John S.

One can only hope a structural engineer has been consulted and is confident the adjacent buildings are not structurally weakened by this demolition removal. If rehabilitation of this block is pending, it would be better to save the façade and the cast iron front components so the streetscape remains the same. A new structure can then be built within the footprint of the original structure to modern standards and sometimes preserving the façade qualifies for historic tax credits. But my gut feeling is another vacant lot is pending. Frankly, I'm surprised the old structures remain next to the newer building.

That's truly a shame as it looks structurally sound in the streetview. Moreover, it's already in an area with too many vacant lots where historic townhomes once stood. The aggressive pattern of indiscriminate "blight eradication" by the City is one of the most problematic issues in Cincinnati. It seems no matter how often people point out that Cincinnati's treasure trove of historic architecture is one of the Queen City's greatest assets there are others who are determined to degrade and decimate this unique historical legacy. One can almost hear the remorseful sighs from the future when citizens rhetorically ask: "What were we thinking!?" in reaction to a time when these once plentiful old residences have become few and far between. This Brave New World of modern structures to reshape Cincinnati while beneficial will never equal what is being lost in the name of "Progress" IMO. Rehabilitation and restoration generates as much economic activity and jobs as new construction, saves otherwise wasted resources, and preserves the unique achitecture that makes Cincinnati special. Why can't the restorations on-going in OTR include the rest of the City? Are there no developers in Cincinnati who believe the old architecture has value?

I've been doing some historical research on several Indiana towns as well as streetview touring. It seems every community makes different choices about what they want to retain from their past. Anderson, of example, seems to have flattened much of its old downtown (which is so open and low density now it almost seems like its out in the exurbs) but oddly Anderson still seems to have a fair representation of its historic residential areas. Muncie, by comparison, seems to have decimated large swaths of both its downtown and its old residential areas. I could only find one concentration of late 19th and early 20th century residences along Muncie's Vine street north of downtown as I recall. The Old West End neighborhood only has sporadic examples of the same era of housing. Richmond, IN, just west of Dayton-Springfield, OH, seems to have a much higher surviving percentage of its early architecture both residential and commercial. Yet much of it doesn't seem well cared for or preserved which is a shame. I'm currently reading a book about Richmond's architectural legacy by Cornell University architectural historians Michael Tomlan and Mary Tomlan. Is that a tree growing out of the Decatur County courthouse tower roof in Greensburg? Unusual to say the least. Then there's the town of Decatur, IN which has a fairly well preserved 19th century downtown but is in Adams county. Shelbyville seems to have retained some of its older architectural heritage and might be worth a visit. My spouse and I are hoping to visit some of these places in the coming Spring. Thanks for sharing.

In the Uptown area which looks to be changing increasingly to commercial use. Are there plans to redevelop the site? The structure itself looks sound and in good repair in the St-view.

Cincinnati isn't the only city wrestling with the streetcar issue; from the Atlantic This Place Matters column: http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/12/san-antonio-cant-decide-if-its-building-streetcars-and-light-rail/7792/ At least in San Antonio (TX) there does not seem to be a strong effort to cancel the project entirely. Urban rail transportation appears to be a benchmark a city has to reach to be considered world-class and competitive in this post -millennium era.

Good points, Sherman. While I still hope saner minds will prevail, I'm surprised given the presence of COAST in the background that a contingency "plan B" wasn't formulated to save the project in the event of such an unreal scenario as is now unfolding. This current administration's actions amounts to a hostile takeover of a viable community project. Since the rules for the game have been abruptly changed in the middle, I'll throw out an idea. (because I sincerely believe that the streetcar project is dead or at least mothballed; studies or no studies) Given that there is some visible corporate support for continuing the project, why couldn't a corporate created and sponsored rail transit authority step in and finish the project to operate the system with profitability in mind? $100 million is chump change for the multinational multi-billion dollar corporations based in Cincinnati. And they would not have to spend the money but could borrow the start up costs and if lucky get Govt. guarantees for the loan(s) which would make them low risk and very cheap to pay over 10 years or longer. The city could write off the costs of donating the already completed construction (which they will have to do anyway) and donate the streetcar assets to the new privatized transit business. (Conservatives love to privatize functions normally covered by local, state, and federal governments-from prisons to toll roads) Tax breaks like those given to developers might be the extra dollop of icing on the cake to create a strong enough incentive for private interests to pick up the pieces of this project and see it to completion. Fares might be a bit higher but if phase one is profitable, I could see the additions to the streetcar lines coming much sooner. The current city administration could take credit for saving taxpayers money and streetcar supporters while not overjoyed would still have their visionary streetcar. The current scenario almost for certain will kill the project indefinitely. (is anyone naïve enough to think the study will not recommend cancellation-or if inconclusive, will be delayed long enough for the Feds to yank funding?) There needs a compromise which will let all parties on both sides of the issue walk away feeling they won something. Cab companies are private, Airlines are privately owned, why not a streetcar transit company which is privately owned and operated? Ok, I know there are a slew of arguments for why it won't work or prohibitive contractual obligations and limitations, etc. But the only way this streetcar project will not be dead for at least the next 4 years and possibly forever is an alternative plan that is palatable to the current administration yet also completes the initial phase of the streetcar so the revenue questions can be put to a real world test. I think the real streetcar operations money is in connecting UC and Xavier students with the downtown and OTR. Corporations can also write off operating losses but I think if a logical business mindset towards the project were taken it should at least break even or be profitable. For Cincinnati's brand conscious companies the Streetcar could become a huge PR image trophy for the town's corporate interests. (the biggest companies probably spend more than the costs of the streetcar project for annual advertising) Ok, I'm jumping back into the shadows but I sincerely feel for those who think the current administration will ever admit they were wrong and give the streetcar project a green light to completion. Maybe the previous mayor's signature project was the streetcar but the current one has made cancelling it his signature accomplishment.

That kills me. It seems most of the council members are reasonable enough to consider something like that but its Cranley that's not letting them. I've been following this thread almost from day one. Since I'm writing this from Texas, I cannot help but see parallels between Cincinnati's new mayor and our homegrown fly-in-the-ointment Tea Partier Ted Cruz. Both seem to have oversized egos and desire to be surrounded by a cult of personality. Whatever happened to the concept of public service? Or is now every elected political office merely a platform to spread one's ideology and ignore those voters who put you in office as well as that your position is a privilege, not a God-given right. Perhaps the new mayor with his outside the box thinking could join the Cruz ticket...seems like they would be a perfect ideological match. I won't comment much hereafter because I have no personal stake in this issue but it will be curious to see what Cincinnati's reality will be four years from now. The new mayor will have to deliver more than a streetcar cancellation to have any positive legacy for his administration. That means at some point he has to be FOR something, not from being against everything as his centerpiece. But that has worked so far for Mr. Cruz so maybe negativity is the new "positive"? Only time will tell. This all seems so petty and pointless and comes at a time when Cincinnati has been getting some good press and national image makeover.

Oh you forgot the $120 million to operate it over 30 years that they are starting to hammer into peoples heads. Question from a non-resident: Why is so much emphasis put on Streetcar annual operating deficits? Is there any solid data from cities with existing streetcar systems to validate this $4 million or more per year projected deficit? Given that OTR is a popular tourist destination as well as The Banks new development how did the guesstimate of an operating deficit originate? Moreover, looking at this situation, wasn't the time to cancel the project BEFORE the city invested a dime in bricks and mortar not after millions have been pumped into it? I understand the Streetcar project survived two public referendums so not much of a convincing argument can be made that cancellation was the will of the people. It seems cancelling the project now is like barricading the barn door long after the cows have gotten loose and scattered. Therefore, to those who scoff at Streetcar project supporters and base their opposition on arguments of fiscal/financial responsibility; is a project cancellation the financially prudent path now or would it not be better to complete phase one and put ridership revenue to a real world test? I suspect and I'm sure many here would agree that this issue is really about ideology and/or local politics and is far less about financial prudence. The ghost of old Boss George Cox is probably smiling down on this debacle from somewhere. I'm personally most bothered by the information being shared that as many as 200 construction workers are being pink-slipped for Christmas just as the Holidays are now upon us. The new Mayor has shown little inclination to compromise in any way perhaps taking his cue from Congressionally gridlocked Washington. The day will come when cooler minds must prevail because compromise is the foundation everything our country is built upon. Without compromise, we cannot have a civilized society. I wish the new mayor and his supporters the best but urge them to put the needs of their city and its voters ahead of their own political/ideological agenda. Cincinnati wants to be perceived as a progressive city and surely shooting down the signature accomplishment of the previous city administration is not the best way to accomplish that. That's my 2 cents worth.

Evansville still retains some of its late 19th and early 20th century architecture and this collection nicely demonstrates Evansville's legacy. I was surprised the 1885 Willard Library which is reputed to be haunted, was not included but time is sometimes limited. There is some great Victorian residential architecture near the Ohio River on Southeast 1st (check out streetview) as well as Washington Avenue. Old postcards show even more great buildings now gone but overall Evansville has tried to keep some of its old personality and restoration opportunities are available for those who seek the challenges of bringing back old houses. Yes, some of the old buildings have been tacked on with later (insensitive) additions but I've seen much worse. I think Indiana Landmarks Foundation plans to open a branch office in the 1930's Art Deco style Greyhound Bus terminal. Thanks for the photos.

Lancaster seems to be a popular town name (wondering to myself how many states have Lancasters...Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, ?) but the Ohio version seems to be exceptionally well preserved compared to many other towns its size. Some curiosities...like the "Hungry?" sign on one old building's ground floor which is hidden behind papers taped on the glass. I assume it was an outreach to homeless or indigents probably by a local ministry or charity. A real surprise was seeing the county's Municipal Courts adaptive reuse plans for the former Columbian building which looks like it will be brought back to its late Victorian era appearance when the project is completed. Some lovely architecture still remains in Lancaster and it was nicely captured in your collection. Thanks for posting and sharing.

Absolutely wonderful collection of St. Louis photos. No exaggeration, the collections are good enough for a book. As noted, mass demolitions have reduced the quantity of great historic architecture in the city but because there was so much more there in the past, so much still survives. It was almost painful to look at the collection of carved stone and terra cotta architectural detail elements-reminded me of the old big game hunters collections of mounted heads from now endangered species. Speaking of species, I never knew about the Turtle-Terrapin connection in STL? Many thanks for sharing such a great collection of city photos. Seriously, they are good enough for a pictorial tour-book of the City.

I get your points but San Francisco's biggest difference in comparison is cultural/demographic. The 19th century architecture on the hillsides and the views of the Ohio River vs. SF Bay and Roebling Bridge vs. Golden Gate are roughly similar. My focus was on the picturesqueness of the two cities-both have million dollar views but in SF such views will cost you well over a million while in Cincinnati you can still by a house with a great view (as the photos above show) for $100k or even less. As for culture, because SF is so wealthy, crazy becomes eccentric and acceptable. Pump a few billion into Cincinnati's real estate/economy and I think a kind of Midwestern urban Chic would evolve. I agree that it will never be a San Francisco though, for all the reasons you enumerated. But that's not necessary a bad thing. As for age, San Francisco is technically a bit older than Cincinnati...the village of Yerba Buena (which was SF's original name) was founded in 1776 while Cincinnati had to wait until 1788. I have an older friend who lives in Noe Valley in SF and he and his spouse bought the c. 1880 townhome they live in around 1980 and paid about $79,000 for it, as I recall In recent years, he's had unsolicited offers of over $2 million for the property but he said if he ever sells, he wants to retire to Santa Cruz near the beach where prices are even higher. If you make that comparison, real estate in Cincinnati is insanely cheap. When OTR and West End townhomes start selling for over a million on average then you could say Cincinnati has arrived. Artists, hipsters, and creative types crave affordable digs and Cincinnati has them in abundance. Mayor elect Cranley ran on a neighborhoods-centric platform-we'll see if he delivers or not. I think we are both in agreement that the potential for Cincinnati is there. No slight intended towards SF-it was and still is a world class city but as you also noted the demographics are sharply split between the very well off and the have nots with little in-between.

It looks similar to the Eden Park Stand Pipe (Wikipedia article showing photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Park_Stand_Pipe ) designed by arguably Cincinnati's most renowned 19th century architect, Samuel Hannaford, in the early 1890's. Today, the concept of style never enters into the equation about such utilitarian structures. Only bridges seem to still embrace the idea that the public appreciates more than strictly utilitarianism in infrastructural improvements. Thanks for sharing.

The McMillan Street substation is an architectural jewel and was probably designed by a talented architect of the period. Of course, at the turn of the last century electrical power and appliances were still relatively new and some people were proud to have a naked light bulb dangling from the ceiling-others dressed them up with fixtures and shades. Had to chuckle thinking what kind of substation now replaces the old architectural gems. They sure don't build them like they used to. (I have seen a few modern replicas of the old designs that still looked better than most contemporary buildings) I don't think we have to worry much about a Brutalist architectural revival...at least I hope not.

And on this side of the Atlantic they just knock the old buildings down and to heck with facades. Thus you have our gap-toothed streetscapes where an isolated building or two stands where there where once a solid block of buildings. A century ago, buildings had false fronts to suggest they appeared bigger than they were. The Europeans are more concerned about urban esthetics apparently.

Lovely photos. I first visited Terre Haute around 1990. It seemed at the time some sporadic urban renewal type demolitions were going on around the downtown. But then as now, the iconic Second Empire style Courthouse endures. An even grander version of a Second Empire courthouse once stood in Marion County/Indianapolis: http://www.indianahistory.org/blog/uploads/MarionCo.Courthouse.jpg.jpg but was demolished in the 1960's. Worrisome to see the block of vacant 19th century buildings you photographed (includes the empty storefront with the "Big Sale" painted on the glass) it would not surprise me in the least to see a vacant block there soon-maybe something else will be built but you can bet it won't be nearly as interesting as what exists there now. As I recall, during my visit from a couple of decades ago there were some interesting Victorian era homes near the downtown area which are probably long gone by now. The problem of preserving the architecture of the past is not limited to Terre Haute, to Indiana, or even to the Midwest generally. Locals should stop to consider for a minute that nothing comparable to what they are tearing down will ever be built again-newer buildings now very seldom are built with a planned lifespan of more than 30-40 years. Those in the 19th century were built to last for a century or longer and they have.

Lovely collection of photos showing why Cincinnati is my favorite Ohio city. During our last 8 day visit (from Texas) I demanded we sample some Skyline Chili to compare its character with some of our Texas versions. I think I had a 3-way or 4-way bowl but while it was quite different from Southwestern versions, I found it tasty. When I remarked to a local Cincinnati architect about my Skyline experience he informed me most of the Chili parlors in Cincinnati were originally owned by Greek immigrants who created their own distinct recipes. From the many places I've visited, Cincinnati stands out as the only one that seems to compare favorably with San Francisco with its historic architecture, sometimes steep streets and unique culture/foods. While not having views of the Golden Gate bridge or SF Bay, the expansive Ohio River views from Price Hill and city parks with the Roebling bridge spanning the river are just as inspiring. My only disappointment was finding that while San Franciscans instinctively recognize the beauty of their city including their signature old but colorful Victorian townhomes, (that now sell for millions) Cincinnatians frequently speak critically about their old architecture as well as lamenting about the sometimes faded character of their town. Anecdotal postings I've read from former Cincinnatians often mention how much they miss their beloved hometown once they have lived in the bland landscape of more modern, "progressive" cities sorely lacking Cincinnati's character. I appreciate you sharing this nice collection.

Thankfully, as property values have steadily climbed in OTR (someone said its incorrect to put "the" in front of OTR) demolitions there (unless new development is waiting) are tapering off. Couldn't happen too soon as past demolitions have pushed surviving OTR historic structures into the 50% range which is considered a minimum for retaining a National Register historic district status. In the West End only a small portion (the Dayton Street corridor) is historic district protected but everything around Dayton built before 1910 should be protected, IMO. It's bad enough the freeway sliced and diced through the once large neighborhood and before that the Laurel Homes and Union Station projects decimated blocks of mid-19th century housing. Having mentioned that, I'm still awed by what remains-I believe it has the potential to become the next Mt. Adams over time. New upscale infill townhomes catering to downtown professional workers could rapidly push up historic West End old townhome values in a short period of time. The same phenomenon happened in front of Washington Park after its makeover and made believers out of former skeptics. Although I'm a non-resident and admit being somewhat puzzled at the election of a new mayor who ran on a streetcar project cancellation platform (seems sort of like trying to push the genie back in the bottle) I'm still bullish about the future of Cincinnati. Too much inner-city investment has been made in recent years for the parties involved to throw up their hands, fold, and meekly walk away. But even in the present atmosphere of uncertainty, I think your property on Mulberry Street is a sound investment and will complement the infill houses already across the street. Good to hear you have an architect's input as they can come up with creative solutions that work with your "limited" budget. I assume then you'll have a construction crew coming in or do you plan to invest some sweat equity into the project? Looking forward to progress reports and images being posted as they may help inspire others to take up the challenge. Such collective efforts become positively transforming. (but I also understand the societal downsides of gentrification) I don't think I exaggerate mentioning just over a decade ago buying and rehabbing a property like yours in this location would have been considered beyond risky if not dangerous. Just imagine what the improving surroundings will look like a decade from now?

Good area with potential. The new infill housing across the street is sympathetic to the district's Victorian era Italianate style townhomes. Any ideas on a stylistic direction to go? The default or safe direction would be to try to bring back a similar Italianate flavor. If historic district zoning overlay is present, then rehab plans will probably have to be presented for design review to receive a certificate of appropriateness or something along those lines. Since the Victorian Italianate style was characterized by a blocky cube-like massing or footprint it's easy to replicate. A flat façade with a side entry and some semblance of a cornice at the top with some regularly spaced corbels/brackets will do the job nicely. Painted bricks can be repainted in brick colors saving time and the expense of removing later paint layers. (which is dicey when old soft bricks are involved) Of course, if there are no design restrictions, you have more freedom but if you're on-board with the steady improvement in this area I'd think you would not wish to plop down some modernist mid-1950's retro façade right in the middle of Italianate-ville. That's part of the problem now with the Church facility which is completely out of context and architectural harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. It's somewhat positive that you don't have to weigh interior considerations of original vs. new so your only design constraints are with the dimensions and layout of the exterior walls. You might want to tour some of the new OTR development for interior ideas. Of course, for most of us a budget is also a consideration so unless yours is unlimited a reasonable compromise between style and practicality will be necessary. For most rehabbers, a one-room-at-a-time approach works best. You will surely need an oasis to escape from the construction dust, stress, and mess as well as to provide the inspiration to do additional rooms. Most failed or abandoned rehabs I've seen involved a whole house gutting to the studs approach which can quickly lead to "rehab fatigue" or project burnout. Then again, if you have a crew working in tandem with a construction manager and/or a architect supervising the project your best bet is to live somewhere else until most of the work is completed. I congratulate you on your decision and wish more folks would take on the challenge. The West End has the same potential as the now gentrifying OTR yet the urban pioneer phenomenon there is still a novelty. With infill development and good design overview both OTR and the West End have great potential to become Cincinnati's most coveted urban neighborhoods in the near future. (regardless of the Streetcar's ultimate fate) The historic architecture still remaining is of the kind most other cities would be envious to have. I look forward to reading your progress as you help contribute to the OTR renaissance. Good luck!

I think it would be appropriate for the Inn owners to collect and post "before" photos like these showing the transformation throughout the house-it might turn a few die-hard skeptics into preservation believers. Thanks for the updates about the anticipated opening-might be Spring before we can break away for a trip. (from Texas)

Absolutely amazing transformation of the kind that is very rarely seen. I hope the new Inn enterprise is equally amazing and successful. The next time my spouse and I are in the area I'll make it a point to book reservations for us. Given all of the disappointing news about rampant state-wide demolitions in the past couple of years, this story is indeed a very happy one. It also demonstrates that even dilapidated (beyond saving?) structures can be brought back and added back to the local tax rolls without demolition being an intermediate step. I hope the Shamakian Family receives national media attention for their exceptional efforts. Very few would have had their vision and resources to see a project of this scope to completion. They will always be "preservation heroes" in my book.

Appears that the City of Cincinnati may have more "Moving Ohio Forward" money laying around than they know what to do with. A surviving Hannaford designed house is as relevant to Cincinnati's architectural heritage as the Roebling Bridge, IMO. While this house has suffered horrible neglect, its still restorable. Another badly neglected Hannaford designed house has recently been rehabbed on Park Avenue in Walnut Hills. Just today on FB, the Cincinnati Preservation Association posted similar a demo hearing notice about a house that is probably the finest towered Queen Anne style Victorian house in Evanston (and almost anywhere in the city) at 1927 Clarion Avenue. (built in 1890 on auditor's site) Had fate placed it a couple of blocks away in Hyde Park, it would be a restored local landmark and showplace. "Neo-Victorians" or new homes built in Victorian styles often replicate these towered Queen Annes-but this one is the real thing and very impressive. No city but Cincinnati would consider demolishing some of the landmark quality homes arbitrarily tagged "nuisances". Why not take that mountain of free money declared for demolitions and use some of it to stablize and rescue a few landmark quality structures like this Hannaford designed mansion? This all too frequent news is so sad and senseless! Perhaps its even made less understandable by the on-going renaissance occuring in the OTR. But like the endangered animals cooped up together in a zoo, it seems the city powers have decided the OTR represents the official location to see "old Cincinnati" while all the other old neighborhoods are fair game for the demolition man.

Ok, so is it apart from what is considered Mt. Auburn and what are the "Uptown"boundaries? Just curious...

The Google Streetview says it all: "Uptown Commons" which is developer-speak for nothing old shall remain around here because it's been rebranded as "Uptown". I saw the same thing happen in my Ft. Worth, TX neighborhood (the city's oldest) when a developer bought the south end of the neighborhood and rebranded it as "Trinity Uptown" while proceeding to demolish 40+ old homes to build condos and apartments on the freshly vacant lots. A closer investigation would probably reveal that a sale of Christy's/Lendhardts has recently taken place and shortly the demolition folks will move in. I think its horrible to witness the kind of wholesale destruction that is going on in Mt. Auburn right now. Huntington Place was admittedly faded but some of the fine stone and brick homes there were built with the best materials and Old-World workmanship money could buy and deserved a better fate than demolition. If I may use Ft. Worth once more as an example, the area now officially designated as the "Hospital District" (because of a conglomerate of hospitals) was once the location of many distinguished homes belonging to the City's elite in the early 1900's. It was called "Quality Hill" by locals back then. I see "Pill Hill" going down that exact same path with Mt. Auburn largely disappearing in the years to come. New development appears to be so coveted by Cincinnati's city leaders that almost anything is expendable, even entire historic neighborhoods. While I hope this fine brick residence in the Queen Anne style remains and is repurposed, at this juncture that seems very unlikely. As a Cleveland Preservationist friend and I were discussing the other evening, Historic Preservation is no longer as "trendy" as it was in the 1980's with the Great Recession now being used as an excuse to accelerate demolitions in many locations. The State of Ohio's multi-million dollar "Moving Ohio Forward" program with a target goal of demolishing 100,000 structures statewide certainly is not helping the situation. It appears that a lot of folks who make important decisions in the State place little value on Ohio's incomparable riches of historic architecture. At the rate these historic resources are being destroyed, that distinction won't be true much longer.

J/M, I partially agree with your conclusions especially the part about Sec. 8 vouchers and the concentration of poverty in certaining neighborhoods often having abundant old housing stock. But I also think your points are an oversimplification of a complex set of urban problems. The trend of bringing higher income and better educated individuals into places like the OTR is just now reaching critical mass. The on-going Riverfront transformation is sure to add even more gravity to the back-to-the-cities movement in Cincinnati. But the problems of the past, especially bringing the large impoverished population up and forward with the rest of the City is challenging. I could see the West End, at least what's left of it, becoming on-par with the OTR in a decade or so. Even South Fairmount could employ the concept of historic preservation to augment the EPA mandated MSD Lick-Run stream daylighting project. But the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) does not seem to want to be bothered by sparing any neighborhood homes or buildings impacted by the project; just clear cut and start all new seems to be the plan. (with the unproven assumption that developers will swoop in with a low density-high value suburban type layout along the beautiful contoured banks of a former sewer drain.) The concept of conserving older neglected but well built housing and commercial building stock is no longer cutting edge-many communities are doing it routinely with great success including the well known Main Street programs. It is one of the right approaches for our leaner times as preservation and rehabilitation costs less than building new, wastes fewer resources, and maintains the neighborhood visual familiarity which helps defines old neighborhoods. Nothing new can ever replace that. Cincinnati's Northside is well on its way towards a revitalized neighborhood and has a bigger "Hip" factor going for it than other neighborhoods. While a revived Northside would be different than the OTR it would have just as much appeal to newcomers. I envision Cincinnati entering a long period of steady growth and applaud Mayor Mallory for his words in support of historic preservation; however, to be credible, he must translate his talk now into ACTION. San Francisco, New Orleans, Boston, Charleston, and Savannah, have all discovered that their old neighborhoods and historic homes contribute greatly to their community appeal-the same can be duplicated in Cincinnati and certainly in more neighborhoods than just the OTR District, IMO. I see the OTR as having been a "test case" for historic preservation employed to help turn a marginal area around-in my opinion, the OTR has passed that test with flying colors. With that in mind: Why not try it in other areas, Mr. Mayor? Spend as much money on rehabiltation and preservation of worthy structures as the City spends on demolitions.