Those are small enough to play with for somebody who is compelled to put forth the effort.

I meet people all the time who want to buy a small house like this in OTR.  They are hard to find, because a lot of the smaller, single family homes have been demolished.

Buy both put a hole in the wall connecting the two.

Good news! I just  heard from a relative of the owner that the building on Mcmicken that CPS wants to tear down at Rothenburg School will NOT be torn down. I'll post more soon.

 

 

Here she is.

http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/othercities/cincinnati/stories/2009/03/02/story2.html?b=1235970000%5E1785492

^

But CPS is still intent on demolishing 142 East McMicken, which is next door.  They have already gotten the city building department to issue condemnation orders.  They are not emergency orders, so there is still a review to be had from the city's Historic Conservation Board.

These modest working-class buildings are among the oldest in the neighborhood and have great historical importance. They are among the few survivors of the original housing stock of OTR and Prospect Hill, most of which was replaced by larger and more elaborate buildings.

 

What would be interesting would be to put together a little gallery of these surviving orginal buildings.  Does anyone have the addressess of the originals?

 

 

It was reported on the Building Cincinnati Blog today that two of the four have been bulldozed apparently by the owner. This should be a "wake up call" to preservationists in the city that none of our history is important enough for this city to try to save.

 

This is particularly sad since I recently toured Dayton street and there are several new restorations going on and restoration activities have expanded to Baymiller, Freeman and Colerain. There is a property in the next block on Bank Street on the market at 299K, Sad that these properties are gone when restoriation was clearly headed in their direction and they were viable.

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/05/half-of-bank-street-buildings-down.html

The windows in this building are being left open in an attempt to demolish the property through the means of neglect.

 

Elm Street just north on Liberty on the west side of the street:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=39.113501,-84.519421&spn=0,359.99249&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.113591,-84.519445&panoid=cl0XGsx1NiZHRQlHEkuj9w&cbp=12,308.51,,0,-5.48

 

This building is also in bad shape and is probably in danger as well.  Much of Race Street is intact with the exception of the western side of this block.  This building has been surrounded by demolitions and I'm assuming it's going to face a similar fate.  Race Street might be the most beautiful in OTR, and by extension, the entire city.  We shouldn't let any of these beauties slip through our grasp.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=39.111615,-84.51727&spn=0,359.99249&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.111706,-84.517292&panoid=81o5e08yhI2wrjUHHhygcA&cbp=12,261.76,,0,-12.36

Last days for house built in 1863?

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090629/NEWS01/906300323/1055/NEWS/Last+days+for+historic+house?

 

One of Mount Lookout's oldest houses, built during the Civil War, might not be around by the end of the summer.

In reading the comments left by readers under the article, it seemed the numbers for and against preserving or restoring the 1863 Mt. Lookout house were pretty evenly divided.

 

I cannot see where obtaining a temporary legal reprieve to stave off demolition would have any value unless a plan for repairs and stabilization were now in place.

 

As many of the article readers commented, Cincinnati does have a wealth of historic homes in distress but that is primarily due to the current recession, socio-economic/demographic patterns, and a lack of investment. It would be useful to learn how much, if any, the City typically recovers from the thousands of demolition lien sites around town. I have heard anecdotally that adjacent property owners can typically buy these cleared lots (should they desire to) for next to nothing. In any event, absent of any design compatability review for this Mt. Lookout location, supposedly someone could buy the cleared lot from the City and then build there a modern "McMansion" completely out of scale and style with it's neighbors. Would this truly be an aesthetic improvement over the old? And 150 years from now, assuming there is anyone left to care, would that McMansion still be standing and considered a landmark?

 

Personally, I've always thought the demolition of a historic structure should be a last option, not the standard and first tool of choice as it seems to be these days in many cities. It appears that in this case, the demolition threat is "punishment" for property owners unwilling or unable to make necessary repairs and maintenance to their property and home. If the condition of the house truly rises to the level of a public nuisance, then direct the punishment for non-compliance (fines, liens, costs of repairs) towards the owners, not take it out on the historic house. How likely is it that the costs of demolition will be cheerfully repaid to the City by these property owners? (seeing as how part of their explanation for non-compliance is personal economic hardship) I see more economic value in a historic home remaining on the site than in a vacant lot; unless a developer with cash and plans in hand is waiting in the wings-which is unlikely.

 

 

Destruction of a historic structure by demolition is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and once a historic home or building is gone, it's gone forever. A home that has stood prominently on a site for over 150 years would be considered a local landmark in most communities. Just because Cincinnati has been blessed with an abundance of surviving historic homes and buildings should not justify getting rid of a lot of them.  Most cities that have invested heavily in mass demolition-driven "Urban Renewal" projects in decades past have little to show for all these efforts today. The fuzzy concept that if you demolish something "they will come and rebuild" has not been proven in everyday life. Contrast that with those communities that have invested in rehabilitation and restoration of their historic architecture and the results speak for themselves.

 

Besides, demolition is not a "green" activity while energy retrofitting and repairing an existing structure for continued use, is. Our days as a disposable, consumer-driven society are numbered; not only for economic reasons, but for environmental and available resources reasons as well. People of the future will most likely have to adopt a lifestyle of consuming and wasting less than our contemporaries. Part of that more conserving mode of living will be building less new and repairing and re-using existing buildings; it's a change that we need to implement now and governmental policy should encourage and reward that, instead of using development funds solely for demolition activity. Just my 2 cents worth based on having lived over half a century...

Yeah, I don't understand the city "trying" to get the owners to make the repairs. Hit them where it hurts: their wallets.

The big problem with many of the VBML or demo ordered properties is that the owners keep "trading"them back and forth through LLCs, all the time, keeping them rented. There is one in my neighborhood, a brick italianate, that could be saved but the city is pusuing demo orders because the 'slumlord' and out of state LLC is milking it for all its worth and keeps doing 10.00 transfers between LLC's

 

My argument is that if the city actually filed a lien for the 1800.00 in non paid VBML's then they couldnt trade this property back and forth and avoid fixing it. The city respose is they dont want to fiile liens because they might wind up owning it and the city already owns too much property.

 

We have people lined up wanting to buy in our neighborhood and restore, including this house, if it could just be shook loose.

 

 

ANOTHER SENSELESS DEMOLITION

 

Our neighborhood lost another restorable house thanks to the city of Cincinnati "Blight=Bulldozer" mentality!

 

This house an 1885 Victorian sat on the corner of Blaine Rd and Fairmount, high on a hill on what was once elaborately terraced Victorian gardens that overlooked the valley and the city in the distance.

 

The house was largely intact with a sound roof and had been worked on just a few years ago when basically the owners ran out of money. The house was VERY restoration worthy and a good candidate.

 

Note the detailing on the original Victorian porch. The majority of the interior plaster was intact and it had original unpainted woodwork. This house restored would have been worth about 200K in its location and would have contributed to the city tax roles. Now its a vacant lot that will probably sit empty for 30 years.

 

This was a TOTAL waste! The city needs to stop bulldozing its history!

 

 

RestorationConsultant,

 

Regarding "Another Senseless Demolition" I could not agree with you more. When my spouse and I toured historic Cincinnati homes at the end of April '09. we saw this home and I noted it's potential. Although a bit small for our needs, I was certain someone could transform this historic home, which is in a very picturesque setting, into some special. Too bad the City decided scarce municipal funds could be better spent razing the structure and having a vacant lot to grow weeds on for the next few decades or even beyond.

 

It seems like a terribly short sighted action on the City's part and evidence of a growing trend in Cincinnati to solve urban ills with a bulldozer blade. I'm sure at the time of this demolition at least several others were going on at the same time in other parts of the City. Someone needs to tell these folks this is NOT progress-the "greenspace" created by the demolition was more than offset by the tons of debris headed for the landfill. While restoration might have added to the tax value of this property demolition only created a liability. Multiplied thousands of times, this demolition activity is hurting Cincinnati not helping and wastes funds that could be used for more urgent purposes. Thanks for showing the citizen's tax dollars at work.

Very Sad!

This late 1890's Commercial Storefront building at teh intersection of Thompson and Fairmount is the last remaining "neighborhood corner store building" in the Knox Hill Neighborhood in the Fairmount area which is being subjected to wholesale demolitions by the City of Cincinnat.

 

There are no "structural issues", it's solid as a rock and the only "reason" for its demolition appeares to be because of its "blighted' appearance. Our neighborhood group had been in touch with several people interested in it and our own group had considered it as a neighborhood office/meeting place and maybe a small community center.

 

The equipment arrived to day and its destruction seems eminent.

 

There is NO REASON to demo this building, there are serious people interested in restoring it and this is one example of how Historic Preservation has fallen on DEAF ears at city hall.

Where are the property owners in all of this? It seems the City is now aggressively out to get those who have managed to slip through the enforcement cracks in recent years. What are the specific code violations that warrant this immediate demolition? Since the City is paying for the demolition, doubtful an outside developer is waiting on the sidelines to redevelop this site.  Could it be that someone within the City machinery is thinking about their future re-election and wants to showcase all that they have done recently to clean up neighborhood "blight"? Demolition as a tool of choice is currently being embraced by some communities in the Midwest where population declines seem permanent, but one can scarcely say that about Cincinnati currently with over a billion dollars in new downtown development on-going during a steep recession.

 

I personally think someone with influence with or within the City government is taking a 1950's mentality bulldozer approach to improving older neighborhoods. I am at a loss to suggest anything to counter this trend-most people either like or dislike older buildings and those that dislike them will usually resist all arguments-no matter how logical-to preserve and save them. Another senseless loss about to happen...

Wow...the current city leaders should be cherishing these buildings...it doesn't even look blighted in that picture...but maybe that's my Cleveland perspective.  Seriously, if some landscaping work was done around it, I don't even see the blight.

The neighbors reported the dozer had left, maybe they realized they haven't done any asbestos remediation yet? Means MAYBE a few days left to save it.

 

I have restored FAR worse buildings and this is just amazing to me that we are in an constant battle to hold on to  neighborhood with really good architecture.

If you actually look at the records this building was vacant for some time, some windows were broken, However I see nothing in the inspection records that indicate that this property had any structural issue that would preclude it from restoration.

 

It was declared a "nuisance" on 7/28/2008 and there was an ownership change after that in January. So because it's a nuisance the city cant get the owner to bring it into complience they bulldoze it? Why not take the owner to court for the cost of liens and obtain the property and sell it to someone who will agree to restore it. Here is the "nuisance determination:

 

DECISION- A PUBLIC NUISANCE Based on the evidence received at the hearing and my personal observations,the rear addition is deteriorated and hazardous, there are open or missing windows allowing the deteriorating effects of the weather to enter the building causing structural damage, the rear gutters are deteriorated, the lot is overgrown with vegetation. The building in its current conditions does not meet the minimum standards for Vacant Building Maintenance license compliance as set forth in 1101-79.4 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code. For these and other reasons the building presents a fire and safety hazard to the community and therefore needs to be demolished. 1.) The subject building is subject to demolition by the director of buildings and inspections because the building has been deemed to be dangerous and unsafe as defined in 1101-63.1 CBC and the director has exhausted the provisions of 1101-61.1 CBC, and the building has not been brought into compliance with the CBC or taken down and removed. 2.) The City has exhausted reasonable efforts to cause the building to be brought into compliance with the CBC and the subject building is a public nuisance under the standards of 1101-63.1 CBC. 3.) The building, because of it's age, obsolescence, dilapidation, deterioration, and lack of maintenance and repair, constitutes, a fire hazard, a serious health hazard, a substantial and unreasonable interference with the reasonable and lawful use and enjoyment of other premises within the neighborhood, and a factor seriously depreciating property values in the neighborhood. Therefore, the subject building will be demolished and it's premises restored to a safe condition, free from the subject public nuisance and the owner billed for the costs involved. Further, the owner's failure to maintain the building secure may result in additional costs for barricading the subject building by the City before demolition. The owner, agent, interested party or person in control of the property may have certain appeal rights under the Ohio Revised Code. This decision cannot be appealed to the Cincinnati Board of Building Appeals. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding appeal rights.

 

BUT the city hasn't exhausted all efforts because the city code states that if a property is not maintained the city can put a lien against that property for unpaid VBML or barricade and can take the owner to court.

 

The CITY is not FOLLOWING IT"S OWN CODE but rather taking the 'easy' way out.

 

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

"the rear addition is deteriorated and hazardous, there are open or missing windows allowing the deteriorating effects of the weather to enter the building causing structural damage, the rear gutters are deteriorated, the lot is overgrown with vegetation."

 

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

Not necessarily at-risk, but interesting nonetheless...

 

College Hill's oldest brick house for sale

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/08/college-hills-oldest-brick-house-for.html

 

The College Hill eNewsletter is reporting that the oldest brick house in College Hill, located at 6268 Savannah Avenue, is up for sale.

 

The house was built in 1812 by Captain Ephraim Brown on what was then a 267-acre tract, where he farmed in addition to his work as a surveyor.

 

Brown also had a still on site that used peaches, cider, corn and rye to make whiskey and brandy.

 

Savannah Avenue was once the private lane leading up to the house, and the small circle of grass that remains at Savannah and Meis avenues was once the lane's carriage turn-around.

 

Several additions have been made to the house over the years, and it now boasts nearly 4,000 square feet and 11 rooms.

 

The house is listed at $249,900 by John W. Galbraith, Galbraith Realtors.

 

Brown is a notable figure in local history, having raised and outfitted his own cavalry to fight in the War of 1812.

 

He later served as a Justice of the Peace, a trustee of Colerain Township, and as a member of the Ohio House and Senate.

 

Over-the-Rhine property owner elicits accusations of neglect

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Dan Monk

 

Gale Smith had big dreams for the block six years ago.  Now, critics say, he’s letting it rot.

 

His story has rekindled an ongoing dispute over the city of Cincinnati’s response to one of its most intractable problems: a rising number of vacant buildings that tear at the fabric of the city’s oldest neighborhoods.

 

Read full article here:

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/08/10/story1.html

This article clearly identifies the problem. "investor types' know how to play the system. There are clear 'holes' in the city system of code enforcement. The inspectors do their job and their hands are tied because the courts will not support the interest of the community and order that these properties be repaired.

 

Demolition should NOT be an option. The option should be ' fix it, or sell it to someone willing to fix it", period. The city should have required a development plan when it considered the first demolition.

 

I know from my own experience of looking for a commerical building in OTR to restore for our business. You see a likely building, You track down the owner (not an easy process since many of these people hide behind multiple LLC's) and the answer when you ask about buying it is always the same "well I have plans". or, "I am waiting for prices to go up when the neighborhood turns around" or the asking price is about 5 times the value of the building in its deteriorated state.

 

What NEEDS to happen is the city needs to have comprehensive redevelopment plan in conjunction with preservation and local business groups. The city then needs to use eminent domain to acquire these properties back from the 'dreamers and slumlords' then in conjunction with developers or individuals with proven experience , they need to restore OTR.

 

You need to wipe the slate clean, get these people who are sitting on property "out of the picture' and bring in people who know what they doing and have the financial means to do so.

 

 

Perhaps a dumb question but:

 

Do they ever check the line of credit that an "investor" has in a property, if the City sells property to these guys claiming to have plans to fix up buildings in OTR?  Seems like that would take some people out of the running right away.

I don't think the City is the problem when it comes to people selling buildings to bum investors.

Indiana recently passed a law that says if you have existing orders against a property , you are prohibited from buying a foreclosure. Sounds like we need a state level law that if you have orders against a property you are prohibited to buy ANY property other than one you intend to owner occupy. This would severly limit the "slumlord/investor" types from out of state.The only exception being if you are buying property as part of an approved redevelopment plan.

 

I also think we need a state level law that requires all back property tax be paid in order to transferr a property ownership, this  would prevent these LLC's from trading property back and forth to avoid the hearing process.

...we need a state level law that if you have orders against a property you are prohibited to buy ANY property other than one you intend to owner occupy.

 

I also think we need a state level law that requires all back property tax be paid in order to transferr a property ownership, this would prevent these LLC's from trading property back and forth to avoid the hearing process.

 

Totally agree.  Not sure who to approach to lead this, but there is a task force headed by Mike Morgan that maybe could lead the charge.

 

I recently looked up the ownership of some buildings that have piqued my interest in OTR.  One  woman bought a few buildings in 1979 for a few thousand dollars.  For 30 years they have been vacant and no work has been done.  Now they are falling down and she is asking $100,000 for each.  She thinks she should be able to cash in somehow.  IMO she should have been prosecuted long ago. 

 

I may do a blog post on this in more detail.

I covered this in detail on my blog today, if you want the whole scoop. http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/

 

Short story. This house AT 2547 TREVOR was ordered condemned in 2007 when Deutschebank owned it, they sold it to Nu Life Investments in California in 2008. They are blindsided by finding out they bought a condemned house because it didnt show up on title search! They listed it with a local agent and no where on the listing is it mentioned there is condemn order.  (agent probably didnt know). An offer is accepted and is listed as PENDING SALE in the local MLS.

 

In the meantime the city Bulldozes it! I actually saw this house, It's not far from our neighborhood and it was in easily restorable condition, therewas nothing wrong that couldnt be fixed easily.

 

It had great Second Empire Cottage architecture and would have made a stunning restoration. I hope they sue the city over this. We need to force the city to record demo orders or barricade so they show up on title search. Can you imaging the buyer finding out the city bulldozed a house while they were waiting to close?

 

Another senseless demo!

 

It is senseless.  Just from the photographs this property would likely be listed as SAVE + SECURE + RENOVATE in a Michigan vacant property directory. 

 

Does Cincy have a land bank?  They are pretty effective at getting houses of architectural value into the hands of reputable owners and burned out hulks demolished.  Had a land bank been around this home would have a future.

Not in Detroit :D

Wewere down working on our second empire cottage and stopped by. Extremely frustarting! Fortunately our neighbor saved teh Wrought iriin fence when they showed up to bulldoze it. FRom what I could tell of ythr rubble it had good woodwork and floors. I was able to find one really nice victorian doorlock in the debris. Which we saved!

 

As bad as it is too see this senseless destruction at least we saved and are restoring one. Second empire architecure is the most coveted of Victoorian Architectural styles and ANYWHERE else there would have been an out cry to save it. We have 11 second Empire cottages in our neighborhood and the city has its sights on one of them right now.

 

I do not understand how a city that is "allegedly" broke and 40 Mill in hole , has all this money for demo. Something doesnt add up! I wish the state AG's office would do some investigating about where this demo money is going and just who is getting the contracts?

 

Not in Detroit :D

 

That's because Detroit doesn't have a land bank yet, lol!.  They just passed legislation months ago to create one

 

2471 McBreyer is currently undergoing asbestos remediation and will likely be torn down Monday. The 1881 Italianate was built asa summer or weekend home, in the Knox hill neighborhood.. The home originally had several ornate cast iron and slate mantles and walnut bead board wainscot that ran the entire length of the staircase and upper hallway. Area neighbors salvaged the one remaining fireplace and part of the wainscot when the demo was formalized earlier this year. The home still had its original windows with wavy glass under the metal storms and at least one transom.

 

The city cited "foundation issues' as the reason for demo. I looked at the house, top to bottom, and the only foundation issue I saw was some minor cracking in the stone foundation wall caused by a tree too close to it. This repair could have been made for less than a 1000.00. The house needed cleanup. The last tenants left everything whe they left. But the house was an easy restore.

 

I asked a member of city building inspections why the house was being demoed given the relatively minor nature of the problem and was told "No one in their right mind would put money in a house in That neighborhood!'. Ironic since there are several on going restorations in our neighborhood ( over 1.2 million) in historic restorationb investments.

 

They got the 1930's era asbestos siding off of it yesterday and it appears the original clapboards are in excellent condition.

 

This house sits behind our 1871 Second Empire cottage , currently undergoing restore. Not wanting a vacant lot for decades that will be an overgrown weed infested dumping ground I sent emails to Greg Harris, Cincinnati city councilman and Ed Cunningham of City Building inspectiosn asking the city to pursue the demo lien and gain control of the lot so we can buy it, fence it and landscape it but I have not had any reply from either of then or other city officials I have attempted to contact, so it appears the "blighted' house will be replaced with a 'blighted' vacant lot that the neighborhood will have to deal with for decades.

 

Another FAILURE by the City of Cincinnati on Historic preservation and more of the fabric of our neighborhood lost to this cities "blight=bulldozer" mentality.

 

Fortunately our neighbor saved teh Wrought iriin fence when they showed up to bulldoze it.

 

LOL!  I'm glad you mentioned that.  When I was looking through those pictures, I was thinking "Please God, tell me they didn't roll over that beautiful fence with that construction equipment"!  Looks like that easily could have been a nice house.  What a shame.

The circa 1902 building at 1900 Fairmount Avenue was demoed yesterday by city contractors. The property had been a hotbed of criminal activity over the years and the city ordered it demoed last year. The city backed off demolition which was scheduled for a couple of months ago to give our Neighbrrhood Association, Knox Hill, time to find a buyer. Estimates were 50k to stabilize it and 150,000.00 to restore it. The building had some structural issues on the back.

 

We actually found a buyer for it but the owner would not return calls or reply to a written offer to  buy the property.

 

Two weeks ago neighbors noticed the building being cleaned out and assumed the city was finally ready to bull doze it BUT they learned that the "Ruthless Riders' motorcycle club was patching together the building to use as a motorcycle club. Of course, no permits and in violation of city orders.

 

The establishment of a motorcycle club in that building, sitting in the middle of a residential neighborhood, would have been a major step back for Historic Restoration efforts, so reluctantly, we asked the city to demo the building. Which they did in record time.

 

It was unfortunate to lose this building, but the owner wouldn't sell and we couldn't have a biker club at that location.

 

If anything good came out of this, it was that a clear message has been sent to slumlords, that it isn't business as usual in the Knox Hill Neighborhood anymore and you need Permits and zoning. On the plus side we think we have a buyer for a house that was scheduled to be demoed so we win some, we lose some.

 

Two weeks ago neighbors noticed the building being cleaned out and assumed the city was finally ready to bull doze it BUT they learned that the "Ruthless Riders' motorcycle club was patching together the building to use as a motorcycle club. Of course, no permits and in violation of city orders.

 

Ruthless Riders

A young fresh group with hurdles to overcome and lessons to learn. A group of fun loving individuals, and a new stunt team soon to come.

[email protected]

11651 Norbourne Drive 1512

Cincinnati, OH 45240

513-648-0924

 

Also found this:

http://rodeo.cincinnati.com/getlocal/gpstory.aspx?id=100194&sid=153697

 

Here is one of the organizers:

http://www.myspace.com/risky_bizness

 

Group looks like a winner!

Yeah Sherman they were riding up and down Fairmount over the weekend doing 60 MPH popping wheelies despite the fact there are small kids all over the place.

 

Police arested one of the "fine individuals' on Tuesday over there on some open warrants after they threathened a city inspector.

 

Neighbors cheered when the building came down. Our neighbrohood group is planning on planting a flower bed accross the front as soon as the lot is seeded to prevent people parking on it or using it as a dump site.

 

So its Knox Hill Neighborhood Association 1 :-D

Ruthless Riders ZERO! :-(

Where the hell is Knox Hill anyways? I've lived in Cincinnati my whole life and the first time I heard about the place was in this thread.

The neighborhood sits in Fairmount basically on the line that seperates North Fairmount from South. Streets are Knox and Fairmount between Beekman and Harrison. The area was built primarily as weekend and summer cottages for the wealthy who hung out at the Schuetzen Verein which was an exclusive German Club with beer garden and shoorting range that used to sit where St Clair Park is today (see photo). Houses range in size from 1500 square foot cottages all the way up to 6-7000 square foot mansions.

 

In addition to an outstanding collection of Victorian era Italianates and Second Empire cottages and homes the area also has several Greek revival homes that may be some of the earliest houses on the westside dating to the 1840's.

 

Neighborhood website: http://sites.google.com/site/knoxhillneighborhoodassoc/

 

The Neighborhood Association was formed in 2008 by a handfull of preservationists and long time residents intent on stopping the decline of the area.

The house at 2210 Ohio Avenue in Clifton Heights has been declared a public nuisance and is subject to demo by the City but, thankfully, has not been put out to bid yet.

 

The house is believed to be one of the oldest in the neighborhood, built c. 1838 in the Greek Revival style and later enlarged and Victorianized. It’s on a choice site opposite Bellevue Hill Park. As far as anyone can tell, there is nothing structurally wrong with it.

 

The city has cited the deteriorated porch and a detatched garage as the primary reason to demo it.

 

CPA and the neighborhood are trying to save it.

 

Why the city wouldn't perform an "emergency repair" to the porch and bill the owner like they would with a board up is beyond me and another example of how the city system is broken.

 

RC,

 

Keep up the good work. It is amazing how intact some those houses are.

 

Thanks for the heads up!

Wow!

Goog NEWS!!! thanks to some blogposts today getting the word out and some active lobbying from members of the Historic Preservation Community, neighborhood groups and Clifton residents (great how screaming and yelling works in an election year), the city has put a 'hold' on any demolition!

Nice work!

I tweeted Qualls about it, strongly questioning the city's role in unnecessary demolition.  Wonder if that helped any.

anyone know why they this place would have a tax abatement?

 

  Note

1) 7-14-04 30 YEAR TIF ABATEMENT BEGAN 2003 THRU 2032.

 

LOPEZ CRAWFORD X

2210 OHIO AVE

CINCINNATI, OH 45219-1611 USA

 

http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org/realestateii/ROVER30.ASP