret that they were in such a hurry to eradicate their past. Much of economically disadvantaged eastern Ohio may benefit from this energy activity as the needs for drilling supplies and materials is ramping up long dormant businesses. The whole concept of "right sizing" towns and cities is woefully short-sighted and based on the immediate here and now. If predicted long term climate changes come to past, the Midwest and Ohio in particular may see populations grow because it has in abundance the one natural resource most often predicted to be scarce and in high demand in the furture: fresh water. Please pardon my ramblings, but my point is that hastily made decisions to "downsize" communities based on the current recession or on short term economic forecasts may in hindsight appear to have been terrible mistakes a decade or two down the road.

Some nice Victorian era survivors in the town but overall looking faded and a bit sad. One has to wonder how much longer these will still be around? Thanks for the photos, Ink.

Another nice collection of photos. One thing that stands out to me is the high density of the OTR and the almost suburban-like newer construction spread out around it. The downtown CBD core is still high density but once you move out a bit the density levels drop off very quickly. Newport still looks densely built from this perspective-of course, modern construction reflects the car-centric culture not the pedestrian friendly, human scaled layout of the old OTR area. Thanks for these great photos...BTW, the OWS Movement has almost disappeared off the public radar screen lately but politics seems to be taking center stage right now.