John S.

What's up with the building in photo number 14? (with the flag out front) it looks like the owners covered up all vestiges of the historic facade using modern siding, yet left the contruction date (1886) clearly visible...guess understanding the humor in that somehow evades me.

Cleveland did have a boom and nowhere was that more evident than on Euclid Avenue which arguably outshown any other in the state of Ohio. A book was written (Showplace of America-Cleveland's Euclid Avenue, Jan Cigliano, 1991) about Euclid Avenue's fabled past when such illuminaries as John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) and Charles Brush, founder of General Electric, lived there. Home along the Avenue often cost nearly a million dollars to build back when a million dollars was as much as the total assets of many banks. Today, out of the hundreds of homes that once stood on Euclid, only a half-dozen or so still stand, the rest were demolished beginning in the early 1900's as commercial development eroded the fine residential areas. In answer to the topic question, my home (out-of-state in Texas) was built in 1889 by a German contractor for $2,000. an average price for an average frame house in those days. If our plans to relocate to Cincinnati come to fruition, my next home was built in 1897; it is a three story brick in the Queen Anne style and probably cost considerably more to build originally than it is selling for today. (and without adjusting for inflation) In my opinion, older homes are a great value today if you look carefully. They have stood the test of time and tend to be better built than many of today's mass produced housing in the same price range. They also usually have style and "character" which also seems to be lacking in some of today's housing offerings. Of course, old houses are not everyone's cup of tea and some folks could care less about style or character so long as all the modern amenities are available.

RestorationConsultant, Regarding "Another Senseless Demolition" I could not agree with you more. When my spouse and I toured historic Cincinnati homes at the end of April '09. we saw this home and I noted it's potential. Although a bit small for our needs, I was certain someone could transform this historic home, which is in a very picturesque setting, into some special. Too bad the City decided scarce municipal funds could be better spent razing the structure and having a vacant lot to grow weeds on for the next few decades or even beyond. It seems like a terribly short sighted action on the City's part and evidence of a growing trend in Cincinnati to solve urban ills with a bulldozer blade. I'm sure at the time of this demolition at least several others were going on at the same time in other parts of the City. Someone needs to tell these folks this is NOT progress-the "greenspace" created by the demolition was more than offset by the tons of debris headed for the landfill. While restoration might have added to the tax value of this property demolition only created a liability. Multiplied thousands of times, this demolition activity is hurting Cincinnati not helping and wastes funds that could be used for more urgent purposes. Thanks for showing the citizen's tax dollars at work.

In reading the comments left by readers under the article, it seemed the numbers for and against preserving or restoring the 1863 Mt. Lookout house were pretty evenly divided. I cannot see where obtaining a temporary legal reprieve to stave off demolition would have any value unless a plan for repairs and stabilization were now in place. As many of the article readers commented, Cincinnati does have a wealth of historic homes in distress but that is primarily due to the current recession, socio-economic/demographic patterns, and a lack of investment. It would be useful to learn how much, if any, the City typically recovers from the thousands of demolition lien sites around town. I have heard anecdotally that adjacent property owners can typically buy these cleared lots (should they desire to) for next to nothing. In any event, absent of any design compatability review for this Mt. Lookout location, supposedly someone could buy the cleared lot from the City and then build there a modern "McMansion" completely out of scale and style with it's neighbors. Would this truly be an aesthetic improvement over the old? And 150 years from now, assuming there is anyone left to care, would that McMansion still be standing and considered a landmark? Personally, I've always thought the demolition of a historic structure should be a last option, not the standard and first tool of choice as it seems to be these days in many cities. It appears that in this case, the demolition threat is "punishment" for property owners unwilling or unable to make necessary repairs and maintenance to their property and home. If the condition of the house truly rises to the level of a public nuisance, then direct the punishment for non-compliance (fines, liens, costs of repairs) towards the owners, not take it out on the historic house. How likely is it that the costs of demolition will be cheerfully repaid to the City by these property owners? (seeing as how part of their explanation for non-compliance is personal economic hardship) I see more economic value in a historic home remaining on the site than in a vacant lot; unless a developer with cash and plans in hand is waiting in the wings-which is unlikely. Destruction of a historic structure by demolition is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and once a historic home or building is gone, it's gone forever. A home that has stood prominently on a site for over 150 years would be considered a local landmark in most communities. Just because Cincinnati has been blessed with an abundance of surviving historic homes and buildings should not justify getting rid of a lot of them. Most cities that have invested heavily in mass demolition-driven "Urban Renewal" projects in decades past have little to show for all these efforts today. The fuzzy concept that if you demolish something "they will come and rebuild" has not been proven in everyday life. Contrast that with those communities that have invested in rehabilitation and restoration of their historic architecture and the results speak for themselves. Besides, demolition is not a "green" activity while energy retrofitting and repairing an existing structure for continued use, is. Our days as a disposable, consumer-driven society are numbered; not only for economic reasons, but for environmental and available resources reasons as well. People of the future will most likely have to adopt a lifestyle of consuming and wasting less than our contemporaries. Part of that more conserving mode of living will be building less new and repairing and re-using existing buildings; it's a change that we need to implement now and governmental policy should encourage and reward that, instead of using development funds solely for demolition activity. Just my 2 cents worth based on having lived over half a century...

We missed Columbia-Tusculum during our weekend Cincinnati visit a month ago. Truly a shame as I am a certified Victorian architectural junkie. (during our 9 days on the road we travelled through 8 states to photograph mainly Victorian era architecture-Cincinnati was the centerpiece) Beautiful photos and they demonstate that colors really bring out the character in Victorian houses. It was heartening to see many Victorians in Cincinnati going from pale white to nice period colors. Of course, some of Columbia-Tusculum houses belong in the "painted Ladies" category (meaning sometimes the colors are not historic) but they sure look great in your collection. Nice work!

Thanks for the fantastic photos of one of the most beautiful cities on the planet. I was privileged to visit Cincinnati the last weekend of April and since I truly love historic buildings and homes, I felt like a kid in a candy store. The OTR is one of Cincinnati's greatest treasures and it is so inspiring to see what is happening there. I hope the positive developments in the OTR are contagious and spread over to once-grand but now faded neighborhoods nearby. The fact that all of this is taking place during the midst of a major economic downturn is most extraordinary. During our two-day visit, my spouse and I found Cincinnati to be one of the most upbeat places we've visited in a long time and found signs revitalization in almost every part of town we visited. (and we covered much of the central city from Westwood-Fairmount, St. Bernard, Mt. Auburn, Avondale, Walnut Hills (both east and west) and more. Even in these supposedly neglected areas we saw signs of improvement. We were impressed enough from our visit (and our realtor showed us 7 properties in different areas) that upon the sale of our home in Texas we plan to relocate to the Queen City. Forget all the old hype about the much lauded Sunbelt, the Midwest heartland is starting to come back-signs of that can be found from the White House to the streets of the OTR. Your photos make that point quite vividly, Thanks!

Thanks for an interesting set of photos. I think the term "poverty" in this instance may be more accurately called neglect or abandonment. Small, rural towns from the Atlantic to the Pacific are having a tough time creating enough job opportunities to keep the population numbers stable. People have to go where they can earn a living and for small town residents that often means relocating to larger cities. The high energy prices of the past summer also reduced the number of travelers going through and stopping in smaller communities causing marginal businesses to fail. The current economic situation isn't doing much to help either. I have to admire the entrepreneurship you found along the way. "High Class Junk" and perhaps even more daring, the "Ohio Cannabis Society Shop" portray creative ways to survive in today's economy. I also find it ironic that a Russian firm, from the homeland of Communism, can profitably operate a steel mill in the U.S., the home of Capitalism. At least it does provide local jobs.

I know, "Uncle Rando" was going to help me out with attaching or linking to the images. I'm a newbie when it comes to using this particular posting system. If all else fails, PM me and I'll send you the image URL's. My apologies for the (hopefully temporary) snafu.

Craig Bobby, a personal friend and long-time Cleveland area preservationist, just sent me some disturbing images about 3 significant Victorian era buildings in Cleveland that have been approved for demolition by the Cleveland Landmarks Commission. The first two are on once-fabled Euclid Avenue, which was arguably the finest residential street in Victorian America during it's heyday from 1875 to 1910. Commercial encroachment on Euclid Avenue led to it's residential demise post World War I but the process had actually started in the last quarter of the 19th Century. Now two rare survivors (1880's) from the commerical phase are themselves facing demolition. In better times, a developer might take these on for condo-loft apartment conversions, but in today's chilly economic climate, new projects of that type are few and far between. The building owners are said to be indifferent and uncooperative, a perfect combination that has often led to the loss of major historic structures in the past. The third photo is of St. Peter's Hall which has been owned by the local Catholic Diocese since it was built in the Second Empire style in 1873. The Catholic Church, as well as churches of other denominations, have often chosen to demolish historic buildings under their ownership using the religious logic that only the works of God are enduring, not the works of man. The Second Empire style 1873 St. Peter's Hall in Cleveland is an impressive edifice and has long been recognized as a local landmark. Many preservationists see the current economic downturn as a time when fewer demolitions will take place but some evidence now appearing seems to indicate more, not fewer, demolitions are happening. The economic costs of mothballing and continuing to pay taxes on vacant buildings is becoming too much these days for private owners as well as code enforcement costs for municipalities, One of the Euclid Avenue buildings once had an impressive copper cornice around the perimeter of the building eaves but the tenacity and brazeness of copper thieves is evident in the gaps of missing cornice where the thieves could reach them from the fire escape ladders. They sure don't build them like they used to, It would be safe to assume nothing that may get built someday to replace them could ever be as impressive as what they replaced. Thanks Craig for the information and I hope that somehow more intelligent minds will prevail before these and other important landmarks in Cleveland are lost forever. Euclid Avenue Building from the 1880's Euclid Avenue Building also from the 1880's St. Peters Hall 1873

Thanks for a brilliant piece of urban historical research. If you do not do such research as a profession, perhaps you should consider it.

Well, I would have loved to have turned them in, there was just one slight problem.....we weren't really supposed to be there either. A lot of the stuff we explore is "technically'' owned by someone else and ''technically trespassing.'' It would have been an awkward call with the police. Gordon: "Yes officer, there is someone stealing scrap at such and such address in the back." Officer: "Ok, do you own the property?" Gordon: "Uh, well, no, I was just trespassing to take photographs." Ok, I see your point and might have done the same myself. Besides, scavengers seem to be minor blips on the police radar screen, even if caught and booked they will go right back to scavenging as soon as they are out again on the street. Many are homeless, drug-addicted, or mentally challenged. (or even all 3) They do a lot of damage to vacant buildings, however.

Nice to see the rest of the tunnel-great pics! Looks like the Burger King must have lost his crown on the way through. So you ran into scrap thieves? As cheap as scrap is now they're more vandals than thieves. You should have turned their bu*ts in if you caught them in the act, unless they were waving guns at you. The late 1800's were the heyday of the "underground" tunnel movement and I bet there are far more tunnels around the old parts of town than many today even realize. A lot of illegal activity back then was literally conducted underground. During the 1900's (alcohol) Prohibition, tunnels between buildings were avidly used by bookleg moonshine runners and distributors to avoid the watchful eyes of the Feds and local police. Some of them still survive today mainly as service tunnels for utilities and such.

City Sues Banks: "The city of Cincinnati is expanding its fight against bank-owned properties by suing Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo to force repairs on four vacant buildings in Westwood, Camp Washington and Northside." This is an intelligent response to a increasingly common problem facing many American cities in today's foreclosure and abandonment crisis. Other cities have found that contracting and paying for repairs and then placing a lien against the property owners for the cost of repairs motivates the absentee owners to start maintaining them. If the owner continues to ignore code violations and not pay for the repairs lien, the city can then legally acquire the property and sell it to someone who will maintain it, thus recovering part or all of the money spent for repairs. Once again, this policy has to be applied carefully and on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes this approach does not work when the owners alternately choose to demolish the homes rather than repair them but even then at least the city does not have to pay for the demolition costs with little future hope for recovery. Code enforcement is a very effective tool when used properly, even in today's economic environment.

These are great photos of a high-end Victorian era neighborhood. All popular styles seem to be represented including the towered and turreted Queen Annes, blocky Italianates, and rusticated stone Romanesque Revival as well as a few that would have to be placed in the "eclectic" category. I would not be surprised to learn many of these were designed by Cincinnati architects although more distant Louisville certainly has it's share of mansions to match. Perhaps the saying a rising tide lifts all boats applies to prosperity for many communities along the Ohio River during the 1800's. I also noticed many of the homes still had their original stained glass windows-it seems Cincinnati retains fewer of these colorful old windows on its Victorian homes. Upland Place in Cincy has a similar streetscape and I'm sure there are many other parallels on both sides of the river. I appreciate your efforts to provide a visual architectural treat.

Building Cincinnati: "Well said, John. I would add that there's not much demand, especially now, for new construction in that corridor and that the abundance of vacant lots might actually act as a disincentive to investment. " Thank you and Uncle Rando for the kind words. It's encouraging to learn others feel the same way. A good friend of mine recently bought a foreclosed home in a neglected area of Fairmount-Knox Street-off Harrison and is putting a lot of his money, time, and energy into bringing the 1870's townhouse back to it's historic appearance. I too have been looking at homes in the area because I've witnessed neighborhoods turning around when people care and come together to change things for the better. To my pleasant surprise, Google Maps has recently added "Street views" for Cincinnati and it allows one to do a "virtual" drive through Cincinnati's neighborhoods. There's a lot of beautiful homes along and adjacent to Harrison going on into Westwood. It would be a shame to lose many of them to indifference and neglect. Given that many of these historic structures were hand-built by highly skilled craftsmen using only hand tools, to replicate them today in the same manner would be financially prohibitive. The saying "they don't build them like they used to" is a fact when applied to historic structures. The desireability and high value of old architectural salvage should prove that point. The demolition solution to solving urban problems is an out-dated, obsolete model in the 21st century. Despite a current temporary decline in demand, I personally think that within the next 50 years even old dumpsites will be mined for valuable recyclable materials. People in the future will shake their heads in disbelief when they learn that people of our time were so wasteful.

"Neighborhood groups believe that the newly-cleared land will spur reinvestment in the area." Sounds a bit like the old "Urban Renewal" programs re-dux. While the eradication of concentrated poverty found within the large tenament type housing built from the 1930's-1970's sometimes does spur new development, as it did in the West End, other, less-enlightened urban renewal projects carelessly obilterated entire historic neighborhoods that might have actually contributed to the livability of these areas if rehabilitation and restoration had been chosen over demolition. Larger cities across the nation are littered with large vacant abandoned areas that were earlier targets of urban renewal clear-cutting. In the end, all of the public money spent resulted in unfulfilled hopes of new development. Demolition should be used with surgical precision, not used as a shotgun approach to obliterate entire neighborhoods, as still sometimes happens. HUD Community "Development" block grants seem misappropriated when used for mass demolitions. Demolition is the least "green" friendly construction activity as it adds a lot of material to local landfills, wastes all of the energy and material resources that were put into the original structure, and opens up prominent gaps in a previously cohesive streetscape. A newly vacant lot created by demolition becomes a financial liability for a municipality until new development arrives. Any potential new tax revenue disappears because most demolitions of neglected structures creates a difficient tax-lien situation with the property owner(s). Better that developers purchase the sub-standard structure first and then bear the demolition costs themselves rather than to use public funds to tear down and then optimistically wait for developers to come in. Demolition creates few employment opportunities and they end when the demolition is completed. Restoration and rehabilitation creates jobs and adds an incentive for more investment. Demolition alone is not a development tool, it is regressive, not progressive. Hopefully, the Westwood-Harrison Avenue project will take an enlightened approach and will not eradicate potentially reusable historical structures. Much of what makes up Cincinnati's unique character and charm is embodied in it's historic architecture and unique urban streetscapes. The argument that the urban core population is declining is not valid when used to justify demolition. Construction in exurban and surburban areas continues unabated and is fundamentally unsound and unsustainable in the long term. Sorry to get on a soapbox, but I've personally witnessed poorly chosen urban renewal policy in cities across the country. Instead of enhancing cities or encouraging new development, it often has the opposite effect. In many cases, the money would have been better spent investing in rehabilitation and augmenting neighborhood investment. Demolition is dis-investment and is justifiable only when new development is already planned and in place. In the case of dangerous structures damaged by fire or long-term serious neglect that makes structural rehabilitation financially unfeasible, demolition can be justified, but far too often it is inappropriately applied without seeking other better alternatives.

The high-rise shots are fantastic. Only from a helicoptor could you get any better views. Thanks!

"Now JD4 has hired someone to try to negotiate lower fines and back taxes in various cities and is hiring a general contractor to assess the condition of the buildings it owns. Sorensen said the company also is hiring an agent based in Ohio. And the company is working to establish an organization to retrain and educate people renting the recently acquired properties." Sounds like this firm (JD4) is buying first and then looking at what they bought later. Any older property with potential difficiencies should first be carefully assessed before purchasing. Private individuals with common sense usually hire a professional house inspector and obtain a condition report before signing a purchase contract. Why a firm with so many holdings would wait until they owned the property to evaluate what they are buying is beyond me-even if the property was sold "as is". Besides back taxes and unpaid fines, there could be other unknown issues such as asbestos and lead paint. (or even squatters?) It seems like they have some issues to settle in the rental criteria department too if their tenants routinely urinate in stairwells. Why do they need someone to train renters-do they have no apartment managers or supervisors? Have they ever heard of credit and background checks as well as references? Despite the impressive monetary amounts mentioned, the whole operation sounds amateurish and inexperienced. No mention is made of how they upgrade and rehabilitate these properties-do they rehab to minimum standards or invest enough to bring up neighboring property values? I know at least one individual who buys mainly foreclosures cheaply and then tries to relist the property in a couple of months at a considerably higher price-all without doing a single thing to the property. In today's market that puts a lot of these properties at a higher risk for vandalism and neglect as they sit for longer periods unsold and vacant. Foreclosed homes should not be re-sold to real estate speculators. When the real estate market started crashing, flippers and speculators were among the first to walk away from their bad investments. OTR is one of the most complex urban areas in the nation in terms of demographics and socio-economic issues as well as historic preservation balanced with new development and adaptive re-use. I've read at least one master's thesis in-depth study of the area (but please do not ask me to link to it as it was a year or more ago and I did not bookmark it) and I suppose several more books could be written to explore all the issues impacting the OTR. The best solution right now for the OTR would be to stabilize as many buildings as possible and then try to insure they are sold or transferred to entities and individuals who will comply with a master plan for the neighborhood. (assuming there is one) Since it is a National Register historic district, all old building rehabilitations should conform to the Secretary of the Interior's guidlines for the rehabilitation of historic structures. There's simply too much at stake in the OTR to let get-rich-quick or property flipper types come in and ruin it. Cincinnati has only one OTR and there's only one OTR in the nation. (I can't think of any city with so many densely built historic buildings in a similar setting) Save it and it will be an important component in Cincinnati's revitalization. Screw it up and there will never be a second chance to make it right.

I agree with TheCOV that abandoned institutional buildings are at higher risk for demolition. Usually their sheer size discourages developers from making a large investment in rehabilitation and adaptive re-use. Sometimes in an area of high demand it happens but Avondale as a whole seems to have been written off by most Cincinnatians. A shame really as there is some very nice century old (and older) architecture remaining there. In a better location in better times the retirement home in photo 12 (and 13?) could be gutted, rehabbed and used for a variety of purposes, but not these days in that neighborhood. I'd suggest taking and saving plenty of photos for the inevitable buildings' obituaries. The tunnel is an engineering marvel from a different age, now forgotten and obscure. They don't make them like that much anymore.

Just for clarification, I was not trying to put down the neighborhood, As a historic preservationist with plans to relocate eventually to Cincinnati, I sincerely wish that many areas now considered marginal can be saved and brought back. Walnut Hills (not just Eastern W.H.) has an amazing collection of historic buildings and features once-grand homes that would be the envy of many cities in other parts of the country. To see much of that disappear due to neglect would be tragic. Personally, as an outsider, I do not feel Cincinnati promotes it's historic resources adequately. When a friend and recent transplant to Cincinnati turned me on to the City's wealth of historic structures about a year ago, I was completely taken by surprise, as I thought I was quite familiar with what was "out there" in most of the country. I visited Ohio some years back and didn't even consider a visit to Cincinnati thinking there was nothing old or interesting to see there. I visited Cleveland and then old towns in eastern Ohio along the River. (from East Liverpool to Marietta) Had I known then what I know now, I would have made a bee-line to the Queen City. As for the Kemper Lane house, I know it's recent history and looked into buying possibilities, but must pass for now despite it's bargain-basement price. The new condo tower under construction will likely raise property values nearby. What a wonderful set of views the residents will soon enjoy.

These are some fantastic views surrounding the new construction. Of course, from such lofty heights it's difficult to determine the state of the areas being viewed. In image number 25, captioned Volterra Condominiums, the 3 story large Victorian house at 2201 Kemper Lane just seen in the lower left hand corner (corner of Kemper and Nassau St.) can be bought for less than $5k!-not a typo. (Hamilton Co. auditors site has it valued at $172,500) It makes me wonder just how bad IS this neighborhood? Lots of historic homes seen there-is there any chance for a recovery someday? Will the neighborhood's depressed housing values impact values of the Overlook tower? Otherwise, this is a wonderful set of panoramic images showing the far-reaching beauty of the Queen City. Thanks!

Hi All, My first independent post here as an "Ohioan-to-be" and keen supporter of improving urban living. I haven't seen any mention of the interest rate cap placed on Payday lenders in any discussion thread, so I was surprised to learn this change may put them out of business: http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2008/11/06/payday-lenders-lose-big-in-election.aspx Payday lenders are often part of the blight in low-income neighborhoods. While some folks use them as lenders of last resort, the usurious interest rates put an additional strain on limited financial resources. Any other opinions on this change and how it might impact poorer neighborhoods? What better financial alternatives might benefit low income residents?

This is a wonderful nostaligic journey through Cincinnati history and I very much appreciate the labor that went into creating it. One can readily see why the City eventually earned the name "Queen City" despite an early association with lowly meat processing and packing. So many grand structures were built in the 1800's from the riverbank to the highest hills. The German language captions show how vital the German community was in the City back in the day. The process of change in the streetscape is evolutionary and almost imperceptible on a day-to-day basis, but when compared over a longer time span, say 100 years or more, it is quite dramatic. Cincinnati is very fortunate not to have experienced some of the legendary city-wide fires as in 1871 Chicago and 1906 San Francisco. Most of the losses in the City's historic fabric are due to neglect and the persistent notion that new is somehow always better than old. While the City probably benefited from the demise of polluting industries-resulting in cleaner air-many historic monumental scaled buildings and residences soon disappeared with these industries as well. It would be interesting to somehow have a "today" and "back then" images taken in the same locations to compare the changes in streetscape. To Cincinnati's everlasting credit is that a fair amount of it's "glory days" architecture has survived, making it one of the most pictureque historic cities in America. I believe we have benign neglect and a somewhat less vigorous 20th century urban renewal program to thank for that good fortune, rather than a conscious city-wide effort to save it's architectural heritage. Now the city needs more people to embrace that built heritage, stabilize and restore it so that it can be carried into the future. This wonderful photo series gives a clue to what was lost but also what has been saved as well. Thanks for creating this "labor of love" series.

Outstanding set, Fang-O.! Since I spent some time in the Portland area until last December, (a parent lives in nearby Estacada and an aunt in Milwaukee, OR) I'm curious to know how Cincy compares to Portland. My plans are to relocate to the Queen City when and if I can ever sell my home in Texas. I've seen many excellent Cincinnati images and yours rank among the best-excellent subject matter choices, great perspectives, and excellent technique. Isn't Cincinnati one of the most photogenic and picturesque cities you've ever seen? I can hardly wait to visit there in the coming spring. If a property sale ever happens, I'll be taking a lot more than a camera, and my "visit" will be indefinite. Thanks for a wonderful set, I look forward to seeing more.

Thanks for a fantastic set, Ink. I had to look again to make sure this was Dayton as many of these I'm seeing for the first time. I especially appreciate the Victorians, I didn't know Dayton had some many interesting examples.