"Helpful" for whom? Who doesn't benefit from "pushing harder for increased gentrification?" What does job training have to do with this thread?

12th & Vine was at one point considered the most dangerous corner in Cincinnati. Just a few years later, it became the epicenter of Cincinnati's culinary scene.

 

The scale of what's happening around Findlay Market right now completely blows away that first Gateway Quarter phase. So I would expect to see the area around Findlay change pretty quickly. (Two full blocks being renovated by Model Group, Film Center project by UrbanSites, and multiple other smaller projects.)

 

Cincinnati Police have already presented a plan with some proposed changes to Findlay Playground to cut down on the drug dealing and other illicit behaviors.

 

12th/Race to nearly Vine Street is still very much an active open air drug market.  I work with five different officers sending them video of drug dealing nearly daily.  The problem is that Tender Mercies houses a lot of addicted individuals (some of whom are OK selling drugs as well in order to get paid in drugs).  I'm in communication with the CEO of Tender Mercies, but he tells me there's not much that can be done due to HUD rules that favor housing over evicting drug addicts.

 

The area has gotten somewhat better, but it's due to people like us constantly putting pressure on the dealers and occasionally getting assaulted and threatened with death.  The crack bar at 12th/Race and the cell phone store used by dealers closed.  There even appears to be more development on the northeast corner of 12th/Race, but I must say that development in the area isn't the panacea for safety that everyone thinks it is.

 

It is going to take many, many years before OTR gets safer.  I'm guess it will take at least a couple of decades for the area of Findlay Market to improve greatly.  I have no idea how anyone could expect to sell $500K+ condos in that area right now.

Yeah I'm not sure why the two empty spaces at 12th and Race haven't been developed yet.  The north east corner looks like it may have some work going on but it's looked like that for a while.  The south east corner is still that closed bar and has looked the same forever.  Not sure who owns the south east building but they are wasting some prime real estate not developing that space.  Get something put in those two spots and that corner will completely liven up. 

The family that owns the southeast corner property that was formerly a crack bar hates 3CDC and has been a negative force in the area for many, many years.  I've got many stories, but suffice to say they are incredibly sleazy individuals who don't keep up their property and take advantage of the poor and mentally ill in the area.  Don't expect anything there anytime soon.

I live on Orchard and we still see open drug dealing from time to time. I know many of my neighbors have called them in. These things do not go away but they do lessen as the neighborhood revitalizes.

 

An early OTR story that stuck out to me was when I heard the experiences from the Director for Ensemble Theater who started working at the theater in the 1990's. The area whole neighborhood south of Liberty was essentially the Walmart of drugs, with each cross street from Vine to Liberty offering progressively harder drugs for sale as one moved north from Central Parkway. She developed a relationship with the dealers at the corner so they would shift their operation and not bother patrons. I don't recall the specifics, but it involved bringing a pack of beer to them every week or something like that.

 

One of the first things 3CDC did when they began acquiring properties was target convenience stores and shut them down. Often times, the convenience stores operated as fronts for drug operations and would pawn stolen cellphones and other materials from muggings. As the intersection revived, the operations slowly dispersed. However it took constant police involvement and coordination with merchants and residents.

 

Bfwissel is also right about the housing situation, as most housing outside of direct HUD or CMHA are not required to turn away offenders. The Columbia Apartment building at 13th and Walnut was the prime example of such a place, until 3CDC was able to acquire it. This was also a huge drug dealing area yet ironically, safer than 14th for many years. This was because dealers do not like to draw attention to their spots so they watch the street better.

 

Another example was Ziegler Park where they had Findlay Playground levels of activity for a long time. Now that element has moved on.

 

Drug dealing, prostitution and these other activities tend to go on in areas with a lot of disinvestment and a lot of disenfranchised citizenry. One of the things I have told many communities when we talk about crime is to call it in. Most people do not call in these things or report them, so when the police review their enforcement areas, they often miss the communities that need police the most. An example of this is in Avondale where "Hot Shot" cameras were put in at strategic areas, the Police Department found that most residents didn't call in gun fire, even when the cameras recorded it.

 

No neighborhood is completely without these things, but they take different forms in different places. In the urban core these things occur in a much more stereotypical fashion. But don't be completely naive and think this doesn't happen in the suburbs. It happens in West Chester and Sharonville as well, but it happens in cars parked in a big box store parking lot, or someplace else. Because the suburbs are auto-oriented, its just less visible.

 

Eventually the people living and working at Findlay Square Phase I, II, and III (the Model developments around the market) and the OTR ADOPT rehabs at the 5-point corner of Vine and McMicken will demand that attention be given to the park. Then one day OTR Holdings or some other 3CDC subsidiary will purchase the corner convenience store building and it will close. Then suddenly there is a proposal for a redo of the park. And so on. The majority of the criminal element will move on. And so it goes...

All the examples provided in this thread show that OTR's problems all stem from it being a dumping ground for the problems the rest of Cincinnati doesn't want. Even those who actually own property or operate businesses or other organizations in OTR still ironically benefit from it's dumping ground status. Romantic ideas about OTR as a haven for the dispossessed struggling to find a place for themselves in a cruel world are wrong and self-serving. OTR is the 'cruel world.' It's a place where the dispossessed are taken advantage of and manipulated by those who have found themselves able to do so. The shelter owners and operators need there to be a ready population of homeless and addicted people for their organizations to continue to justify their existence and employ them. It's the 'Mother Teresa' syndrome. The street dealers need a place to do business. The convenience store and crack bar owners need someone to buy their twinkies, $5 half gallons of spoiled milk, and to provide cover (for a fee) for their illicit activities. Those who live far from OTR need a place at a safe distance from them where they can direct their charity and sympathies for the poor. If OTR didn't exist as it currently does, they would all have a very hard time recreating these situations in other places and these 'problems' would find their way to 'the neighborhoods.' There is nothing good or honorable about 'resisting' new investment in OTR. If you think that there is, prove it by 'resisting' those things where you live. Increased property values increase the tax base of all of Cincinnati allowing it to build its public services and to plan for a more prosperous future. Descriptions of daily life in OTR are not overly dramatic. They are just something that many don't want to have to acknowledge. Don't shoot the messenger.

OTR's problems all stem from it being a dumping ground for the problems the rest of Cincinnati doesn't want. Even those who actually own property or operate businesses or other organizations in OTR still ironically benefit from it's dumping ground status.

 

Exactly. This is a really important thing people need to understand about OTR's history that I don't think many newcomers understand. OTR has always been forced to take on more than its fair share of social service agencies and subsidized housing. This was caused by a perfect storm of (1.) Buddy Gray types who wanted to make OTR into a "ghettopia" and (2.) people from the rest of Cincinnati who refused to take on their fair share of these elements and wanted to keep it all in OTR.

 

If the neighborhood stays on the path that it is currently going, it will be a good mix of subsidized housing and market rate. And, because of the investments that are being made, residents of all income levels will be able to live in a safer place with better parks and other amenities. And the newer affordable housing that is being added in the neighborhood is actually modern and up to code.

The down and out homeless and street people provide cover for the dealers. They are not really their customers because they don't have any real money. A couple dollars is mostly what they have. They are sustained by the do-gooders. God only knows how many residential units the Franciscans and other religious have blocked out for ghetto housing. Tender Mercies, Mary Magdalen, Joseph, etc. are all well meaning but just enabling the addicted and mentally ill.

 

No one will convince the do-gooders that enabling is not a good strategy. Its a cruel strategy. 

The down and out homeless and street people provide cover for the dealers. They are not really their customers because they don't have any real money. A couple dollars is mostly what they have. They are sustained by the do-gooders. God only knows how many residential units the Franciscans and other religious have blocked out for ghetto housing. Tender Mercies, Mary Magdalen, Joseph, etc. are all well meaning but just enabling the addicted and mentally ill.

 

No one will convince the do-gooders that enabling is not a good strategy. Its a cruel strategy. 

 

The only thing cruel is your high horse perspective on people whom are suffering and need support and help. When I was down and out and didn't have electricity or food, the local church was the only people who kept me from starving to death. What an awful perspective you have. Where are you when these people need help? Such a shitty and self centered person you must be.

Have we lost all ability to have nuanced conversations on the Internet?

 

I have no problem with the organizations that strive to provide down-on-their-luck people, especially those who are addicted or mentally ill, with food and housing. I simply think that it doesn't make sense to concentrate so many of the city's social services into one single neighborhood. Especially now that most of the poverty in America is actually in the suburbs, not the urban core. But the resistance of other neighborhood to take on their fair share of social services has forced many of them to remain in the urban core.

 

I do have a problem with the "poverty pimps" who want OTR to be nothing but social services and subsidized housing because they are deluded into thinking that a "ghettopia" will be better for residents than a mixed-income neighborhood. And I have a problem with the slumlords who let their buildings fall apart and ignore the many code violations that likely exist inside just so that they can rent out their apartments for dirt cheap. As much as some people want to criticize organizations like 3CDC and Model Group for causing "gentrification", those organizations are also fixing up buildings and renting them out to low income people at affordable rates, providing a much better living option than what the slumlords offer.

The down and out homeless and street people provide cover for the dealers. They are not really their customers because they don't have any real money. A couple dollars is mostly what they have. They are sustained by the do-gooders. God only knows how many residential units the Franciscans and other religious have blocked out for ghetto housing. Tender Mercies, Mary Magdalen, Joseph, etc. are all well meaning but just enabling the addicted and mentally ill.

 

No one will convince the do-gooders that enabling is not a good strategy. Its a cruel strategy. 

 

The only thing cruel is your high horse perspective on people whom are suffering and need support and help. When I was down and out and didn't have electricity or food, the local church was the only people who kept me from starving to death. What an awful perspective you have. Where are you when these people need help? Such a shitty and self centered person you must be.

 

Apparently, you did not leave your past far behind. Were you an addict?

This discussion of OTR has nothing to do with helping people, being nice, being a good person, or any forms of value-signaling. This is about the efforts of a "poverty industry" to main a 'containment area' so some can then point to them and say 'what about those in need?' If you sincerely want to help people, help them to get housing and jobs in Florence or Fairfield where there are jobs for low-skilled people. Support minimum income guarantees and support housing discrimination laws so they can have more of the choices in life that you have. They shouldn't have to live in OTR if they don't want to anymore than you should. Don't be the mother teresa of Christopher Hitchens' Missionary Position.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=PTgJIjK67rEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=missionary+position&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhvJurvIraAhWFtlMKHRP-AUMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=missionary%20position&f=false

Perceptions are reality in so many ways. Perceptions of OTR explain more about it's development that contracts, legal ownership, zoning, or structural engineering ever could. If OTR weren't perceived as unique in Cincinnati, such legal and financial considerations would be irrelevant. If there is nowhere to discuss what is actually happening in OTR, the neighborhood will continue to be a plaything of various vested interests.

I don't think anyone is denying that there is still crime in OTR and that we need to continue to address it. However you're talking about it like it's a problem we don't know how to solve. We "solved" the problem in the southern half of OTR — of course crime and loitering have totally been eliminated, but it's been reduced to the level that most people feel comfortable walking down the street. And over time similar approaches will be used to solve it around Findlay Market. As John Schneider[/member] often says, I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.

 

Back to your original point, how in the world are they selling $500k condos one block from a playground where open air drug sales are happening? The buyers of those condos will likely be people who saw the 12th & Vine area change dramatically in in the span of a few years, and know the same thing will happen around Findlay Market in the coming years.

I think there is a certain edginess that some buyers find attractive. They can be pioneers without the actual hardship. $500k seems a little pricey for that privilege, but there is no doubt that the prices exceed the residential value of properties on upper Elm. 

Thanks taestell, My purpose in posting here IS to understand how the area around Findlay Park might ever become like the area around Washington Park. Findlay Park today reminds me of stories I heard about Washington Park in the mid 2000s and I wanted to know how it got from where it was to where it is. I live in the area and have never thought of myself as a "pioneer." I live, dine, shop and socialize in the area, but I rent and wouldn't consider putting my own money into the neighborhood until I see signs of real change. This forum has shown me OTR serves as a symbol of many things for those far from OTR. OTR isn't a hobby for me, it's my home.

OTR is also my home. I guess the difference between you and I, is that I have lived in this neighborhood for almost a decade and have watch it change block by block, so I have faith that the rest of the neighborhood will continue to evolve in the same way.

 

I live very close to Ziegler Park. Up until the spring of 2016, Ziegler Park was home to much of the same loitering and open air drug dealing that you currently see at Findlay Playground. Then it closed for a major renovation, and when it reopened a year later, much of that element was gone. The new park has a pool, playground area, and grassy area and is clearly popular with people of all ages and ethnicities. However the drug dealing element has vanished.

 

At some point within the next 5 years, the city and/or 3CDC will propose a renovation of Findlay Playground. Most likely they will propose putting an underground parking garage below it, as they did with Washington Park. It will be closed for two years for renovations and when it reopens, it will have events like CityFlea and art fairs and food festivals, just like Washington Park.

 

Findlay Market is such an important cultural asset for our region, it is a 100% certainty in my mind that the surrounding streets will become a safe area with tons of new businesses, residents, and office space.

"Within the next 5 years"! I've struggled to understand the appeal of boom towns like Austin, Nashville, Denver, and even Columbus. I've finally come to realize that their appeal is that things simply happen more quickly than elsewhere. Jobs, development, and even social opportunities simply come along more quickly and respond to change more rapidly than in Cincinnati with its vast web of vested interests each competing for a sliver of a pie that is not getting larger. People see what they have to lose, not what they have to gain. You can change your career and affect your neighborhood and living situation more quickly in those places than in Cincy. In Cincinnati, established interests pile on anyone attempting to do something more quickly or in a new way. It's just how Cincinnati is. That's why professionals who come to Cincinnati leave after a few years. It's not a bug in Cincinnati society, it IS Cincinnati society. This is a valuable lesson learned for me. I can't ever see myself investing in OTR now, as much as I enjoy living in the neighborhood. If only Cincinnatians could see the real value of what they have.......

"Within the next 5 years"! I've struggled to understand the appeal of boom towns like Austin, Nashville, Denver, and even Columbus. I've finally come to realize that their appeal is that things simply happen more quickly than elsewhere. Jobs, development, and even social opportunities simply come along more quickly and respond to change more rapidly than in Cincinnati with its vast web of vested interests each competing for a sliver of a pie that is not getting larger. People see what they have to lose, not what they have to gain. You can change your career and affect your neighborhood and living situation more quickly in those places than in Cincy. In Cincinnati, established interests pile on anyone attempting to do something more quickly or in a new way. It's just how Cincinnati is. That's why professionals who come to Cincinnati leave after a few years. It's not a bug in Cincinnati society, it IS Cincinnati society. This is a valuable lesson learned for me. I can't ever see myself investing in OTR now, as much as I enjoy living in the neighborhood. If only Cincinnatians could see the real value of what they have.......

 

I think if those other cities appeal to you and if Cincinnati is so backwards in your eyes then you should just move.  I think everyone would be happier.

I wouldn't be happier. I'd like a few outsiders to stop posting here because their academic mumbo jumbo is nauseating, but I think Matthew posts actual ideas and feelings. And, after all isn't the old "if you don't like it here, move" the shibboleth of a mean spirited past? We are better than that, aren't we?

isn't the old "if you don't like it here, move" the shibboleth of a mean spirited past?

 

Well, so is "take your academic mumbo jumbo elsewhere."  Double standard much?

^ Matthew67[/member] I'm really not sure why you think 5 years is such a long time. As someone who's rehabbed a couple of old OTR buildings, it's very hard for me to think about ever getting from the point of purchasing a property to a certificate of occupancy in less than 2 - 2-1/2 years time. I mean, you've got purchase, stabilization, design, permitting, historic board approval, historic tax credits, tax abatements + LEED (possibly), construction, ... plus possibly a couple of rounds of funding. So to get an entire blighted area with decades of disinvestment turned around in 5-10 years is only 2-5 times the time required for an individual project.

 

It seems to me that the only way you do it faster, maybe in those cities that you mention, is you bulldoze the old stock and put up everything in large multi-unit developments that span a city block each. There's lots of people who would fight you tooth and nail on that, I think that much is obvious, and its also obvious for good reason.

I know Nashville well and it's quite obvious that the "business community" simply pays off Josh Spring-types and the city's black population has been completely shoved aside. 

 

The push to combine the city and county in our area isn't so much about saving on duplicative services as it is getting the minority population back to being a minority of the power.  In Cincinnati the black population is close to 50%.  If Hamilton County became a city, they could get the minority population down to well under 26%. 

 

They combined the city and county in Nashville/Davidson County and as a result the black minority is more of a minority.     

I think development of abandoned buildings in OTR would speed up overall if it got to the point where they didn't need historic preservation credits, but until then in most spots it is a necessity though I think we are seeing a bit less of it than before.

"Within the next 5 years"! I've struggled to understand the appeal of boom towns like Austin, Nashville, Denver, and even Columbus. I've finally come to realize that their appeal is that things simply happen more quickly than elsewhere. Jobs, development, and even social opportunities simply come along more quickly and respond to change more rapidly than in Cincinnati with its vast web of vested interests each competing for a sliver of a pie that is not getting larger. People see what they have to lose, not what they have to gain. You can change your career and affect your neighborhood and living situation more quickly in those places than in Cincy. In Cincinnati, established interests pile on anyone attempting to do something more quickly or in a new way. It's just how Cincinnati is. That's why professionals who come to Cincinnati leave after a few years. It's not a bug in Cincinnati society, it IS Cincinnati society. This is a valuable lesson learned for me. I can't ever see myself investing in OTR now, as much as I enjoy living in the neighborhood. If only Cincinnatians could see the real value of what they have.......

 

I mean, you are not wrong. Especially with our current city administration which does not especially care about developing the urban core the way our previous administration did. It seems like Cincinnati only has the capacity to do one or two large projects in the urban core simultaneously. At this pace it will take decades and decades before all of the CBD, OTR, and West End are redeveloped. The bottom line is that Cincinnati is a low-growth city. Unless we start to have a major influx of new residents, the pace isn't going to accelerate. If we got Amazon HQ2, you could bet that any available plot of land within the urban core would be developed within the next decade. But we didn't.

The push to combine the city and county in our area isn't so much about saving on duplicative services as it is getting the minority population back to being a minority of the power.  In Cincinnati the black population is close to 50%.  If Hamilton County became a city, they could get the minority population down to well under 26%.

 

I'm not sure that would accelerate redevelopment at all, because a lot of suburban white people in the area also don't want Cincinnati's core to revitalize, because they view the region as zero-sum and don't want the "problems" forced out into their townships.

Much of the growth industry in those sunbelt cities is growth itself.  They're growing because they're growing.  Yeah it's something of a ponzi scheme, but since much of our economy is tied into the sprawl-building industry (whether building construction, road construction, mortgage financing, automobile sales, and all the accoutrements of inefficient and expensive suburban living) growth begets growth.  That some of this is parlayed into urban development projects in those cities seems to be merely gravy for the most part.  That still creates a much different dynamic than in a region where growth actually is zero-sum. 

"Within the next 5 years"! I've struggled to understand the appeal of boom towns like Austin, Nashville, Denver, and even Columbus. I've finally come to realize that their appeal is that things simply happen more quickly than elsewhere. Jobs, development, and even social opportunities simply come along more quickly and respond to change more rapidly than in Cincinnati with its vast web of vested interests each competing for a sliver of a pie that is not getting larger. People see what they have to lose, not what they have to gain. You can change your career and affect your neighborhood and living situation more quickly in those places than in Cincy. In Cincinnati, established interests pile on anyone attempting to do something more quickly or in a new way. It's just how Cincinnati is. That's why professionals who come to Cincinnati leave after a few years. It's not a bug in Cincinnati society, it IS Cincinnati society. This is a valuable lesson learned for me. I can't ever see myself investing in OTR now, as much as I enjoy living in the neighborhood. If only Cincinnatians could see the real value of what they have.......

 

If things happened more quickly in Cincinnati then i bet almost all of OTR would have been bulldozed for re-development (Like Queensgate) back in the 50's to the 80's when it fell out of fashion . Sometimes the slow movement is a blessing and gives people time to appreciate what they have. Even cities like Savannah and New Orleans almost demolished the areas that bring them praise and notoriety among tourists and preservationists. If it were not for them becoming a place people forgot the would not be around to be rediscovered by those who follow trends. Some people were there for the entire ride though, or saw the potential and moved in despite the risks because it was worth the lows for the highs. Nothing personal at all, but as a new person here dont dismiss all those who got it to where it is now because it is happening on a slower schedule than you want especially if you aren't wanting to put your own time or money on the line to make it better. I agree with you that the criminal element must go, but it is and always has been a situation of the residents (of all incomes) fill all the empty spots and those who dont want eyes on them move. It has almost pushed everyone out except for fewer and fewer isolated spots. Why change that formula that currently works now while lamenting that no one should invest till the crime is gone? Investing in the neighborhood is WHY the crime is on the way out.

 

Much of the growth industry in those sunbelt cities is growth itself.  They're growing because they're growing.  Yeah it's something of a ponzi scheme, but since much of our economy is tied into the sprawl-building industry (whether building construction, road construction, mortgage financing, automobile sales, and all the accoutrements of inefficient and expensive suburban living) growth begets growth.  That some of this is parlayed into urban development projects in those cities seems to be merely gravy for the most part.  That still creates a much different dynamic than in a region where growth actually is zero-sum. 

 

Southern California experienced a local recession in the 1990s when the entire LA and San Fernando basins were finally built-out to the bottom of the mountains that border them.  This meant no more tract housing -- big single-family subdivisions or big apartment complexes.  Some of that continues in the so-called Inland Empire but it is a fraction of what it was in the 1970s and 80s. 

 

Unlike LA, most of the southern cities will be able to keep expanding endlessly.  This is part of the reason why housing costs have stayed relatively low.  But Nashville actually has a pretty complicated layout with a lot of unbuildable land and so they're experiencing a housing crisis as existing housing has to be demolished in order to build new, denser development.  So-called "starter homes" are being demolished left-and-right and so there is a shortage of that type of housing. 

 

Cincinnati doesn't have that problem.  There are tons and tons of small homes all over the place.  That's a big reason why Cincinnati housing prices haven't spiked irrationally since the recession. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for making it so easy for me to make my points about Cincinnati with your helpful examples. You do my work for me!

 

OTR is something special. If it had been lost because Cincinnati had been more aggressive economically, 20 story buildings would cover much of OTR today. They'd house many thousands of professionals and metro Cincinnati would be much larger today than it is and Cincinnati's problems would be those of a larger and more prosperous city. That didn't happen and it provides an opportunity for Cincinnati to get back in the game....but only if it actually tries. The world owes Cincinnati nothing. Cincinnati has to justify its existence to professionals and investors. OTR is a way to do that which cannot be replicated easily elsewhere. Still, OTR's success is not a given. It will depend on the ability to get non-Cincinnatians to invest in OTR and Cincinnati more broadly. Telling people to shut up or leave is exactly the wrong response.

^Something about that response, I don't think Cincinnati would be larger and more prosperous if they had bulldozed OTR.  I think if they did that it would be in a worse situation actually.  I don't think you could have changed the larger socioeconomic factors which resulted in Cincinnati becoming what it is today.  Look at all the old inland US Cities today, even places like Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, etc. lost a ton of population and had exodus in their past, but Boston and New York City bounced back earlier and Philadelphia is currently bouncing back.

I just really hate the loser mentality.  Things are better everywhere else, everyone in Cincinnati is doing things wrong because they aren't doing what I want fast enough, life is too hard and you aren't doing enough to help me, blah, blah, blah.  If someone sees a problem and doesn't want to be part of the solution, but instead just wants to whine endlessly, then I don't see them as a valuable contributor to the community.  In that case it just makes sense for the individual to just move elsewhere where they'll be happier and leave it to others in the community to do the hard work they aren't willing to do.  I saw it a lot when I was a board member of the Downtown Residents Council.  So many people wanted our organization to do things, but didn't want to help out in any way.  It was infuriating then and is so now.

^Something about that response, I don't think Cincinnati would be larger and more prosperous if they had bulldozed OTR.  I think if they did that it would be in a worse situation actually.  I don't think you could have changed the larger socioeconomic factors which resulted in Cincinnati becoming what it is today.  Look at all the old inland US Cities today, even places like Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, etc. lost a ton of population and had exodus in their past, but Boston and New York City bounced back earlier and Philadelphia is currently bouncing back.

 

Agree with IAGuy39[/member]. Given trends at the time whatever replaced OTR probably wouldn’t have added any people and would have been city-deadening in design and would require us to go back and fix it now. Moreover we already have an example from history to look at- Kenyon Barr, the bulldozing of which permanently maimed our city and has definitely put a ceiling on any potential comeback we will make.

I also hate the loser mentality. I hate the 'mind your own business' mentality, too. I encounter it regularly among natives. The best boosters of Cincinnati I find are transplants. You have no idea what "the individual" does with respect to OTR or anything else in Cincinnati. You're instinctive hostility to "the individual" is the issue, not the development of OTR. Why would OTR have been bulldozed if there HADN'T been a demand for new economic uses of OTR? Bulldozing costs money. OTR wasn't bulldozed because there wasn't a demand to use it in new economic ways. Queensgate was builldozed in a racially-motivated move to get rid of a predominately black neighborhood and to create new economic uses for land immediately next to the new i-75 and the rail yard. The rail yard that extends from Queensgate almost to Northside is an important economic activity for metro Cincinnati. It ain't pretty but it has its uses.

^Yeah I think really tons of center city regions had massive exodus, it really seems lucky that OTR didn't hit the wrecking ball.  I don't know if it was all for demand or not because I don't think Queensgate ever "took off" like the people who supported it thought it would, I could be wrong there.

 

I think some people could chime in for the reason why OTR wasn't bulldozed and it could have been a factor like "well Queensgate never took off like we wanted it to and so what's the point of doing the same to OTR and spending all that money?", which is what you are mentioning and probably part of the reason. But I think part of the equation as well was that there were some preservationists at that time and a lot of them could have been low income preservationists and peole saying, "you kicked us out of Kenyon Barr you won't do the same here", I am not sure.

Luck is just what we call things that we don't understand, things in which we cannot see cause and effect relationships. OTR wasn't 'lucky,' it's fortunes are clearly explainable in economic terms. It wasn't even worth tearing down to anyone in the 50s, 60s, and 70s because Cincinnati didn't create the demand for it.

^ Gosh Matthew67[/member] I am wanting to understand your point, and I think you have one, but in the end ... I just don't.

^^ok I kind of see what you are saying but literally that's every single city that has preserved historic architecture so it isn't unique to Cincinnati. If it's lucky because there wasn't the growth needed to tear it down, we are lucky that happened because we have it now, and that can be said for anywhere in the USA.

Luck is just what we call things that we don't understand, things in which we cannot see cause and effect relationships. OTR wasn't 'lucky,' it's fortunes are clearly explainable in economic terms. It wasn't even worth tearing down to anyone in the 50s, 60s, and 70s because Cincinnati didn't create the demand for it.

 

If you did some outside reading you'd come to realize that the postwar project for all American downtowns was to define it physically so that there would be no competition for office towers, which were and are the most lucrative type of real estate.  Bringing the interstate highways into the cities gave blue bloods the opportunity to encircle downtowns and essentially wall them off from competing land.  Downtowns could no longer move, as had in several fateful examples. 

 

In examples where no highway existed along a downtown's edge, slums were useful tools for keeping away development.  In Zane Miller's book he discusses how the fateful decision was made in the 1950s to NOT preserve Over-the-Rhine in amber in the way New Orleans set up strict controls for the French Quarter.  It was allowed to deteriorate on purpose to hurt the value of the northern edge of Downtown Cincinnati and keep the downtown focused around Fountain Square. 

 

The subway was going to open up Central Parkway to big-time development.  It was killed to keep that from happening; a war zone north of it kept any idea of putting up something big out of the conversation.  The Kroger tower went up because Kroger was already corporate-owned in the 50s and wasn't playing the blue blood game.  The blue bloods were fearful that that single tower was going to legitimize that whole area. 

 

 

 

 

 

Luck is just what we call things that we don't understand, things in which we cannot see cause and effect relationships. OTR wasn't 'lucky,' it's fortunes are clearly explainable in economic terms. It wasn't even worth tearing down to anyone in the 50s, 60s, and 70s because Cincinnati didn't create the demand for it.

 

Its perfectly understandable. Much of West End was lost due to the building boom for highways and subsidized housing. If there had been greater demand in the 50's and 60's much of OTR would have been demolished. No one cared a whit about the housing treasure OTR held.

 

And, further helping OTR was the lack of cut up and bastardization that occurred elsewhere. It just wasn't worth making a 8 room single family into 3 little apartments because no one wanted to live in OTR in the first place. So many of the houses renovated now are pristine. Almost what they looked like in 1920 or even 1890.

 

If you did some outside reading you'd come to realize that the postwar project for all American downtowns was to define it physically so that there would be no competition for office towers, which were and are the most lucrative type of real estate.  Bringing the interstate highways into the cities gave blue bloods the opportunity to encircle downtowns and essentially wall them off from competing land.  Downtowns could no longer move, as had in several fateful examples. 

 

I'd be interested in learning more about the post-highway situations where the "downtown" did effectively still manage to move. I'm mostly thinking about Atlanta, with how Midtown and Bucktown are arguably bigger and healthier than the actual "downtown" portion of Atlanta. I guess you could ask the same thing of Los Angeles, but L.A. is really its own beast as far as development patterns go.

Luck is just what we call things that we don't understand, things in which we cannot see cause and effect relationships. OTR wasn't 'lucky,' it's fortunes are clearly explainable in economic terms. It wasn't even worth tearing down to anyone in the 50s, 60s, and 70s because Cincinnati didn't create the demand for it.

 

Its perfectly understandable. Much of West End was lost due to the building boom for highways and subsidized housing. If there had been greater demand in the 50's and 60's much of OTR would have been demolished. No one cared a whit about the housing treasure OTR held.

 

And, further helping OTR was the lack of cut up and bastardization that occurred elsewhere. It just wasn't worth making a 8 room single family into 3 little apartments because no one wanted to live in OTR in the first place. So many of the houses renovated now are pristine. Almost what they looked like in 1920 or even 1890.

 

It's also important to remember that there were several highways that were proposed but never actually built. We almost ended up with the "Taft Expressway" that would have destroyed Clifton Heights, or a riverfront routing of I-471 that would have demolished significant chunks of Newport and Covington. There were plans at one time to make Liberty Street into a Fort Washington Way style highway linking I-71 and I-75; if that happened, we would have lost a significant amount of OTR, and what remained would be split in two, right down the middle, by a massive highway. So OTR was "lucky" in many ways. The West End was unlucky and was largely demolished for I-75, and what remained was demolished for "modern" housing projects.

I'll keep trying. OTR's success is key for Cincinnati's success. It's something Cincinnati's competitors don't have. Columbus is trying to recreate it in its Short North such is the value of such a place. It could be a premier professional startup location. It's location alone, between downtown and midtown, makes it the linchpin to Cincinnati's economic geography. In a well-functioning economy, OTR should be the most expensive location in all of metro Cincy. It should be experiencing the amount of investment Columbus' Short North is receiving. It's property values are not a bubble but a sign of it's real and sustainable value. There are individuals and groups who oppose OTR's growth because they think their very existence depends on opposing it. These include the 'charity industry,' local politicians, and some owners of property in OTR. THEY are the reason OTR's growth is slow. These groups and individuals have special power to stand in the way of growth that such groups in other cities simply do not have. As Jake mentioned and as I've noticed, they get paid off or washed away on a wave of money in one way or another in other towns..and not just those that are booming. Cincinnati will only change it's economic trajectory by decisively moving these people and organizations out of the way. OTR's pace of developing is not inevitable and it isn't like other historic neighborhoods in location, form, or history. OTR is not just another generic story of gentrification to be found in many cities. It's Cincinnati's 'trump' card. Cincinnati, and OTR, have a choice to make. Both can let incestuous local politics and romantic delusions about the poor and 'community unity' block new money and people, or they can encourage new people and money to come. They can't have both.

I'd be interested in learning more about the post-highway situations where the "downtown" did effectively still manage to move. I'm mostly thinking about Atlanta, with how Midtown and Bucktown are arguably bigger and healthier than the actual "downtown" portion of Atlanta. I guess you could ask the same thing of Los Angeles, but L.A. is really its own beast as far as development patterns go.

 

Yeah Atlanta is a great example.  There the highway routing was favorable to Midtown forming.  Plus, they dug a subway connecting the historic downtown with that area in the 1970s.  That's actually a perfect illustration of why Cincinnati's leaders didn't want our subway to start operating.  The stated goal of naming Central Parkway "CENTRAL" was because it was going to become the new center of the city.  If that had happened, much of OTR south of Liberty St. would have been replaced by new buildings.  But more of our historic downtown would have survived. 

 

 

Which brings me back to my first contacts on this forum, defending my very good friend and mentor who was accused of "warehousing" vacant properties and holding back development. Of course, the accusations were venial and ill informed, and one can see today the brilliance of the strategy of holding the properties until development had acheived enough enertia to see real quality built. Now that real development is underway (as opposed to the piss poor efforts of the past) these jewels are coming onto the market and being purchased by Model and Rhinegiest and others who have big plans for them. It is those properties that will spur the jump across McMicken St. and get the "Mohawk" neighborhood underway.

This isn't about loyalty, personal relationships, or 'being on the right side' of OTR's development. No one has special claims to control OTR no matter how long they've been there or how much they care about it. OTR's past and present is about money and power. Projecting Cincinnati's various battles on OTR about who is an authentic cincinnatian and who isn't is beside the point. As are the issues of poverty and gentrification. There is no inherent reason that Cincinnati can't experience the growth that Columbus or Austin are experiencing. The actions of Cincinnatians themselves, some of them OTR residents and property owners, are the only thing preventing it.

Growth is highly overrated. Detroit and Atlanta were really fast growing cities.

Detroit died because its growth died. 

Detroit died because its growth died. 

 

Hahaha. That is like saying the patient died because he stopped breathing . . . when he was shot in the head. Of course the growth stopped when people started fleeing Detroit like it was was an open house in Hell.

 

Here, try this: http://bfy.tw/HNEY

 

 

Detroit died because its growth died. 

 

Hahaha. That is like saying the patient died because he stopped breathing . . . when he was shot in the head. Of course the growth stopped when people started fleeing Detroit like it was was an open house in Hell.

 

Here, try this: http://bfy.tw/HNEY

 

No, You've got it backwards. People left Detroit BECAUSE the growth stopped. The growth stopped BEFORE the people left. They left in RESPONSE to the end of growth. Human migration isn't random and spontaneous. People move for clearly understandable reasons. Ford and GM started the move out of Detroit, not the workers. To think otherwise is preposterous.