Keep up the good work! Their have already been way too many demos on the south side of Westwood Ave in recent years. 

All of the properties are down on the 2800 block of Euclid.  Those facing University will not be part of the project and have been spared, as has one facing Charleton. 

All of the properties are down on the 2800 block of Euclid.  Those facing University will not be part of the project and have been spared, as has one facing Charleton. 

 

It is my understanding that those 6 properties on University will be reserved for future redevelopment, perhaps a "phase 2". The question is, can anything be learned about the Euclid Avenue losses that could be used effectively to prevent additonal losses both in Corryville and other historic neighborhoods? Developers are emboldened now to the point where they believe where ever they point their stick for a potential project becomes as good as a done deal regardless of what stands in the way. The fact that the county and city are now diverting tax dollars, earmarked for Schools and to assist the disabled, to use instead for acquiring blighted properties to market to developers, should give everyone an idea of where local authorities stand on the development issue. Cincinnati is gambling on its future by seeking developers at any cost to remake it into a new (but better?) city. However, not all developers are altruistic or visionary and want to build the ultimate 21st century city on the ruins of the old. (in fact, very few are)  Some redevelopment is always needed but there's "smart" redevelopment and then the old fashioned and long discredited "urban renewal" model that some in the city bureacracy apparently think will work in Cincinnati when it has never worked anywhere else.

 

Once again, the City's focus is on marketing and using the "new" Cincinnati to attract residents while ignoring the unparalleled historic architecture-the City's greatest underappreciated and untapped asset. Cincinnati will never be able to compete with no state and no local income tax cities and their modern boomtowns. After carefully studying the reality that is Cincinnati for several years, I believe locals will eventually wake up to what is going on before everything that defines the city from the past has been lost-but that may take several more years and thousands more demolished historic homes and buildings.

A House Divided: Soap Opera in Cincinnati

  By ELLEN BYRON

 

CINCINNATI—For a place that's been empty for five decades, the grand old home of Ivory soap's inventor, James Norris Gamble, is seeing a lot of action.

 

The nonprofit group funded by the Gamble family fortune is trying to tear it down. An irregular band of amateur local historians and neighbors is trying to save it. All the while, termites are eating it.

 

The house in 2010. Preservationists are fighting a group, funded with Gamble's own money, that says the house is in hopeless disrepair and should be demolished.

 

For the past year, the two sides have been warring over the Victorian home—nestled on a 22-acre property here—in the streets, in court, at Cincinnati city council meetings and on Internet discussion boards. The loose-knit group trying to save the property has won some important battles, but a number of appeals are wending their way through county and federal courts. Most of them ultimately could grant the Gamble group, the Greenacres Foundation, a demolition permit. The latest appeals will be heard in county court Wednesday.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576329193609886826.html

For the last week Ive had a team of people investigating this lick run project. We uncovered several things but in a nutshell:  MSD, city inspections, project groundwater, the council and mayor have been lying to Westside residents for some time now. Here is what we found.

 

1.) city was told by Moody's the City Bond rating entity that an underground project would result in a lowered bond rating for the city because there was insufficient property tax base to support the cost.

 

2.) The plan then became to "daylight" lick run, demo the ENTIRE fairmount basin all the way up to white and creaet a water development similar to saylor park in Baltimore while maintaining this was an "open process", hold public meetings and "engage' the community in discussion all the while knowing the plan

 

3.) At the Cleveland confernce OCTOBER 2010 EPA's Brook Furio outlined this "land scheme' of gentrificction and using the lick run watershed to bring in developers to "upscale' things. This plan was obviously put together some time ago

 

4.) It "appears" city inspections deliberately targeted Fairmount for enforcement, passing out VBML's , condemn orders and demo like candy, with little or no Section 106 review resulting in the demolition of viable historic structure adjacent to the proposed develeopment

 

5. The city placed 91 properties on the forfeiture sale coming up at MSD's request  because they knew why MSD wanted them.

 

Basically on every level the city has lied. The plan has been to demo all along, the meetings project groundworks is holding to get community input are nothing more than "theatre" and there was no plan to save anything. In fact my section 106 review requests have created a real problem for them.

 

This 'appears" to be the city engaging in deliberate redlining using city inspections to drive down property values so MSD can buy them cheap. S fairmount experienced a 16 percent drop in valeu N Fairmount experienced a 32 percent drop in value. As you know assessed value play a big part in eminent domain. Fairmount property owners have lost millions of dollars in property value because of this scheme.

 

On my blog today:

http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2011/05/msd-land-grab-pat-2-msd-and-inspections.html

 

I am sending our research to the Department of Justice and State AG's office to see what they think.

 

But last time I checked Ohio has a sunshine law and the feds have a problem with redlining, especially when federal monies are used to do it!

 

Maybe we can stop these back room deals someday!

 

 

Isn't MSD operating under a court order to fix sewer overflows throughout the region? I'll take clean water over saving these neighborhoods.

Yes Dmrkow they are, However they can bury underground it's just that their bond rating will go down slightly because the city has already decimated property values to the point they have insufficient revenue. There are ways to get the stormwater to grand and then daylight sparing historic property. However this whole thing has become a "gentrification scheme":

 

City inspectors with VBML and condemn demos are driving property values down. The fact is they have lied about the real reason for daylighting, they have used city inspections to drive down values so MSD can get them cheap and they destroy a neighborhood in the process. They have NO INTENTION of moving any of the hsitroic property ecause they want that land for 'new urbanist crap liek 3CDC is building all over OTR. I want my neighorhood to improve but dont intentionally drive the poor out and destroy property values just so MSD and eth city can make a financial windfall on the other side.

 

Can we trust peopel like that who lie to us, who lack integrety? I dont think so,

Restoration, I have passed your blog post on to my list.  I haven't been following the issue closely but this is getting interesting.

 

In other news, the Benchmark on Short Vine was demolished on Monday, and a house adjacent to it facing Van St. (I think) was demolished the next day.  I do have some reservations about this project, just because they're building high-price student rentals right next to a notorious liquor store. 

^Ol' Stagerlee's. They move a lot of $10 bottles of Tanq and sometimes have to shut down early due to unruly clientele.

In other news, the Benchmark on Short Vine was demolished on Monday, and a house adjacent to it facing Van St. (I think) was demolished the next day.  I do have some reservations about this project, just because they're building high-price student rentals right next to a notorious liquor store.

 

Was the house on Van Street anything significant?

No, it was a typical 1910's or 1920's square house (not a row house) like those along Mitchell Ave.  I have to think that some of Corryville's oldest Civil War-era housing was replaced by those homes.

Knox Hill Neighborhood Asociation has mede two requests regarding thr MSD Lick Run project.

 

From Ed Cunningham: A list of all properties demoed during a period of 2009-2010 with Federal dollars as well as teh number of VBML'issued in 2009-2010 AND the number of Condemn Orders issued by his department in South Fairmount

 

From Larry Harris: (the Urban conservator), copies of section 106 reviews done on property in South Fairmount using federal CDBG or NSP funds.

 

It will be interesting to see what their reply is.

There will be an FREE Architectural walking tour of Endangered Fairmount this Saturday June 11th at 9:30 AM (rain date Sunday). We will meet in front of Orion Academy 1798 Queen City. Knox Hill Neighborhood Association is sponsoring the free Tour.

 

Attendees will see an outstanding collection of Italianate, Second Empire, buildings, a Queen Anne mansion, and the outstanding V&S colonial revival building and their one of a kind ART DECO  annex.

 

The loss of these buildings would be the largest loss of historic fabric since the freeway demolitions . It is very important to save this area and we have developed an alternative plan that allows the daylighting East of Grand but preserves the historic buildings as patr of a alternative developmet plan we call " Historic QC West"

 

I have attached some photos. A FRACTION of what you will see!

 

There will be  presentation of the MSD proposal at the S Fairmount Community Council Meeting Tuesday 14th at 7:30 at Orion Academy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone know what's going on with the old Sears building on Reading?  I saw a fence around it this weekend and have to wonder if it's time is up. 

 

I was in that building last month, UC still uses it as their surplus equipment space.  I doubt they are demolishing, probably doing repairs.

 

http://www.uc.edu/af/budgetfinsvcs/asset/surplus.html

I always wondered what that building used to be.

NY TIMES picked up the Greenwire feed

 

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/08/22/22greenwire-creek-restoration-keys-cincinnatis-battle-agai-17408.html?pagewanted=1

 

Given Greenwire is very "pro-green", I think we got in some good arguments regarding the carbon foorprint, landfill impact,  and potential cost of moving properties that are national registry eligible, which are things MSD and the county commissioners are ignoring but will come into play because of section 106 issues .

 

I have received over 1400 emails this week from preservationists across the country supporting saving Fairmount.  Many asking where CPA is on this (something I'd like to know too as you would think they would  be more vocal about the largest loss of historic architecture since the freeway). But is politics as usual with them..no guts!

 

Unless the hurricane interferes with my plans I will be traveling to Washington DC next week to meet with our legal experts, reprsentatives of several congressman and some EPA officials.

 

This is far from being a 'done deal' by MSD and I believe we have a good chance to save the core business/residential district as MSD MUST have EPA approval and I think we are getting some strong support against MSD's plans,

 

The whole CSO issue could be resolved by doing what Portland, Toronto and other cities have done and that is removing downspouts that drain into the sewers on residential property at CONSIDERABLY less cost than deep tunnel or daylighting without the negative historic and landfill impacts.

I don't disagree that the priorities of this project are rather out of whack, and that daylighting a creek in an urban neighborhood only serves to suburbanize it.  That said, fixing the combined sewer overflow problem is nowhere near as simple as simply disconnecting downspouts from the system.  Yes, it's a dumb situation that should have been taken out of the building code a long time ago, and the city (or should I say, all municipalities served by MSD) should be tackling it, but roof drains are a small part of the problem compared to all the drains on streets and parking lots. 

 

Besides, this really only works in places with enough yard that can absorb that water.  It won't do much good in OTR or downtown where the water will just run over the sidewalks and into the drains in the street.  A building on any sort of slope, not even a particularly steep one, need not apply either.  In places like Queensgate, all those low wide warehouse buildings have their roof drains on the inside, so they can't just be disconnected, and that's a problem with any newer building. 

 

Back in the early part of the 20th century, when trying to deal with the horrible pollution of the Mill Creek, they tried to separate the sewers in the worst-offending areas.  Even then, they found that the plumbing inside the buildings was just too difficult to change, with downspouts diving back inside to then be combined with the sanitary connection before leaving the basement.  Again, I'm not saying it isn't a valuable thing to do, far from it.  It looks like Portland managed to cut down their overflow problem by a significant percentage, but that was along with some new separated sewers, large underground storage tunnels, stream diversion, sumps, etc.  Besides, they have different weather conditions, soil and topography, and building/ground/paving ratios.  Just don't pretend it's such a simple solution. 

Its not a simple solution but a viable one given the lack of density and lot size to roof ratios in Fairmount. We have consulted experts in the field who have calculated it would work in Fairmount. You are right probably not in an area like OTR but then Fairmount is not OTR.

 

We are proposing two retention areas one where the ARBYS/Ralleys/ United is and one further east by the athletic field where MSD originally indicated they wanted to start daylighting. There are two potential historic relocations west of there, both frame and could be moved cheaply or "given away' to someone willing to move them. We have already located viable sites close by. S Fairmount is a viable potential historic district with several 'clusters" already identified on the city and state historic building inventory list.

 

There are sufficent vacant lots to provide off street parking (with permeable pavement) to provide for business parking and with a Main street program there are already people, willing to invest in the area as part of a historic based development.

 

This can be done, it is just slightly more complicted that the "bulldoze it and developers will come approach" which Cincinnati has NEVER been effective at. We even have a 'rebranding' proposal to elimate the 'Fairmount stigma" called "Queen City West" or QC WEST for short

 

With Knox Hill about ready to submit our national district application there will be a strong anchor on the Hill , overlooking the valley. Sedamsville further west has alreay submitted their registy application.

 

The city, and county, is so locked into its "Blight=Bulldozer' mentality that using historic Preservation as an economic development tool is a real problem for then.

 

On the other hand Federal funds are involved, that means section 106 review. We have identified 39 properties eligible for historic nomination and another 25 contriburing NOT including those across the street from the proposed development trhat woudl be part of a larger national historic district.

 

MSD's proposal looks like a boondoggle, The carbon footprint of demo of 100 structures,. brownfield remediation and landfill impact is HUGE,. Doubtful EPA would approve that given Congress wants to cut them out of existence anyway. Some property owners are ready to hire property rights attorneys and eth businnes have retained legal counsel. I am traveling to DC to meet with our attorneys who are experts in prioperty rights and eminent domain cases

 

The Norwood eminent Domain case has changed the level for determination. MSD has already indicated this is part of a larger privately  funded development which means in Court they are dead in the water on the legal issue of eminent domain because the Norwood case already set precedent that you can not take property in anticipation of private developmet

 

Smart money is to work with the neighborhood and compromise and not assume Cincy and county Urban planners have all the answers. BECAUSE if EPA denies the daylighting its DEEP Tunnel at 250 Million and Moodys has indicated they will reduce the county bond rating and that will cost more money and raise sewer bills dramatically

 

Our proposal is cheper, more effective and less carbon footprint and it preserves historic architecture.

 

They just dont like it because its not their idea.

 

 

 

Didn't the stream predate the neighborhood?

^ yes.

And the buildings occasionally flooded and are still standing, Lick run wasnt a stream as much as it was a drainage ditcch The trolley has a raise crank that allowed it to go through standing water.

 

This project has less to do about fixing the problem but more about another attempts at "Urban renewal' and ask yourself what 'developer' will build  200-250K single family infill overlooking a 'glorified drainage ditch witha 50,000 car a DAY traffic count. One all the traces of historical homes and buildings is removed. This is all about the city and county geting a bunch of Federal money to cover administartive costs and offset salaries for a bunch of peopel who sit around and "Plan' things".

No. The stream occasionally flooded the basements of nearly every building within the Lick Run valley. Lick Run's problems became exaggerated when South Fairmont became more and more populated, with more and more buildings and more and more pavement began overtaking what was natural vegetation and soils. Water runoff became storm sewer problems, and combine that with sewage pipes, you have a nasty mixture that is very expensive to separate. This project will separate the two - storm water and sewage, and solve the issue that should have never happened in the first place: CSO backups in the basements of homes and businesses throughout that valley.

 

There is no conspiracy here Paul. This issue began occurring over 70 years ago because of development. You can't bury a major watershed into a small pipe and not expect it to overflow during major storms. You can't expect a massive amount of storm water to not cause problems in a sewage pipe that is too small to handle even capacities back then. Have you been in the basements of many of these properties to even know what you are referring to?

 

South Fairmont needs a boost. And it needs less density and a rehabilitation into a model that isn't a mix of properties that cannot sell because of these ongoing issues, more greenspace - especially at Lick Run and alongside it, and less density on the hillside - and even a restoration of the original forest cover to slow erosion and reduce storm water. Building on the hills and on the creek itself was one of the most shortsighted things developers could have done back then.

The problem is Sherman, they are proposing more density. MSD acquired 84 properties at  the city forfeiture sale, many of them "View' lots' overlooking this development that have been vacant for years because the builders at the time didnt know how to build on a hillside (they do now). The city is planning on "gentrifying" Fairmount by building a bunch of Neo urbanist crap that will fill the hillsides, Picture MT Adams. Remember the county landbank? That where these properties are going. Forget the wooded hillside on Knox Hill overlooking Harrison. Its will all be filled with condos. Wonder why Fairmount was so targeted with VBNML's and demos? Not because the buildings were bad but because the city wanted to clear them for redevelopment. Their problem is Knox Hill will be a national historic distruict by the time EPA approves this project (IF they do). So will alot of properties in the valley they want because the owners are submitting their homes for nomination.

 

I think its funny the way the playing the "tree huggers" by talking about greenspace. You will have the hillsides convered with luxury "tacky" condos and houses overlooking a glorified drainage ditch if MSD , the city and county get their way.

 

They will add more denisity and the hillsides overlooking this project will be developed.

 

Ironically Histroic Preservation woudl preserve the hillsides.

 

Thats the plan to rebuid the city/county tax base. Not by fixing historic houses already there but by bulldozing and infill. Those are the facts, its all tied into the Moody boind rating for the project.

 

Fortunately there is a  Federal court to fight it.

I heard over at City-data that a good chunk of one of Cincinnati's best historic districts just got torn down today :(  Walnut hills RIP.

What properties? There have been tear downs for years and isn't anything new.

Its not a simple solution but a viable one given the lack of density and lot size to roof ratios in Fairmount. We have consulted experts in the field who have calculated it would work in Fairmount. You are right probably not in an area like OTR but then Fairmount is not OTR.

 

 

What about the rest of the watershed?

@Mr Sparkle...the primary water feeds are S.Fairmount part of Westwood and part of Price Hill. Other parts of those areas are "on the other side of the hill" and feed to different areas in terms of runoff/watershed.

 

Almost all of these properties have combined drownspouts that feed into the sewers. If we take the approach used by cities like Portland, Toronto and others and seperate the downspouts a large portion of that will not be direct runoff because it gets absorbed 'locally' on the lot. The city still needs to seperate the sewer runoff at street level of course. One very important thing to remember is that there is less density in the area as it stands right now. Via demolition the city has removed a number of old apartment buildings and run down multi families (that used ro be single family homes). The population is less now tham it was 10-15 years ago.  If that is combined with code changes requiring water permeable parking surfaces and watersheds as part of any commercial renovation or future development, you can control the runoff. Our neighborhood Knox Hill is already helping residents separate downspots and build rain gardens.

 

You also have a lot of restoration going on where formerly 2-3 unit buildings are going back to single family.

 

The PRIMARY reason for this ridiculous daylighting plan is all the Federal money from CDBG,NSP etc that the city and county can legally "skim" for salaries. Its not about quality of life, its another city/county "urban renewal" scheme that will decimate a historic area and 'hope' developers will come. We know what the city track record is on that.

 

The time frame on MSD's compliance with the Consent Decree does not allow future pervious surface retrofits you describe to be used. It probably encourages structural improvements such as daylighting.

 

Its naive to think that day lighting all downspouts to grass surface will magically solve the wet weather CSO flow issue. A lot of yards in the water shed are steep and rather impervious soils (e.g clay). Most of the shed is not roof tops

 

http://www.projectgroundwork.org/lickrun/watershed/WatershedCharacteristicsFull.jpg

 

I thin a lot of the wet weather flow is from system infiltration, but do not have the % in front of me

 

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the root of this issue the problem of separating storm water run off from sewage drainage? I believe one reason this project was fast tracked was because the EPA had discovered instances where the Lick Run sewage and storm runoff was so immense in volume that the sewage treatment plant where it all ended up going to was taxed beyond its capacity and thus was forced to release some of this excess untreated water into local waterways thus causing pollution. The argument being that if the sewage drain off (which is managable as of now for the current treatment plant) were separated from the storm run off, then there would be no need to build a larger (very costly) sewage plant to handle the combined volume and become EPA compliant. Assuming this is the case, is all of the demolition work and extra excavation for a new sewage system really the least expensive project path for taxpayers and the CITY/MSD?

 

Do we really need "daylighting" or is this merely some planner's personally clever idea designed to meet the EPA requirements while getting rid of what this planner consider's blight? Before we get into a blight definition argument, one could argue that antiques are roughly parallel to old houses and buildings-in the case of antiques, what others often throw away in the trash or sell for a few dollars at a yard sale end sometimes end up being quite valuable to others. But houses and buildings are different in that for them to have value, they must be used and have purpose. Most people want a home or business place in good repair so if these endangered homes do not get demolished then someone is obligated to repair and restore them assuming these people can be found. The restoration of old houses and buildings is still a fairly novel concept in a City that has been tearing down its old neglected architecture for literally generations. In the 1988 Cincinnati Centennial book, one of the big advertizers was a demolition firm, even back as far as Daniel J. Kinney's City Guide in 1893 there were large advertisments for "House Wreckers". Therefore, tearing down the old for new is part of the ingrained local mindset.

 

A lot more education is needed to show why old buildings and homes have value, not just nostalgic or sentimental, but actual monetary redevelopment value. If you disagree, please visit some of the local architectural salvage outlets or looks for architectural salvage pieces on e-Bay. In architecture just as antiques, one person's junk is another person's treasure.  I think some of the Lick Run homes and buildings are architectural treasures and should be kept and preserved but I'm sure there are others who consider them "blight" and over-due for a wrecking ball.  At least consider the economic alternatives before sending out the bulldozers. The Walll Street Journal and New York Times both had recent articles praising the OTR for its unique charm. If the blight busters had been given their way, the OTR would have disappeared years ago and lots of investment would have been lost.  Worth considering regardless of which side you're on.

Inre Blight, this probably answers your question:

do we really need "daylighting" or is this merely some planner's personally clever idea designed to meet the EPA requirements while getting rid of what this planner considers blight?

 

http://www.projectgroundwork.org/lickrun/watershed/lickrun.htm

 

"This solution would not only reduce the sewer overflow, but could provide an attractive community amenity in South Fairmount that could spark urban renewal"

 

Separating the storm from the sanitary, in theory will reduce the need for treatment facility.  They can separate the storm sewer into a pipe as opposed to daylighting; however I think MSD still has to treat the stormwater pollution as part of the clean water Phase 2 requirements. Daylighting into a stream is probably what MSD is trying to accomplish stormwater treatment.

The 'carbon footprint' of demolition of 100 structures, the brownfield remediation requirements (removal of  contaminated soil and trucking in new clean soil)is huge . Consider the average old house weighs in at between 60-250 Tons of material will have huge impact on our landfill and much of it will require special remediation. No where in the 'cost of the project' is this cost disclosed nor the SECTION 106 review and possibility that some houses will be required to be moved because they are historic. Also the huge legal fees because some owner will not sell and have retained attorneys meaning eminent domain lawsuits which the MSD is likely to loose based on the Norwood case. The'architectural rape" of a historic town ( thats what S fairmount was before it was annexed) for this "boondoggle' is absurd . Especially since Congress may defund EPA after 2012.

"This solution would not only reduce the sewer overflow, but could provide an attractive community amenity in South Fairmount that could spark urban renewal" While I think the proposed water treatment solutions are based on sound engineering and science, the "could spark urban renewal" part is pure speculation. If it were my own money being used for the project, (which as a taxpayer it would be)  I would take care of the water treatment and handling issues at the lowest possible cost necessary for EPA compliance and then let the "urban renewal" aspects be borne by private investors,  not by public taxpayers. Why "piggyback" an urban renewal added component costing millions onto a straight-forward water treatment project? Public funds are becoming scarce and they will only become more scarce in the years to come especially if Congress finally clamps down on major spending and adopts a budget of austerity. (as many European countries are doing now) A worst case scenario would be a long field of vacant lots where this part of the neighborhood used to stand now with an expensive glorified drainage ditch running through it. No tax revenues from vacant lots and no new investment...and that is a far more likely scenario than massive urban renewal investment brought on by bulldozing the historic neighborhood, IMO.

 

 

I do agree with John that due to the EPA mandates, and the realistic fact that adding rain gardens and all that other stuff does not make a sizeable dent in reducing stormwater runoff, that solving the CSO problems should be top priority. I do agree that taxpayers should not be funding the redevelopment of South Fairmont - the market should. It's a busy corridor, and if anything else, it has a lot of through traffic that is ideal for a lot of commercial development. Add in the park and you may have a residential market that will do wonders to at least add some value back to that neighborhood.

 

Let's be honest - South Fairmont has been declining for 60 years now. I practically drove and walked every street of South Fairmont over the past month documenting it, and came back amazed at what is still left - and amazed at how little there is. Sure, the valley boasts a collection of fine buildings, but most of it has been so severely altered that restoration is not cost effective. Keyword: cost effective, given the property values and the return on investment. Some of the more prominent commercial buildings may be salvageable, but these will ultimately be subsidized if the units in Over-the-Rhine are. Going out of the valley, the hillsides are barren and desolate. There are few houses and the infrastructure is in tatters. Streets that have become nothing more than one way access paths, a lack of curbing, drains and standard pavement widths, piles of garbage and refuse, and very much overgrown and "gone back to nature" lots. The top of the hill on the north is more stable but is plagued with crime and does not stand to benefit much in the way of improved property values if South Fairmont in the valley is redeveloped - it's too far isolated.

 

That said, there is an environmental cost in demolishing a building - but there is a cost to renovating a property too. I was involved in a restoration of a property in Over-the-Rhine that required gutting the brick building down to its walls, and removing any non structural element. We took out over 80 tons of material from the building, including walls, plumbing and old appliances. There was no reuse to much of it - it was too far gone, too cheap to be put back into service, and was molded.

 

Boondoogle is the town that refuses to correct its CSO and allow it to continue to pollute Mill Creek and rack up major EPA fines.

Sherman, the Portland downspout seperation program has been hailed by both EPA and just about every environmental group as a huge success. EVERYTHING MSD wants to do depends on two things: One EPA actually agreeing to it (Far from a done deal, they may in eth end require deep tunnel) and two, the city winning eminent domain cases and based on the Norwood decision most legal experts feel they really don't have a chance. In the typical Cincinnati way they plowed ahead, bought property without even considering section 106 reviews OR recognizing the level of community pushback to this plan. And the costs just keep going higher and higher as they get deeper into the details. They have no developer commitments for infill and the biggest "blight' right now are the MSD owned properties. Something ELSE brought to EPA's attention as they committed to maintain them and cut the yards as they promised to do but then they never expected to have to go through a section 106 proces until we told them I would file a lawsuit if they demoed without it and contacted the ACHP in DC about the compliency issues and EPA federal 106 review contacts.

 

As for South Fairmount property values in S Fairmount were very stable until after the riots in 2000 when the city dumped all its low income into Fairmount. If you look at property values the average house in Fairmount sold for about 65,000 on teh basin, FAR more than they brought in OTR at the time CPA's own surveys identified numerous significant structures in the basin worthy of putting on the city historic building inventory.

 

There have been several news articles in which I have participated in and EVERY time there is an article out I get hundreds of emails from people across the country amazed we would even think of builldozing this area and wanting to stay informed because they would love to restore these houses.

 

As for private investment, the V&S property is restored. Numerous houses on Westwood BLVD are under restoration. The new Roosevelt private school is opening on Treemont. CPS took the old South Fairmont HS which they couldnt give away 3 years ago, spent millions on it, and have reopened it as "Quebec Academy" not to mention Orion School a private school that is doing just fine. Private and accelerated learning school development are generally considered by most to be a prime indicator of neighborhood turnaround and "market demand"

 

Sherman, I have turned around neighborhoods FAR Worse than South Fairmount with similar socio economic problems and I've been involved in that for over 20 years. In fact I am working with several out of state developers which have toured the area, looked at buildings and determined the area is ripe for restoration development. Including a established Chicago developer who has been looking at possible conversion of large Warehouse buildings to luxury condos. In fact I have given 7 group walking tours of the area to date this summer and the response from those people who are preservationists and experts in things like Main Street development programs is that S. Fairmount is still, despite losses, largely intact and worthy of development. The core business district is far more intact that alot of OTR.

 

Knox Hill has millions of dollars being poured into restoration (9 new restorations started this summer in a relatively small neighborhood) and I am working with a couple from  out of state who just bought a vacant lot in my neighborghood and are planning on building a  new luxury Victorian home (over 500K) on a lot overlooking the valley.

 

Sherman you simply do not know all is going on and your "assumptions" about Fairmount are both short sighted and uninformed. That is the problem with the local population, they do not see historic restoration as an economic development tool, and have forgotten that areas like Columbia Tusculum and Mt Adams were not always like they are today.

 

As for market value. Those who come in and restore, well know the financial risks they take.  However I can tell you from experience that those are the people everyone ten years later congratulates for being forward thinking and ahead of the curve.  Sherman you talked about being involved in one project? I've restored over 25 properties myself and work as Preservation consultant across the country in the area of neighborhood restoration and redevelopment.  I've been involved in hundreds of restoration projects. I would not be putting my money in an area I was not confident would turn around, Ive been doing this way too long. What we REALLY  need is less redtape and roadblocks from the city, elimination of the VBML program in favor of an orders based system, strict Federal oversite of the way this city spend CDBG funds and a streamlined permit process, not to mention a competent Urban Conservaor with a real background in Historic Preservation.

 

The facts are, this will represent the largest loss of historic fabric this city has seen since the freeway and its demolition, would send the wrong message about Preservation in Cincinnati. And in case you didnt know it Sherman, nationally we have an awful reputation on preservation right now between the Gamble house, the Corryville demos, the CPS demos and the list goes on and on. The problem is we have invested far too heavily focused on preservation in OTR at the detriment of other neighborhoods and that MUST change if this city is to turn around. Its just a shame we have to fight the city on everything when ethy have an awful track record on development and CPA sits on its hands.

 

 

Hardly Paul.

 

So where is your source that adding rain gardens and solving the downspout issue will solve all of the CSO issues? At most, I can find articles that "praise" the addition of rain gardens, but zero in terms of statistics, facts and figures with comparisons of the CSO levels before and after the modification. Please chime in with -citations- if you can verify -your- statements.

 

And where on earth did you find that South Fairmont was "stable" until the "riots"? And just to show how low South Fairmont is currently compared to say, the rest of the city:

 

AVG VALUE OF DETACHED HOME 2009: $108,146

CITY 2009: $243,258

 

AVG VALUE OF TOWNHOME 2009: $52,077

CITY 2009: $134,327

 

AVG VALUE OF HOUSING 2-UNIT 2009: $74,946

CITY 2009: $100,718

 

AVG VALUE OF HOUSING 3/4-UNIT 2009: $136,112

CITY 2009: $359,255

 

AVG VALUE OF HOUSING 5+-UNIT 2009: $129,795

CITY: $355,798

 

From the 1990 census (numbers in brackets is city):

 

POP 3,998

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME $18,250 ($21,006)

TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 1,729

% UNITS VACANT 12.10% (8.70%

RENTAL UNITS 931

OWNER UNITS 589

% OWNER OCCUPIED 38.80% (38.30%)

 

It's no West Price Hill, which had an average income of $29,195 with only 4.60% units vacant and a 58.70% owner occupied rate. And it's no North Avondale, which had an average income of $39,606, a 4.40% unit vacancy rate and a 48.90% owner occupied rate. What drug down the numbers was Over-the-Rhine with its $8,742 average income for 9,572 residents, its 24.30% vacancy rate and its 3.70% owner occupied rate. University Heights, Winton Hills, Fay Apartments and Walnut Hills also severely affected the numbers. I could go on about other neighborhoods, but South Fairmont was not exactly stable even in 1990.

 

What about 1980-2000?

SOUTH FAIRMONT $11,551, $20,137, $21,998 a change of 90%

CITY $12,675, $21,006, $29,493 a change of 133% with the biggest gain coming in the 1990s economic lift. South Fairmont was all but stagnant.

 

Poverty rate from 1980-2000 has increased 691%, adding 698, most of it between 1990 and 2000. You can't blame that on City West and the "poor migration" to other neighborhoods.

 

The data for 2010 has not yet been parsed down to the census tract level.

 

That said, the MSD can provide all of the statistical figures it wants, but you'd be closing your eyes and ears and preaching about how if we all had an infinite number of dollars to restore South Fairmont. No one really cares (in this discussion) that you've helped restore some properties, adding value here and there and answered hundreds and thousands of e-mails because it's completely useless in the discussion if you are using only that to back up your claims.

 

How about this: provide facts to back up the whole downspout/rain garden statement. Not one-off statements from city officials claiming how well it works. Did it significantly lead to reductions in CSO? Were these attributed to the gardens and downspout redirects or to new sewage plant capacities and improvements? What about total rainfall for that year?

 

As for South Fairmont stabilizing, facts, please. It's not the most depressed neighborhood, but it's not the most stable. The hilltops are, of course, more stable than the valley according to the census tract data which includes property values, but we aren't talking about the hilltops here. We are talking about the valley.

@Sherman:

http://www.cnt.org/repository/Portland.pdf

 

The city of Portland disconnected 49,000 downspots at a total cost of 2.5 Million that resulted in a reduction of 1.2 Billion Gallons of Runoff and an estimated reduction of sewer overflows by 10 percent.

 

Portland as you know has significantly more rainfall than Cincinnati.

 

The 'poverty numbers in  Fairmount are scewed too, by some large HUD housing projects too.

 

If we are talking sales prices for houses in the basin, per country records. leaving out the commercial stuff, vacant land. but including some of the mixed use retail/residential Did not include any pre 2000 sales just on Queen City. For example:

 

Queen City:  (address,sold date,amount) 1616 OC,4/28/2005, 59,5K... 1618QC, 4/28/2005 59,5K....1634QC, 7/27/2008, 42.5K....1645QC. 9/10/2004, 144K....1692QC, 3/2/2004, 50K...

1700QC,10/11/2004,75K... 1724QC, 1/20/2006,60K...1738QC,10/04/2000, 98,6K....1748QC, 3/8/2007,77K....1760QC,6/16/2000, 68K... 1904QC, 6/24/2005, 80K... 1938QC, 10/23/2006, 70K...  2028QC, 1/20/2006, 54,900... 2036QC, 1/12/2004, 63,5K...

 

Doesn't look that 'poverty stricken based on what people are paying to live there. Important point ,many of the homes never sell because they stay in the same family for generations. Despite what you think about the neighborhood those people worked hard to buy those houses. You also might be interested to know we will be taking MILLIONS of dollars of property off the tax roles permanently with this 'glorified drainage ditch' when we demo 80-100 structures..

 

@INK , The Norwood case is profoundly relevant since city/county and EPA officials have stated publically and in print, that land will go to private developers. In fact an argument 'might' be made that the city began 'targeting' S Fairmount with VBML, condemnand demolitions ( without proper section 106 reviews, I might add) in a deliberate attempt to drive down property values to 'help' MSD with eminent domain cases. Remember this whole issue didnt start yesterday its been in the courts for years and documents go way back.

 

 

Portland as you know has significantly more rainfall than Cincinnati.

 

That is not true. (Portland 37.5 in/year, Cincy 42.6 in/year)

 

Yes, Portland has more rainy days than Cincy, but overall the rains are lighter (less intensity).

 

We do not design hydraulic facilities for total yearly rainfall, but for peak storm events. Here, we tend to have shorter duration, higher intensity storms

 

For example, in Portland for a 10 year storm, 10 minute duration you design for an intensity of 1.6 in/hr

 

See page 13 of the OrDOT drainage Design Manual, Portland is in area #7

ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/Geo-Environmental/Hydraulics/Hydraulics%20Manual/Chapter_07/Chapter_07_appendix_A/CHAPTER_07_APPENDIX_A.pdf

 

In Cincinnati we design for a 10 year storm, 10 minute duration of 5.4 in/hr, over 3 times the Portland intensity

 

 

Damn it Mr Sparkle, you beat me to the punch while I was putting together my CAGIS map.  Anyway, here's my thoughts too, though the rainfall totals are slightly different.

 

Portland's annual rainfall of 43.2 inches is not much different than Cincinnati's 39.6 inches.  The west coast and Pacific northwest can generally handle combined storm/sanitary flows better because their rain tends to fall more gradually.  That means they'd just need some (relatively) small storage tunnels and/or capacity upgrades to their treatment plants to handle it all. 

 

Here in the midwest, we get these big storms that dump huge amounts of water in a short period of time.  We'd need huge storage tunnels to handle those, and I don't even know if treatment plants could ever be built large enough to handle all the flow.  Yes, disconnecting downspouts would help some, but only in mostly single-family neighborhoods that have enough yard area to absorb that water.  As I mentioned in a reply before, hillside areas don't absorb much water, and in more dense urban neighborhood it won't solve anything because there's very little open porous ground for that water to soak into.  It's the storm drains in the streets and parking lots that pose such a big problem.

 

For reference, here's an image that shows the extent of the South Fairmount "sewer shed".  The bold red line shows all the sewers that flow to combined sewer overflow 105 into the Mill Creek.  Almost everything between Glenway, Harrison, and Ferguson drain through South Fairmount. 

 

Which brings to mind the questions MSD can't/won't answer. Will a daylighted stream flood? If so what happens to the recreation areas around it. What are the costs of maintaining the landscaping they promise in a flood event? Additionally what happens in drought cycles (stagnation/mosquitoes)? What about safety issues for children who will need to cross a  city street with a 50K a day traffic count and will they fence the containment ponds?

 

I have been to one of these contrainment /daylighted type areas. Pogues Run in Indianapolis. It is billed as a park but no one goes there because of the insects. This is supposed to attract development? This is poorly thought out scheme being used to largely get more federal bucks for development at the cost of demolition of historic property with a huge carbon footprint. The deep tunnel, although more expensive makes far more sense in terms of long range growth and planning for the watershed. AND we can save a historic area and restore and redevelop it.

 

In fact the neighbors have developed an alternate plan called QC West that allows for two daylighting areas but keeps the core business district that will be redeveloped using a proven "main street" approach.

The current "water flow tunnel' built in 1908 which replaced lick run creek is  currently 18 feet in diameter. The EPA consent decree calls for new deep tunnel system. The reason MSD is trying to float this daylighting is to save money and Fairmount with only 6000 houses pays so little in property taxes because they are smaller. Moody's told them they would potentially reduce the MSD bond rating because they dont have the "tax base" to support the cost of that infrastructure. It really has nothing with MSD trying to be 'green' its about saving some bucks.

 

The housing density is not like OTR, typical lots are 30 feet wide by 100 ft deep. FYI do people know there are still houses in fairmount on septic?

 

IF you drive that area there are a lot of vacant lots. A large portion due to demo by the city many more gone because the hydrology on which many houses were built and the lack of building codes  in 1850-1890 when most of these homes were built meant many houses slid of their foundations.

 

When this area majorly flooded the Hills were barren, today they are reforested. If we use the MSD premise that this glorified drainage ditch is an asset, The developers will magically' flock to the area and build 2-300k neo urban townhouses? facing a street with a 50K a day traffic count.

 

I and many others are hoping that EPA seeing the considerable opposition, not to mention the likely lawsuits will order MSD to do what they should have done in the first place in 2012 when the plan will get a yes or no from EPA. Based on what I've heard on the eminent domain issue that case will take a couple of years to work its way through the courts.

A high traffic street can attract development and be safe for pedestrians if it is a properly designed boulevard with a medians or parking separating the middle lanes of fast traffic from the slow side lane of traffic.  There is no example of this in Cincinnati, but it is common in some European cities. 

Which brings to mind the questions MSD can't/won't answer. Will a daylighted stream flood? If so what happens to the recreation areas around it. What are the costs of maintaining the landscaping they promise in a flood event? Additionally what happens in drought cycles (stagnation/mosquitoes)? What about safety issues for children who will need to cross a  city street with a 50K a day traffic count and will they fence the containment ponds?

 

I have been to one of these contrainment /daylighted type areas. Pogues Run in Indianapolis. It is billed as a park but no one goes there because of the insects. This is supposed to attract development? This is poorly thought out scheme being used to largely get more federal bucks for development at the cost of demolition of historic property with a huge carbon footprint. The deep tunnel, although more expensive makes far more sense in terms of long range growth and planning for the watershed. AND we can save a historic area and restore and redevelop it.

 

In fact the neighbors have developed an alternate plan called QC West that allows for two daylighting areas but keeps the core business district that will be redeveloped using a proven "main street" approach.

 

Sigh. Where are you getting your data from?

 

Sure, a daylighted stream can flood in a 10 year flood event. But it is no different than if the CSO flooded and backed up into people's homes or topped drains. The latter routinely happens with Town Branch in downtown Lexington, which floods Vine Street after each heavy rain over a prolonged period. I'd rather have it top over and flood grass and park land which is easily cleanable than houses, which costs the city money and requires homeowners to purchase flood insurance.

 

As for Pogues Run, which is a greenway that is north of downtown, only has two short segments finished. I biked around this area and biked the entire trail, and encountered more than "no one." The trail had a lot of runners but not a lot of cyclists, mainly because it is incomplete and has on-street segments. It was in the dead of summer and I was out around 7 PM and was hardly getting "insect bites." If people were worried about that, then we'd stay away from the lake at Eden Park, the riverfront, Sharon Woods and other popular destinations.

Map: http://www.indygreenways.org/poguesrun/poguesrun.htm

 

As for the traffic counts (http://www.oki.org/maps/transportation/traffic.html), Queen City Avenue has:

 

QCS Avenue at Harrison, WB only: 16,009

Westwood Avenue at Grand, EB only: 18,205

QCS Avenue at Quebec, WB only: 17,339

QCS Avenue at Wyoming, for EB and WB: 30,307

QCS Avenue at Werk, for EB and WB: 9,200

 

Where do you even get "50k"? Remember that Queen City Avenue splits into one-way pairs at White Street, with Queen City Avenue taking the WB route and Westwood Avenue taking the EB route.

A fence is surrounding the old streetcar barn on Reading just downhill from the McMillan St. bridge, so it looks like it will be gone by this time next week. 

That's the site of the future YWCA Women's Shelter.  Although the shelter will only take up 1/3 the lot, the rest will be parking.

^^Yeah, I was going to go by the streetcar barn to take photos. But then I got sick. My heart sank when I saw the fence, last week. Why can't this been used for adaptive reuse? It's the only one like it remaining in the city.

^^Seriously?! They're tearing that down to create a small building and a large parking lot? Aren't there enough places in the area to build a structure and parking of that scale?

I have always loved loved loved that building.  Large scale, and I can only imagine the huge timbers inside.  Another sad loss to what is sure to be an underwhelming and bland replacement that does nothing to keep Cincinnati, uniquely Cincinnati.

Can you guys post a streetview link or picture>?

^I sincerely hope that it isn't the building I think it is.