John S.

Nice photos, Ink! Without a doubt, Memphis has to be one of the most architecturally diverse places I've seen posted on this forum. Good to see that even unrestored historic buildings which otherwise might have been demolished are at least getting their street facades stabilized (with engineered steel braces) until something can be done with them. I can't see that facade-saving preservation practice happening in places like the OTR district in Cincinnati-they seem to like demolitions too much in that city. On the other hand, when my spouse and I in went to visit in April '09 some of her relatives that live just north of Memphis near Dyersburg, we were warned in no uncertain terms, not to venture into Memphis and not to even stop to gas up the car as crime is so rampant there. We heeded the warning, although I personally wondered if it was not a case of small town fear of big city ills. I'm sure the Memphis economy could be better, but that is true today of just about anywhere.

Thanks for the re-visit, Ink. Discouraging to see these buildings steadily going down, but understandable. I recall the old school building was demolished a few years ago and several other historic structures that were photographed and shared in earlier postings are now absent. The town badly needs outside investment to transform it into the regional tourist destination that it deserves to be. It is located within the boundries of Ohio's only national forest (Wayne) and is the best preserved of the towns within Black Diamonds district. With that in mind, the loss of even one historic structure there is significant. One deep pocketed investor could save this small town, but the likelyhood of that happening is remote, just as is the town itself. This is truly a sad story.

To see all of this new investment and vitality in a formerly marginal neighborhood in the midst of the worst recession in several generations is nothing short of amazing! Great photos of a historic and important Cincinnati neighborhood. The OTR success story can be a model for other struggling neighborhoods in the city and hopefully will convince naysayers that sensitive, compatible redevelopment and historic preservation can revitalize Cincinnati's marginal older areas. Once OTR reaches saturation and full build-out, other historic areas may benefit from the same provided they have not been lost by incessant demolitions. I'd like to see Mt. Auburn, (west)Walnut Hills, Fairmount-Westwood, and (south) Avondale experiencing the same renaissance. Cincinnati would then become as popular a tourist destination as San Francisco or Charleston, SC. High-end retailers would not be moving into an area with an uncertain future, so their presence points to even better things happening in the months and years ahead.

Nice photos, Ink. Looks like Shawnee's Victorian era signature upstairs balcony porches were just as common at one time in Corning. While there's still something left to see in Shawnee, apparently only archival photos remain to show what was once in Corning. Sad...

Since maybe someone might be interested, I did hear back from a George F. Barber enthusiast about the Warren, IN Queen Anne style house: (with the "moongate" window upstairs) "Yes, it is very much a Barber design -- you'll find the exact design in Cottage Souvenir No. 2, as [i think] Design No. 33 (I always tend to get the design number wrong on first guess). You don't often see this design in brick (and it may be just brick veneer -- Barber makes a reference to this option in regards to a lot of his firm's designs, including this one). I was previously not aware of this example. Thanks!!" Maybe this attribution to a nationally known architect will somehow help in saving this once-grand home. Thanks again, Robert, for sharing.

Robert, Thank you very much for the link to the picturesque Huntington, IN photos. The county courthouse is incredible and the town's architecture overall indicates a phenomenal amount of local prosperity during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The surviving mansions attest to that. Huntington, being an early canal town, is older too with some rare surviving Federal style buildings from before 1850. Sadly, like so many smaller Midwestern towns with a changing economic base, recent decades have been far less kind. The whole "downtown Mall" concept seems to have been adopted almost wholesale by small-town America during the 1970's as a way to revitalize the commercial core. Whatever limited success such artificial "mall" projects had was soon negated by the appearance of big-box mega-stores usually out on the fringes of town. These retailers, with an unfair size advantage in mass merchandizing, in turn soon emptied many downtown commercial districts turning them into ghost towns. Such is the course of "progress", I suppose. Even so, there appears quite a bit to see in Huntington even with some of the historic buildings in these photos now being cited as demolished. It's been a decade or longer since I "toured" some of Indiana's small towns on the way to Sturgis, MI where some family friends live. Looks like I need to think about another visit as neither of these two interesting towns were on my last itinerary.

I sent links to this topic page to two different George F. Barber enthusiasts and have yet to hear a confirmation. I do know numerous details on the Warren Queen Anne style house can also be found on houses in Barber's 1891 planbook Cottage Souvenir Number 2. I could not find a "free"" version of this book online but on Google books did find a free version of Barber's Modern Dwellings from 1901: http://books.google.com/books?id=JTkAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false (hope this link works) There are some towered Queen Anne style designs towards the end of the book as the style was beginning to fade away in the early 1900's. I know of some people who purposely look for pattern book designs in the smaller towns they visit. Given that many smaller communities lacked resident architects, plan books and mail order plans supplimented local builders. By the early 1900's Sears, Roebuck, & Co. and a dozen or so other kit home suppliers appeared on the market. Whole neighborhoods in some communities were created from Sears kit houses. Architectural historians have a lot of fun tracking them down. It takes a good eye (and memory) to track down some plan book or kit houses.

Nice small town photos! The aforementioned Queen Anne style home with the tower and "moongate" window on the second floor looks like a possible design by Knoxville, TN 19th century mail order architect, George Franklin Barber. Barber's customized mail order plans were shipped all over the U.S. and even as far away as China and Japan. He was active from 1888 until his death in 1915. His specialty and best known designs were for his 1890's Queen Anne style houses. Examples can still be found in nearly every state in the Union. The moongate window would have had colorful stained glass originally. I liked the other historic Warren buildings as well. The ancient hand cranked pump surviving on the streetcorner is unique, in my experience. Lots of history and great old architecture in this town. I surely hope the towered brick Queen Anne gets preserved for future generations. It's hard to imagine such pretentious architecture was once considered common and "normal". I have a friend in Lakewood, OH who is a George F. Barber scholar/enthusiast. I'll give him a head's up and find out if he thinks it's a Barber design or not. Thanks for sharing, I'll have to put Warren (Indiana) on my future list of places to visit.

Yes, they are available online to read and free download (PDF files) as well: http://virtuallibrary.cincinnatilibrary.org/VirtualLibrary/vl_CityDir.aspx I recently downloaded the 1892 Business directory and found the old ads really fascinating.

Anyone? Property tax records often show a jump in values when a "dwelling house" (as it would have been callled back then) was constructed on a vacant site. Say, for example, the tax record for 1874 showed a value of $500 but in 1875 it jumped to $4,000, you can reasonably assume the house was built in 1875. Sometimes contractors also had mechanics liens entered for record for the value of their labor and materials-these liens will not only give you a timeframe but the name of the builder as well as how much the home cost originally to build. Usually, when a title search is done before purchasing a home, a specific early owner or document may be referenced-this is a good place to start from. Most of these old tax records are available on microfilm. (at central libraries, county offices, or historical organizations) Sometimes local historians can also date a particular subdivision from a certain date and while this will not give you an exact date for your home, it may provide a ball park figure. Census records may also provide a clue and occasionally, you may luck out by finding something in your home with a date on it. Patent dates on original hardware (usually stamped on hinges and locks on the back) can also be helpful for a ballpark date. All of these suggestions require a bit of "History Detective" work on your part but also unlocks a lot of forgotten history about your home and the people who have lived in it before you. Hope this is helpful and please feel free to follow up.

Not surprising about the numbers, only demolition contractors and the City want to see this beautiful landmark church go away. Imagine what a church of this type (with new high-end stained glass windows) might cost to build today? Just think how many lives for over 100 years were intertwined with the history of this edifice? Marriages, baptisms, funerals, lives changed, personal and community disasters endured through member's strong faith-but now suddenly old, dilapidated, and worthless? Too bad the voices of those who helped build this great church can't come back and speak on its behalf-they would be ashamed. I'm curious why a fund to stabilize and protect this important church building hasn't been set up? There's a kind of "Murphy's Law" rule in historic preservation that the more architecturally significant a structure is the more likely it is to end up in the hands of someone who could care less about it. Meeting with the owner is a first step towards saving the building. Once it is slated for demolition, it's all over. The clock is ticking...

If you are referring to the bedroom sets in the Cincinnati Art Museum, good luck on finding anything like them in the marketplace. (at any price) The second set shown with the carved flying swallows was featured on the front cover of Jennifer L. Howe's CINCINNATI ART-CARVED FURNITURE AND INTERIORS. (2003) Cincinnati was a decorative arts center in the 1870's and 1880's and received much acclaim from national and international critics. Much of this movement was aided and directed by English immigrant woodcarvers Henry L. Fry and his son William H Fry as well as Benn Pitman. A woodcarving school (Art Academy of Cincinnati) was established in 1873 (lasted until 1920) which attracted many students from all walks of life in the city and included many women. The flying swallows bedroom set I just referenced is attributed to Adelaide Nourse Pitman, (carver) and Elizabeth Nourse (painter-artist) with Benn Pitman being the designer.The set is said to date from 1883 and was featured in the Cincinnati Industrial Exposition of 1883 and in art magazines of the period. It was kept originally in the Pitman residence on Columbia Avenue and was gifted by a descendant to the museum in 1994. Architectural wood carvings by the father and son Fry's and Benn Pitman are still found in some of Cincinnati's ornate old Victorian homes. Given that nearly all of these "art furniture" pieces were hand-made, one-of-a-kind, they are exceptionally rare and found mostly in museum collections. The woodcarving school was but one of several decorative arts enterprises centered in 19th century Cincinnati-Rookwood Pottery was another. (nice examples in the pics) The leading families of Cincinnati were avid patrons of the arts and helped make Cincinnati into a regional arts center. By the 20th century, changing tastes ended this glorious chapter for Cincinnati's decorative arts. Some enterprises, like Rookwood, managed to change with the times but were beset with financial problems that caused the pottery to close at least twice. It survives in its current incarnation today but the art furniture legacy is long gone. As for the photos, thanks, very nice!!!

In looking at the property information listed on the Hamilton County auditor's site, I noticed the construction date listed is 1865. If true, that is one of the older properties in the area. Structurally, the latest property photo (2008) shows a straight and level-looking house, albeit missing the front porch. The earliest photo on the auditor's site shows the original old porch and it too, did not look that bad. As far as renovation or restoration, yes, it can be renovated-I've personally worked on houses far worse. Once again, a historic house with some maintenance issues is being targeted for demolition-about the same approach as using an elephant gun to shoot a gnat. The question begging for an answer is why must demolition always be the best way to deal with this problem? One would think because of the historical association with a noted 19th century academic, plus the 144 year old age of the house, demolition would be the last option considered. Destroying the house instead of holding the property owner responsible for maintenance issues actually encourages abandonment and neglect. Stiff fines and mandatory repairs charged back to the negligent property owners would encourage upkeep. As it now stands, a plethora of slumlord LLCs around Cincinnati look for cheap rentals to milk all the rent money they can from these older properties before the City orders them vacated and demolished. It's a very expensive "cat and mouse" game with taxpayers paying for it while the negligent property owners get a free ride. Why not put some teeth in code enforcement ordinances to force owners to maintain the property or have liens placed against them for the cost of repairs? At least in that case there would be some chance of expense recovery as opposed to demolition costs where the chances for the City to be reimbursed are almost nil. Think of the extra tax money that might be available for truly urgent needs during these tough economic times if demolition were used sparingly instead of knocking down thousands of structures every year? The millions of dollars being poured yearly into residential demolition work to resolve code enforcement issues is a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars-imagine if most of it went into renovation and repairs, not only would that generate more employment but it would keep these properties on the tax rolls and offer some return on the investment as opposed to demolition, which offers nearly none.

Blueline, I'm glad that you mentioned available alternatives. It should become a preferred and routine practice to recycle and reclaim as much as possible before sending demolition debris to the landfill. Some waste is unavoidable, but with proper conservation methods, it could reduce the flow of construction materials headed to the dump from the current torrent to a trickle. I suspect the reason an environmentally responsible approach is being sidestepped by city officials is because they have a vested personal interest in maintaining the status quo. A lot of these structures being demolished could also be restored and adaptively reused, but once they are gone, they are gone forever.

You may laugh, but Detroit beat Cincinnati in the ruin game long ago. So that I do not transgress the rules in some way, just enter "ruins of Detroit" in your search engine and it will reveal a site by that name which was set up a number of years ago with sobering photos of this textbook example of American urban decay. I shudder to think that gawking at the ruins of mostly abandoned, formerly industrial Midwestern American cities could make them become tourist destinations of the future. Of course, Cincinnati still has a decent chance to save what remains of its stellar architectural past, but only if enough caring people come together for that worthy goal. It doesn't seem that City officials will be of much help. The general consensus is that the incumbent City bureaucracy will remain essentially the same after the upcoming elections, so saving Cincinnati's architectural gems will remain the burden of local historic preservationists and caring citizens. It's obvious that much more effort is needed if some older and neglected Cincinnati neighborhoods are to have a future. Recycling and salvage of demolished or deconstructed historic homes and buildings is not by itself a solution-the current practice of using heavy equipment to bring down structures does not leave much to be saved or recycled.

The company apparently locates a signed-on buyer for the structure before they begin deconstruction. To save time and weight, it appears that only the primary architectural details are saved, interior walls and other materials are discarded and hauled away to the dump. In the end, there's a vacant lot left behind and a semi-faithful replica rebuilt at great expense in a distant locale. Most cities frown on this kind of activity. However, if the company were to focus solely on structures targeted by the city for demolition, (no shortage of them in Cincinnati) then they would be doing a very good deed. I think it is appalling that most Cincinnati structures scheduled for a date with the wrecking ball are torn down without any efforts made to salvage or recycle the building materials. This decidedly anti-"Green" approach for disposal of old buildings must cease-the technology for environmentally responsible recycling and salvage is already in place while landfill space is getting scarce. Even old concrete can be ground up and reused. Sure it costs more to recycle than standard demolition, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If most demolitions were quite a bit more expensive then alternatives such as adaptive re-use or rehabilitation-restoration would get more consideration. The fact that this company even exists proves how valuable these old buildings truly are.

Gritty put picturesque...reminds me of some areas of Cincinnati like the West End and Avondale around Reading Road and Lexington Avenue-once grand but now quite faded. It will take a lot of new investment to bring parts of St. Louis back. They have lost so much to demolitions and neglect, lets hope what remains can still be saved.

Thanks for the preliminary good news. It seems very curious that during this time of severe budgetary cutbacks and municipal layoffs, the City demolition budget appears to be getting larger and demolitions more widespread instead of being reduced like everything else. It also seems suspect that the Hamilton Co. would value this property with improvements at $203,000 yet would rather have a vacant lot with the correspondingly low value post-demolition. Demolition should apply to truly dangerous buildings-burnouts, collapsing walls and roofs, and dens of criminal activity, not routinely employed for high weeds, peeling paint, or leaking gutters. Demolition is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Code compliance should be geared towards helping owners repair their properties and in the case of significant historic homes, using all alternatives available before resorting to tearing them down. Imagine if people convicted of minor crimes were treated like Cincinnati's old homes with code violations-they would be swiftly executed, not incarcerated, rehabilitated, and released. Sorry for the rant, but this is becoming a serious issue in Cincinnati and as the historic fabric of this unique city is being lost, everyone loses. (except the demolition contractors)

If he is still around Fort Worth, I would suggest he check out the Southside, especially the Fairmount Historic District which is bounded by Magnolia Avenue on the north, Hemphill Blvd on the East and 8th Avenue on the West. Not positive about the southern boundry but it does not go past Berry street. Fairmount, College, Hurley, 6th avenue, Washington, are some of the streets in the neighborhood. The oldest residence there is the Benton House at 1730 6th Avenue-it is a picturesque Victorian cottage built in 1897. Most of the houses in the Fairmount historic district date from the first two decades of the 20th century. Our grandest Victorian era residence is the 1899 red Arizona sandstone and brick Ball-Eddleman-McFarland House at 1110 Penn Street near the major thoroughfare of Summit Avenue. (which was once lined by similar mansions but like on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, these have all but completely disappeared.) At the end of Summit Avenue (the avenue is easily accessible from downtown) one reaches Pennsylvania Avenue and you see Thistle Hill, a rare surviving cattle baron mansion from 1903. Also just off of Weatherford & Belknap Streets (where the county courthouse is located) is Samuels Avenue, the oldest small pocket neighborhood in Fort Worth. (where I live, btw) There are a number of survivors there from the 1800's including the only Italianate style house remaining in Fort Worth (731 Samuels) and a grand towered Queen Anne style home with a state historical marker at 769 Samuels. If you visit all of these areas, you will see plenty of grit as well as flashy stuff. For more info...please contact me privately.

Howdy folks, Since I live in Fort Worth and have for the past 25 years, may I offer a few "local" comments?I think you did photograph the best face of Fort Worth. There are plenty of areas of grit and far less charm around the City than one finds in the scrubbed and polished downtown. Since you were here in July-did you notice how gawd-awful HOT this place gets in the summer!? Average summer here is 16 days with temps over 100 degrees F. and this summer we've had over 20. The record high for yesterday (Sept. 4th) was 111 degrees set just a few summers ago. We have the worst summers here because the high temps often are accompanied by relatively high humidity which makes being outdoors for any length of time a miserable experience. I suppose if there is any silver lining to the infernal north Texas summer heat it might be the mild winters here. We can have days in December when the highs are near 90. Not many snowy white Christmases here. Snowbirds from northern cities flock to the Fort Worth-Dallas "metroplex" in droves with new arrivals numbering an average of 5,000 people per week. This influx of newcomers has been very detrimental to inter and intra-city traffic with some major local thoroughfares in a state of near-constant gridlock. All of these cars also have a very detrimental effect on air quality with the Fort Worth-Dallas region having some of the worst air quality readings in the country according to the EPA. Our huge sprawl extends outward into former farmland for many, many, miles in all directions. The local cities are ringed with hundreds of new tract-home suburbs filled mainly with cookie cutter McMansions. Then there are the popular "gated" communities where a family of wealth can safely shut themselves off from the rest of the world and protect their assets. Cars are king here and pedestrians are wary. Mass transit is just beginning to be implemented decades after other cities have established theirs. One could write a book about the cultural differences between north Texas and the rest of the country. Let me just say that George W is still considered a hero to many locals and he has demonstrated he is a simple man of the people after he left office by buying a little tar-paper shack home for $2 million dollars in a posh secluded north Dallas neighborhood. Despite all the sleek new condo towers and office buildings, Fort Worth is considered by many to be more friendly and "country" in culture than our larger neighbor to the east (Dallas) and locals claim we still have a strong connection to our Western Heritage. A lot of the "Cowtown" image is based more on myth and hype than substance. Where the mid-1960's flying-saucer shaped Convention Center you photographed now stands, was previously the infamous "Hell's Half-Acre" district from the 1800's. The Half-Acre (actually it was several acres) consisted of bordellos and speak-easy saloons that did live up to the classic wild West myths. Embarrased city leaders in the mid-20th century shrewdly eradicated every last trace of it by building the "Jetson's" style modern convention center on the site. If fact, one has to look pretty hard to find anything around here over 100 years old. It's almost a Fort Worth tradition to destroy the old and build the new so you will not find anything remotely comparable to Cincinnati's Over-The-Rhine district or Cleveland's Ohio City. There is a smattering of interesting Art Deco style buildings remaining here and one or two rare hold-overs from the 19th century like the County Courthouse. I love old architecture, hate hot weather, insane traffic, hazardous air pollution, and rising crime, so upon the sale of our little hacienda, my spouse and I are Cincinnati bound. Thanks for putting such a positive light on my hometown. Don't suppose you got over to nearby Arlington with it's new billion dollar Cowboys NFL stadium? Might be worth a see if you are into that kind of thing-the newer TX Rangers ballpark stadium (designed by David M. Schwartz) is nearby as well as the long-established six flags amusement park. By the way, the Bass Performance Hall (featuring the trumpeting angels) as well as a number of traditionally styled newer buildings downtown were designed by prominent retro architect David M. Schwartz. If any Urban Ohio members have questions or need information about the Fort Worth-Dallas area, please feel free to PM me. (the slow real estate market will likely keep us here for some time) IMO, it's a nice place to visit but not so great place to live. Others, of course, may have a completely different view.

Great photos of two of Ohio's most picturesque cities. I especially like the contrasting grit and glitz photos in Cincinnati's OTR district as it gives us an idea of what could be once this area is transformed and stabilized. Call it gentrification if you want but its hard to argue the on-going changes and investments in the OTR are not positive and do not bode well for the district's long term survival.

As the previous poster stated, it is difficult to find historic photos of specific homes unless they were very prominent or recently belonged to the original family. (which might still have some early photos) An online selection of photos by neighborhood is http://www.cincinnativiews.net/index.htm Also the Cincinnati memory project has photos and postcards searchable by neighborhood and street name. http://www.cincinnatimemory.org

"the rear addition is deteriorated and hazardous, there are open or missing windows allowing the deteriorating effects of the weather to enter the building causing structural damage, the rear gutters are deteriorated, the lot is overgrown with vegetation." Ok, so this is all that is wrong with the property? Why not remove or repair the "rear addition"? How many windows are missing or open? Close the windows that are open and replace the missing windows-still costs far less than a full demolition, right? How much do the back gutters cost? A few hundred, max, right? Overgrown lots can be mowed by neighborhood kids now at home from school needing to earn a few bucks and a coat of fresh paint can be had from the same for little expense. Why is a full demolition a better use of taxpayer's money and in what way does it benefit the neighborhood more than having an existing building on the site?

"The building, because of it's age, obsolescence, dilapidation, deterioration, and lack of maintenance and repair, constitutes, a fire hazard, a serious health hazard, a substantial and unreasonable interference with the reasonable and lawful use and enjoyment of other premises within the neighborhood, and a factor seriously depreciating property values in the neighborhood. " This is a highly subjective determination which is so vague it allows almost any building to be included, even some of Cincinnati's most famous landmarks. Therefore, all buildings in Cincinnati remain standing subject to the whims of the Director of Buildings & Inspections-according to this criteria, even having high weeds alone could subject a building to demolition. Wow! How much trust the citizens of Cincinnati must place in this (these) official(s) to allow them to determine if any given property is a "factor seriously depreciating property values in the neighborhood". And I always thought they were responsible for insuring safe structures for habitation and conducting business, not also being the neighborhood aesthetics police. Talk about "Big Brother"!

Where are the property owners in all of this? It seems the City is now aggressively out to get those who have managed to slip through the enforcement cracks in recent years. What are the specific code violations that warrant this immediate demolition? Since the City is paying for the demolition, doubtful an outside developer is waiting on the sidelines to redevelop this site. Could it be that someone within the City machinery is thinking about their future re-election and wants to showcase all that they have done recently to clean up neighborhood "blight"? Demolition as a tool of choice is currently being embraced by some communities in the Midwest where population declines seem permanent, but one can scarcely say that about Cincinnati currently with over a billion dollars in new downtown development on-going during a steep recession. I personally think someone with influence with or within the City government is taking a 1950's mentality bulldozer approach to improving older neighborhoods. I am at a loss to suggest anything to counter this trend-most people either like or dislike older buildings and those that dislike them will usually resist all arguments-no matter how logical-to preserve and save them. Another senseless loss about to happen...