John S.

Cincinnati has a trifecta of hip urban neighborhoods-The Northside, Over-the-Rhine, and West End that could equal or surpass those in many other "trendy" American cities. My spouse and I visited the Northside from the Dallas TX area last April ('09) and stopped for lunch at the Melt Cafe on Hamilton Avenue-the sandwiches a bit pricey but good-the place was really hopping with activity. With the mix of younger folks and busy unique street scenes, I could visualize being along Portland's Pearl District or the artist mecca Fremont District in Seattle. The Northside is becoming authentically Uber-cool and hip! In a decade, people may sigh in regret about missed opportunities when reminiscing about how affordable housing and business spaces were there back in 2010. I think urban artist Shepard Fairey's distinctive murals were an initial hip stamp of approval and while most of these three urban areas' recognition is still local-regional, national recognition is probably not far away. Of course, with the rough recession and a less than always supportive City government, the budding urban renaissance could be derailed, but right now the momentum is building in its favor. The ACF Square project is evidence of that. Nice Article...thanks! Sorry to veer slightly off topic.

Robert, Indiana does have some awesome historic architecture and where-ever small towns have retained their old homes and buildings, they are often as impressive as larger Hoosier towns and cities. Nice to learn your neighborhood is being recognized. A longtime friend of mine and his family live in Madisonville and he works for the Indiana Landmarks Foundation. Another good friend of mine ("Restoration Consultant") and his partner are in the process of relocating from Indianapolis to Cincincinnati and he sold me on a future move to the Queen City several years ago. We patiently await the sale of our home in Texas to relocate there. (and will buy another Victorian era home) I was surprised to see Detroit, West Adams in LA, and Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn in the top ten list. The editors' choices seem a little arbitrary and unusual. There are so many formerly great old neighborhoods across the country awaiting urban pioneers and people with vision to bring them back. Plenty of these faded gems will disappear from neglect within a few decades unless the current generation coming of age steps forward to embrace the principles of restoration and reclaiming our architectural heritage. Maybe today's emphasis on "Green" principles of environmental responsibility will grow the ranks of potential rehabbers-at the risk of repeating a green principle mantra, the "greenest stucture is one that is already built". BTW, I liked your "dreamhome" choices in the other thread chosen from the homes in your neighborhood. All of them are classics of their respective styles. Hope the pending tour is a success and the weather cooperates.

Wow, what a (pleasant) surprise! Back in the 1970's, the South Bronx was arguably the most dangerous place in America. It was the poster child, textbook example, absolute epitome of American urban decay and blight. The movie, Fort Apache, (1981) used the S. Bronx as its urban setting and I think there was also a Charles Bronson movie set in the S. Bronx with acres of ruins and burned out buildings everywhere. Only gangs of roaming thugs, drug dealers, addicts, and a few terrified old residents who remained barricaded inside their apartments still called it home. Criminals dominated the scene and operated openly with impunity. Cops rarely ventured into the area. Anyone from the outside who was foolish enough to venture there would quickly find themselves a hapless crime victim and/or have their car stripped bare in minutes. That's the image in popular culture the South Bronx had back in those scary days. At the same time, demolition contractors were working overtime knocking down derelict but once elegant Victorian era multi story S. Bronx apartment buildings left and right. I once ran across an online photo album of a fellow who had salvaged demolition fragments of these formerly posh buildings with stone carvings so fantastic they truly belonged in museum collections. As a fearless teenager, he took 1970's photos of some of these buildings while they were in the process of being demolished as well as scooped up some of the beautiful sculptural carvings. Given all of the urban decay and wholesale demolitions happening during that dark period, I was amazed to see anything old in the South Bronx has survived. To see today that some of the old buildings were actually restored and parts of the area appear to becoming somewhat gentrified, (using that term loosely) gives me hope that perhaps even a little will survive in places like Detroit, MI whenever the demolition dust finally settles there. If the South Bronx can go from what it was in the 1970's to what it looks like today, then anything is possible. Great collection of photos, thanks!

JRC, I agree, and I followed your fascinating thread on this wonderful house. (and the many others you looked at) I'm sorry it did not come through for you but with enough patience and effort, someday you'll find that architectural diamond in the rough and be able to transform it into your dreamhome. There are unfortunately way too many once fine homes with great architectural character slowing rotting away, not just in Ohio, but across the nation-what is badly needed are more people with vision possessing the ability to bring them back to their former glory. Many of the posh "dreamhomes" now being offered for sale at astronomical prices were once faded and seemed headed for oblivion until someone came along and cared enough to save them. Anyone who has looked comparatively at the materials and craftmanship of the past finds that such quality is hard to duplicate today, at any price. Besides, it's far "greener" to save and renovate an existing house rather than build yet another tract home way out in the sprawling suburbs. We may need part of that suburban land someday to grow food again; fertile land is a finite resource. Dreamhomes can be found in cities too.

Very nice! However, for the sum of the realtor's commission on the SoHo example, you could buy a very similar building in Cincinnati's Over-the-Rhine or West End, totally renovate it with all the amenities you've enumerated, and then still likely have some money left over. Of course, in real estate it's always about location, location, location, and the OTR/West End are not up to SoHo standards, yet, but might be someday. There was a time when SoHo & Greenwich Village were not considered such prime real estate; quite the contrary back in the 1950's and 1960's.

KJP, Yeah, that one's a bit over-the-top and requires the income and/or bonus money of a Wall Street investment banker or Middle-Eastern Oil Sheik, to be within one's financial reach. Doubtful even run-of-the-mill Lottery jackpot winnings in the millions would get you close. I'm thinking billionaire kind of money rather than mere garden variety millionaire's. Difficult to imagine the kind of lifestyle one would have to maintain to reach that lofty level of luxury. My actual dream home is grounded a bit more in reality. Since I cherish the architecture of the 19th century, I've found many suitable examples in Ohio and especially within the confines of Cincinnati. In fact, I have a personal "album" of suitable specimens and many are surprisingly affordable although most need some TLC. The "dream" part comes from transforming them from tired and faded back to beautiful and vibrant. Kind of like taking an old rusted classic hulk of an automobile and turning it back into a dazzling show car. Immensely satisfying on many levels. Most of the photos I have were either taken from real estate listings or the county auditor's site so I have to apologize for not reposting them. (I could perhaps post an address list)The reason I decided to reply was due to the notion of a "dream home" may mean different things to different people-mine just happens to be taking a faded old house with character, and then nicely restoring it back to a period appearance with suitable landscaping as well. The 1,200 acres in your dream home example would require quite a large staff to maintain, and then the property taxes?? To each his or her own. Good luck on getting your dream home someday.

Incomparable is a very apt word. Cincinnati appears to be blossoming into a "Portland-ish' (as in Portland. OR) kind of streetscape having a funky urban vibe, especially on the Northside. It's the kind they have in Portland in the Pearl District or like Seattle has in the artist mecca of Fremont. The coming streetcars should provide additional momentum while the local colleges and universities contribute the energies and culture of youth. Music, art, and experimental creativity get pulled into this magnetic urban environment-these photos show that. This kind of unique creative atmosphere cannot be artificially created by developers, a place either naturally has it or it doesn't. It is defined by the common characteristics of cool, hip, gritty, and artsy. Cincinnati has it abundantly in the Northside, OTR, and West End. I feel the potential for a vibrant future in these areas is unlimited. Fantastic photos! I'm sorry though, that I couldn't be a little more optimistic...(tongue in cheek, of course)

Gotta' love that "consumer review" posted on the side of the building. Picturesque place, but not unlike so many others of a similar size.

Atlas, all of your points are valid, but I hope the OTR continues to go in this direction-if a small burg in Illinois can do it and subsequently cash in on the crowds of tourists that flock to see the architecture and history there, then Over-the-Rhine residents and owners can do the same despite many other obstacles.

Nice town and it shows how attractive and interesting a historic downtown area can be. I was immediately struck by the similarities between Galena's downtown building stock and that found in the OTR (Over-the-Rhine) district in Cincinnati. If anything, the OTR stock is even more impressive architecturally, but there the similarities end. Galena is miles ahead of the OTR in terms of overall restoration and revitalizing the downtown commercial district. The town's historic housing stock is among the most impressive in Illinois; hope you get a chance to photograph some of these residential gems in the future.

Amen to that!

Beuatiful shots of the City by the Bay. It was interesting to see the oil storage tanks near Martinez from the air, with their adobe color, they blend in much better at ground level. All storage tanks should take a cue from these. From 2006 to the end of 2007 I lived first in Vallejo and then in the Redwoods near Sebastopol (actually, closer to Occidental but who knows where that is?) in Sonoma county. Many happy memories. Taken collectively, the Bay area is about one of the most beautiful areas on the planet...except OHIO, of course!

The 1907 Kessler Park Plan for Cincinnati, Ink? Don't know much about it but the Kessler map shows a lot of old Cincinnati streets before later 20th Century development. Maybe you could fill in a few details?

Thomas, The Westwood Concern Gamble House webpage http://westwoodconcern.org/news.shtml has a long list of relevant contacts at the bottom of the article. Saving the Gamble house is going to be a complex situation because it involves a non-profit private owner (Greenacres Foundation) apparently interested in seeing the house demolished (but not some of the outbuildings) as well as a city inspection report citing condition issues which have to be addressed to stall demolition. It appears to be a classic case of demolition-by-neglect and these are among the most difficult cases to deal with, as I'm sure you know.

From the posted list: Regarding 24 Elder, obviously a CONTRIBUTING commercial structure for any future historic district designation. Ground floor has been altered somewhat but largely original and from C. 1870 according to auditor's site. 512 Prospect is a unique (and likely architect or plan book design) towered Italianate villa. I concur it would elegible individually for the National Register of Historic Places based on its surviving architectural details. In any other city, it would have local landmark status.

My curiousity got the best of me and I looked on the auditor's site for info and pictures on some of these properties. Appalling! 1647 California, Bond Hill, C. 1900 brick 2 & 1/2 story Colonial Revival with prominent Palladian window in gable, looks intact, unaltered, and in good repair. (maybe a recent fire? otherwise it makes zero sense to demo) 717 Ridgeway, Avondale, Queen Anne C. 1898 Unusual design... 1136 Beech, West Price Hill, 1880's Italianate but altered with vinyl siding 1140 Beech West Price Hill, large (3,500 sq. ft.) Second Empire, 1870's-1880's 3 story original slate, nice pedimented dormer but altered with vinyl siding. A major loss in this block for sure... 1265 Iliff West Price Hill, Queen Anne C. 1895 3315 Hackberry, Evanston, photos show house in excellent (and I do mean excellent) condition, C. 1900 Colonial Revival (maybe recent fire or something?) Neighboring house looks badly deteriorated-maybe wrong address? 3060 Beekman, Millvale neighborhood, C. 1880's Italianate, major altered and in poor condition in photo. This is the only house that might be justified to demo on this list. However, it does have 4 outstanding original Terra Cotta crenulated chimney pots. 3241 Fairfield, Evanston, Unbelieveable-obviously an architect designed but altered 1890's Eclectic Queen Anne- has been vinylized and some windows inappropriately replaced. Was once a mansion. In summary, collectively these are a whole block or more of Victorian era housing slated for demolition and this is about 1/2 of the list. All the more reason why finding a way to slow down Cincinnati's "demolition derby" is essential. Too sad for any more words...

:clap: Over the past couple of years, I've read with interest your well-written Urban Cincy blog and many of your posted messages on U.O.. If only everyone who cares about the future of Cincinnati would put in as much time and energy as you do, we might not need a Cincinnati demolition thread on the forum. Please don't give up or feel your efforts are unappreciated, they certainly are, and I sincerely thank you. We need more people who care and are willing to make an effort. I'm a Cincinnatian-in-waiting; the only thing keeping my spouse and I from being there is the sale of our home. (in Texas) Otherwise, I could not relocate to Cincinnati soon enough.

In your opinion do you think there are enough qualified people in the Cincinnati metro to be able to successfully restore all of our historic buildings? To answer your question in one word, no. The preservation picture in Cincinnati is complex and has many sides to it. Restoration construction is similar in costs to new construction and the dollar amount required to rehab a large area like the OTR would probably eclipse the Banks project. The harsh reality is that Cincinnati's rates of growth and investment are far too low currently to save a majority of its historic architecture. In places like the OTR, we can hope the current pace of investment and redevelopment continues. In the end, we may (hopefully) have a future OTR with only a small number of building losses beyond today. That is a best case, pie-in-the-sky, rose colored glasses scenario where everything works out optimally. But the OTR is but a small fraction of Cincinnati's architectural treasures. What about neighborhoods like Evanston, Walnut Hills, Westwood, Fairmount, Avondale? There may be some brave souls willing to urban pioneer and make some investments there but by the time such areas become attractive to investors again, doubtful much of the old architecture will be around. So many homes in these areas are marginal that only a massive program of incentives and investment could save what remains. I personally proposed a federally funded jobs training program for disadvantaged and unskilled urban youth (which I referred to as The Restoration Corps or Restore America) in restoration and rehabilitation skills so they could reclaim their neighborhoods and sent this proposal to the then president-elect Obama. I recieved a form email thank you and that was all. Regardless, it would take the resources of the federal government to tackle a city-wide rehab program for a city the size of Cincinnati. While the feds are happy to hand over money for demolitions they do not seem to be as eager to help save neighborhoods. We can remain hopeful...

You're probably talking about the row of Victorian brick townhomes on the north side of the 800 block of Lincoln before you reach (going east) to Gilbert Avenue? These are an example of a city-funded preservation boondoggle as a result of poor project management and lack of follow-up. The city has successfully sold a few of these properties (after years in limbo) but some remain abandoned and boarded up. It is sometimes held up as an example of why the city should not be involved in the rehab of historic buildings. The rehabilitation of historic homes and buildings is far more complex than new construction and requires a far higher degree of oversight and follow-up. Old buildings and houses ALWAYS have unexpected problems that often become evident well into the project. While some are fairly easy affordable fixes, others can quickly mushroom to epic proportions and turn a decent budget into comical fiction in no time. Ideally, a local preservation organization with strong construction management skills would administer or oversee such city backed projects. Rehabbers and restorers of these projects should not receive any perks such as grants or tax breaks until the project is completed and signed off by all involved parties. That would do a lot to cut down on the number of half-finished abandoned rehab projects around town. Every time such an enterprise to rehab an old structure fails, it is a mark against saving any others. Better to salvage and demo a badly deteriorated structure than put it in the hands of someone doomed to failure. Given all the unknown risks in rehabbing an old house or building, its almost miraculous that any get saved.

This could potentially be a case of mis-matched owners and home. While the energies of newly wed youth will go a long way, this particular structure needs massive amounts of work and money to bring it back. For inexperienced first time homebuyers, the enormity of it all may quickly overwhelm them. I do hope the logistics and matching the new owners' resources with the needs of the structure were carefully considered when the decision to grant them the house was made. I also hope that a strict follow-up and review procedure is in place so the OTR foundation can intervene immediately if problems develop. It would neither benefit the historic house nor the young couple if they had the place completely gutted and then ran out of funds or the enthusiasm to continue. They would end up broke and discouraged while the house would then be fast-tracked to demolition. The city could then point to this example to bolster their argument that demolition is the best course of action. Preservationists sometimes overlook basic realities when rushing against time constraints to rescue an endangered structure and will choose to give a house or building to someone who is unqualified to take on a project of that magnitude. I know of one endangered house example when I lived in Missouri that was given by a local preservation organization to a demolition business owner (!?) who predictably, after taking out all of the good salvage, decided it was too expensive to save and quietly went down to City Hall to take out a demo permit. The City immediately notified the preservation organization which had to go to court to take the gutted house back. The demo business owner had his lawyer write language into the contract that allowed him to skip out on his $50k performance bond and soon skipped town. Now, almost 5 years later, the shell of the house sits vacant and abandoned with eventual demolition almost certain. The number of people with the knowledge, experience, and funds to rehab or restore a badly deteriorated historic home are few in number and most have their hands full these days. I truly wish this young couple the very best in their efforts and hope they are up to the task. If they are successful, they should receive all of the tax breaks and preservation award recognition they deserve. Bringing a badly deteriorated house back is not for the faint of heart or shallow of pocket.

From reading all of the posts in this thread it is evident that we are all in agreement that too many historic structures in Cincinnati are being demolished than any of us are comfortable with. The City's demo "problem" keeps getting cited but is not being countered with enough constructive creative solutions being offered. Cincinnati is being compared, favorably or unfavorably, with many other cities, but the solution(s) for reducing the number of historically or architecturally significant structures being demolished have to originate locally and be uniquely tailored for Cincinnati. In other words, what may work well in Baltimore or Charleston, may not work in Cincinnati because of local economic realities, demographics, and the unique urban fabric of the Queen City. Then there's the long history in the City of using demolition as a revitalization tool. In 1893, local author Daniel Kenny wrote a City guide and among the sponsoring local businesses were "house wreckers" and construction companies offering demolition services. Another guide from the City's bicentennial in 1988 also had a major demolition contractor as a prominent sponsor. Some demolition is inevitable and it is unrealistic to think every old structure can or will be saved no matter how sympathetic (or not) local government officials may be towards historic preservation. While we are comparing cities, thank heavens Cincinnati is not like Flint, Michigan, which arguably has one of the most aggressive blight abatement programs in the country: www.telegraph.co.uk/.../US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html In this case, Flint city officials have made a conscious decision to permanently downsize. Getting rid of the old and obsolete is as American as apple pie while saving and restoring older structures is a relatively new concept. As has already been stated, Cincinnati is certainly not the worst offender in the number of demolitions, but still has too many important structures being razed. Cincinnati does have examples of city-owned properties being sold to individuals for a token amount. (292 McGregor in Mt. Auburn comes to mind) However, while demolition always accomplishes it's intended purpose, (to remove a structure from a piece of land) the City's history of putting problem properties in individual's hands to ensure rehabilitation is spotty at best. In other words, its difficult for the City to look today for alternatives to demolition when those alternative experiments have failed in the past. Using the aforementioned example of the McGregor Avenue residence, the city deeded the property to an individual for a dollar and then, without explanation, did not follow up to see if the new owner complied with the terms of the sale. Not surprisingly, since the owner did nothing with the property for two years, the city now has the property back on the demo list. It didn't have to be that way. If alternatives to demolition are to work in Cincinnati, there has to be some kind of follow up and meeting of contractural obligations. Otherwise, why bother trying an alternative approach? Perhaps the record showing a lack of fulfilling promises made in the past has lessened the appeal of alternatives to demolition for the City. Regardless of our personal opinions, the City apparently puts a low priority on saving problem historic properties. With the current budget and staffing shortfalls, expecting the City to somehow set up a new bureaucracy to steer problem historic properties towards new caring owners, is unrealistic. Ideally, there would be a local organization (CPA?) with the authority to receive problem (historic) properties from the city and then enter into contractural agreements with new owners to rehabilitate them. Working closely with the city to insure strict compliance with these agreements, it would be a win/win situation for everyone. For those historic properties slated for demolition without interested buyers, it should become mandatory to deconstruct and recycle as much as is feasible. The local organization could then use the sale of salvaged materials to help fund the alternatives-to-demolition programs. In short, maybe working with and within the existing system to find pragmatic alternatives to demolition is preferable to a confrontational "us vs them" approach. Only when it is shown that alternatives to demolition really work in Cincinnati will City officials ever seriously consider them. Currently there is nothing in the track record to make that choice an easy one. There wouldn't be such an aggressive code enforcement policy in place if there hadn't been so many problems with neglected properties in the past. Maybe it's time to help the city change its building nuisance policy by providing realistic solutions, not just criticism.

This was in the Enquirer as part of the story about blight and nuisance abatement. It seemed like the "equal time" allowance was made to counterweight the pro-preservation article written about the OTR by the Enquirer's editor the week before. If the "nuisance" article were not so serious, some of the rosey statements and claims made about the benefits of eliminating blight would be laughable. Mention was made that demolition creates jobs. Well, true, it does take x amount of machinery and y number of workers to demolish a structure but most residential demolitions are completed the same day and even large commercials demos are down and cleaned up in weeks. And it is always a one-time event. I wonder what vacant lot maintenance costs are in Cincy? Is a weed strewn, trashy vacant lot that much better than a standing but faded structure? As for fire safety, any building on fire is dangerous no matter when it was built. Keep transients and vagrants out of vacant buildings by properly boarding them up costs far less than demolition. Just because they are vacant now does not mean they will be vacant in perpetuity. Many have been vacated because of the recession but demolition is a permanent solution to what is probably a temporary problem. While it may be true that dilapidated old structures may lower adjacent property values, I'm not sure it has been proven that having an isolated standing home or two on a once continously built block now filled with demolition-created vacant lots increases property values either. North St. Louis is an example of aggressive "blight" eradication but it also has acres of demolition greenspaces and few redevelopers. As for crime magnets, ("eyesores and crime magnets" are loaded words) I would blame that on the people who flock to areas where rents are cheap and abandoned buildings provide illegal shelter, not the buildings themselves. Restore these old "eyesores" and suddenly the criminal elements move out to look for new digs. Worst of all is that demolition somehow helps the taxpayers by bringing in new development. That was the rationale behind the massive 1950's urban renewal projects that erased entire neighborhoods in the name of progress. A vacant lot generates little if any taxes and it will take decades of collecting post-demolition taxes to recoup the city's costs of demolition. In most cases, owners of these "nuisance" properties (often owned by nearly anonymous LLC's) have already abandoned them since it would cost more to comply with repairs than is worth in rent money. Post demolition, the city usually gets no money from the owners, ever. Better to find a way to get these abandoned and vacant properties into the hands of someone who will use them, even if they go on to tear them down to build new. The article also linked to a list of nuisance properties. I took down some of the addresses there and looked them up on the County auditor's site. Except for one problem... some of the addresses provided in the article were not found on the auditor's site. (examples: 940 and 967 Elberon; 570 Hale) A better list is the City's Building Inspection nuisance list: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps38187.pdf which contains the addresses and complaint numbers of all nuisance properties in the city. As you can see there are thousands of properties on that list. I also thought that article number of 179 demolitions was way low but then Cincinnati also allows property owners to do their own demolitions so the actual number per year is probably closer to 1,000 or more. All I can say for certain is that some hard-hit neighborhoods (Avondale and Evanston come to mind) are starting to take on a gap-toothed appearance from the high number of demos and it would be difficult to find any historic Cincinnati neighborhood where there is not some evidence of recent demolition activity. Demolition is a tool that can be used to revitalize neighborhoods but it has to be used intelligently and sparingly targeting the truly beyond repair and structurally dangerous. Peeling paint or a missing section of guttering does not mandate an immediate demolition. The city code enforcement officers write up problem properties but I find no photos available to show how severe these code difficiencies are, just journal entries: http://cagisperm.hamilton-co.org/cpop/permits/address.aspx Demolition is just the path of least resistance when it comes to dealing with the ills of poorer neighborhoods. It does nothing to help the human-social problems in these areas and in taking down the structures, forces the people who lived in them to look for more of the same, thus perpetuating the poverty cycle.

I really liked the Riverfront image as well because it shows the direct commercial connection between the City and the River that existed throughout the 19th century. Some of the City's oldest commercial buildings stood until the 1930's and later along the riverbanks but all are now gone along with the old residential area along the river once called "Bucktown". In the mid-1800's it was a den of vice and squalor and helped to push the respectable part of the population out of the basin and into the surrounding hills, hence the need for the inclines. Now, of course, even the inclines are long-gone but some structural remnants remain. I imagine the inclines would be as famous as San Francisco's cable cars if they were still around, but they were built for horses and buggies, not cars and trucks.

Also, how did Building Cincinnati know which buildings were being demolished in his "Wrecking Cincinnati" pieces? The City of Cincinnati maintains a "nuisance" list: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps38187.pdf currently with 91 pages involving thousands of properties. Although not all of these structures will be demolished, (nor are all historic) most eventually will be razed. As they come off the list, the decreased property values post-demolition have to be recorded and adjusted by the Hamilton County auditor's office. As for the demo activity in the Corryville area near UC, most of that is development-driven, not necessarily because of blight. When a developer can buy several old houses, demolish them, and then build a nice apartment complex on the lots, (mainly for UC students and faculty) a healthy profit can be realized. Some cities where old neighborhood lots are at a premium have experienced nearly 100% turnover in the old being torn down for the new. 200 years ago, most of what is now the central business district in downtown Cincinnati was residential, now long since vanished. While this kind of change is inevitable as part of urban growth, wholesale demolitions in the manner of the 1950's "Urban Renewal" programs have not been proven to help cities much-a lot of older cities have a downtown business core surrounded by many acres of demolition "green spaces" if that is what you want to call acres of empty, weedy, trash-strewn lots where neighborhoods used to be. Some hard-hit older neighborhoods in Cincinnati are starting to take on this empty appearance and may not be redeveloped for decades, if ever. This is particularly sad because the abundance of great historic architecture is one of the things that makes Cincinnati stand out positively from other American cities which have already destroyed their built heritage. Cincinnati's incomparable historic architecture should be carefully nurtured as a valuable community asset instead of being targeted for eradication.

Yeah, I see a couple of spots of peeling paint, and we all know how dangerous peeling paint is to public safety, so better knock it down ASAP. Just looking at this house, probably 1/2 of the older housing in Cincinnati is in worse condition. Better to see $15,000 to $20,000 in taxpayer money spent to create a vacant lot here than to retain first responders laid off by the city's budget crisis, right? Business opportunities for demolition contractors must be more abundant in Cincinnati than in any other city in the country outside Detroit. Come to think of it, with enough agressive demolition activity, the two cities can resemble twins someday. Cincinnati has thousands of properties, many historic, on it's demo "hit list". Depending on your interpretation of what a truly dangerous structure is, maybe 50-75% of these properties should not be on the list.