I think that often people dont think far enough into the future, great neighborhoods arent restored in a day. I agree it could have a number of potential uses but it also could be restored a single family.

 

I restored historic homes in Indy for years and trust me when we first started restoring in some neighbohoods we were the only ones there AND they were surrounded with slum apartment buildinings and such. Actually Reading Road is tame compared to some neighborhoods I've been in. Today those aprtment buildings are long gone and new upscale infil homes it in their place. Cincinnati has always had a problem with forward thinking.

 

It just takes ONE preservation minded person to start a neighborhood turnaround.

Every month or so I get a list of property that the city is holding a hearing on to recommend that these properties be bulldozed. This hearing on June 9th is no exception 21 properties in various urban neighborhoods. 1 is on the National Historic Registry.

 

If you look at the condemn/VBML (ordered vacant list) there a few thousand properties that could be headed for landfill. Most in Fairmount, Avondale, Price Hill, Westwood, Clifton and West End/OTR. Cincinnati seems to be following  the "blight=bulldoze Urban Planning model" that progressive  cities have long since abandoned.

 

At this rate Cincinnati could look more like Detroit in a few years with blocks of vacant land that no one wants to build on.

 

Having come from a city (Indianapolis) that bulldozed  a lot of its urban neighborhoods in the downtown and took 30 plus years to now be at a point of infill and a decent tax base. It will never get that architecture back however!It strikes me that Cincinnati is making a major mistake, especially with the deficit the city is looking at.

 

It costs between 8-12K to demo a house. A better use of those monies would be in stabilization and restoration to bring back people to urban neighborhoods. Vacant lots do not contribute to the tax base at a level a house does.

 

Am I the only one who see this as a BAD idea to bulldoze neighborhoods to 'fix' blight and "improve' the neighborhoods?

I completely agree. What can we do other than write to council?

Many cities hava what they call a 'diversion plan' especially on historic properties over 100 yrs old (most everything in Urban cincinnati).  The city, or its prervation planner maintains a website of "historic property opportunities".

 

To avoid having a property demoed and the liens and cost involved , the property owner is given two options "Pull permits and fix the property or sell it". Properties then are listed and have protective covenant requiring the buyer to demonstrate financial responsibility and is required to pull permits within 30 days and restore the property to histoic standards. The city refunds the permit fees (which can amount to few thouosand on a major restoration) after final inspection. Cincinnati already has a property tax abatement program which is an incentive. The city could set aside some of the demolition funding for facade grants which would be an additional incentive to someone looking to come in and buy and live in a neighborhood.

 

The city could call it the "Historic Urban Pionneer Project" or something like that. Maybe even tie it to a vocational building trades program with city school system where High School kids could do some of the stabilization work in the same neighborhood and get some needed skills.

It just takes ONE preservation minded person to start a neighborhood turnaround.

 

I certainly hope this is true. Myself and a friend are the only house on our little block in OTR who have started to do this. The problem is NOT that these buildings aren't worthy of saving--it's finding the right people to save them. It is not necessary economically viable for most people to try and save these buildings, and --despite your claims that Reading Road is tame--it's certainly NOT viable for almost any developer--which is why this doesn't happen in a fast way. The person undertaking this will definitely have to have a pioneering spirit, not have to not mind the isolation/island effect, and most importantly the funds to do it properly to be successful. I really hope someone like that grabs up this house! But I still stand by my statement, the IMMEDIATE area is the greatest impediment to this building being saved (Caseyc, there definitely is some momentum up further toward you into Rose Hill).

 

Cincinnati has always had a problem with forward thinking.

As far as this comment is concerned, it is one made out of ignorance. Cincinnati pretty much invented television and radio broadcasting, professional baseball, the world series, and many other innovations. It is because Cincinnati was so forward thinking that we were prosperous enough to have not only the types of historic architecture we are discussing, but also the incredible amount of it--as well as our cultural institutions, which any city our size would be envious of. It's statements like the one quoted, and the attitudes behind it that continue to allow people to find the demolitions of our history acceptable, and I am sick and tired of hearing it.  :whip:

BlauBaum, I stand by my comment that Cincinnati has a lack of forward thinking, particularly as relates to city government and Urban planning.

 

Cincinnati is using the failed "blight=bulldozer Urban planning/retvilization model" that the majority of Urban planners agree is a failed model and abandoned 15-20 yrs ago by most cities.

 

I have spent 20 plus years working in historic neighborhoods and with urban planners from across the country and this model does not work.

 

The fact that people are willing to "write off" a property on the national registry proves my point that people have little understanding of historic preservation as an economic development tool.

 

Take a look at OTR. OTR and West End could be a major historic tourism destination. Look at Chaleston SC, Savannah GA, or New Orleans. A revitilized "historic" OTR could be the most expensive exclusive property in the city and would have businesses that would provide much needed jobs.

 

Findlay Market could be full, Elm and Race Streets could be major shopping and entertainment districts. The major sucess downtown, Fountain Square, was mostly done by private investment. It is doubtful the streetcar will come to reality given the city deficit and strong opposition to it.

 

Instead it is a constant uphill battle to get anything done in OTR and the city sitting on blocks of property does not help as they fall apart.

 

In ANY other city a property like this would have generated calls to the mayors office, business community leaders holding discussions about how to save it and a community up in arms that the city would even consider demoing it.

 

But not in Cincinnati.

 

^

have you tried to express these ideas or concepts to the city council or the yp kitchen cabinet? It seems that you have a lot of experience and knowledge that could help change the way the city handles these type of issues.

Consultant,

As I've said earlier, Cincinnati has been forward thinking for a long time—there are many, MANY examples of this. As far as it relates to government and urban planning, Cincinnati once had an excellent public transit system that supported the city. As yet another example of how forward thinking Cincinnati was, it manufactured and sold its streetcars to other cities. This system was systematically dismantled by corporate interests (mainly automobile companies) from outside.

 

40-50 years ago other cities were using the “blight=bulldozer” method of urban renewal. Why do you think we have the largest remaining group of Italiante buildings IN THE U.S.. Other cities demolished their stock of these wonderful, urban buildings—CINCINNATI DIDN’T. With the formation of HUD in the 1960s first under the Johnson administration, many of Cincinnati’s historic buildings were rehabbed to be decent housing for lower income families. Unfortunately, much of the federal money came with contracts that allowed landlords to continue renting to these people, while not maintaining their properties. Thus the cycle of poverty and neglect that these buildings have gone through was brought about and reinforced by the Federal Government. This is why OTR and to a lesser extent, the West End have the stock they do today, but also why they are in bad shape.

 

Speaking of OTR, what blocks are you talking about that the city is sitting on letting decay? Contrary to your statement, most buildings in OTR have been historically owned by individuals, and weren’t maintained due to Federal housing policy. That’s why so many buildings sit vacant. The city does not have the resources or the power to remake Over-the-Rhine. 3CDC, which is a public private partnership between the city, major corporations, and developers, is making HUGE strides. But this kind of stuff doesn’t happen over night. Also, I should mention that buildings HAVE been lost in cities other than Cincinnati after attaining designated status in cities like Atlanta, Denver, and even…dare I say it…Portland!!

 

You also mention Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans. I don’t know about Savannah and New Orleans, but do you have any idea how long it took to make Charleston into what it is today??? Charleston was basically the start of historic preservation as we know it in America. That effort started back in the 1930s!! That’s 70+ years!!! Also, I’m sure being a southern city, it had no problem making changes to neighborhoods (especially at that time) when certain populations viewed as undesirable to its progress tried to move in.

 

You also mentioned Findlay market and the streetcar proposal. Findlay market continues to be popular, and I know of more and more people frequenting it every week. Currently, there is a proposal to build a streetcar, which would greatly benefit the market—make it full more often and invigorate the surrounding neighborhood (which I live in, btw) with needed private investment. The city council passed this very forward thinking proposal, but it has gained some typical opposition. However it is the NAACP, the Green Party, and COAST who are not forward thinking here. NOT CINCINNATI.

 

We are preparing for a hard fight, but there are many who believe and are willing to work for defeating this opposition. In the end there are a lot of us who are forward thinking in Cincinnati. Historically, the city HAS been forward thinking, and for the most part it is trying to accomplish a lot and turn itself around. Your poor attitude and denial of Cincinnati’s progress only discourages people who would seek to better the city, and encourages those opposed to progress. This residence should be saved—I’ve made this clear in my posts—but just because a few bureaucrats down at the building department don’t understand the value of a Hannaford house doesn’t mean a city which is proud and trying to change itself always had a lack of forward thinking. It’s poor wording at best.

 

This is more of a statewide phenomena than just Cincinnati, unfortunately. Columbus in the last year lost the Firestone mansion, Lord Hall, Brown Hall,  a couple of buildings Downtown, and all the homes on Carpenter Street (definitely not that much blight since many are inhabited) in Livingston Park are poised to be torn down for a Children's Hospital expansion, even though they have plenty of surface lots to build on, including for parking garages.

To avoid having a property demoed and the liens and cost involved , the property owner is given two options "Pull permits and fix the property or sell it

 

Unfortunalty it is not always that simple. Take the two cases of Larry Rhodes and Johny Van Stein. Larry inherited a massive amount of property, primarily in OTR. He has gone to jail over his properties being put into criminal status (two of which were disputed for 11 years) charged VBML's, fines, threat of demo, demo, charge back on demo....and nothing stopped this man. Now 95 Mulberry is threatened with demolition and he will just let it happen as it is cheaper to own a vacant lot than the property. He refuses to sell and refuses to do anything other than "try" and bring the properties up to the level of recieving a VBML. Once the propety recieves a VBML and the fees are paid, it can sit vacant indefinetly. (On a side note, the man is worth and estimated 42 million so fees are not an issue) Now we have a reverse problem. Two demos at 144 and 146 Mulberry which left two 30 X 52.5 lots were under contract to sell to a developer who has built new const. on the street and the city refused to release the leins for the demo as they did not want to see Larry "profit" in any way. This has left us with two undeveloped, vacant, lots that will sit and sit.

Johny was a little different. For years he owned a dozen properties that were in marginal shape but when the city began putting orders on them, Johny one night took two down by hand himself just to spite the city (105 & 107 Mulberry). He has sold off his remaining holdings in OTR but even afterwards, his own personal home had to be torn down because of massive structural issues.

My point is that personalities of individuals can derail even the most basic of plans to save some of these structures. And the city, sometimes in doing what they believe will help the area, actually hastens the destruction of the properties and in the case of Larry, stands in the way of new developement simultaneously.

The whole VBML needs to be revamped in my opinion. The city does not enforce the VBML in an consititent manner and when it isn't paid they city failes to file a lien , it doesnt show on title search, so people routinely buy properties and start work only to find they need to spend 900 on a VBML, go through an incredible amount of redtape. Most simply walk away. I was told by one city official that the reason they dont file liens when a VBML isnt renewed is they dont want to own more property, So often the property goes through say a foreclosure, a couple of owners and someone finally comes along who wants to do something and they get hit with a VBML because the city "finds them' or an inspector wanders by on a follow up.

 

There are two pending lawsuits against the city challenging the whole VBML. I personally think there has to be a better system and I dont want to see the concept totally thrown out.

 

There are 20 properties sitting in my neighborhood on the VBML list, MOST of them have no real structural issues. Thye just dont "look nice'. Condemn order are often filed I think because the city "writes off' a neighborhood and thinks no one will come along to put the money into a particular house.

The VBML's or any other pressure that the city tries to put on some of these individuals will be flawed in one way or another. There was a VBML on 140 Mulberry and it fell into the street on its own two years ago. A property on Main (owned by Larry Rhodes) dropped large debris including a lentil onto the sidewalk. If we take away the VBML's, or not, we still need a buyer who is willing to put in the work, money, and risk into the property.

In short, we will lose buildings. The only hope is to get in and turn as many as possible while at the same time reaching out to the market and changing the perception of the area and therefor creating a demand for the finished product. Groups like 3CDC are doing this and simoultaneously creating a demand for others to do the same. We have large amounts of properties that are at least being purchased, secured, stabalized, and redeveloped at a pace that is absorbed by the market. OTR is on its way, but not everything will be saved.

It just takes ONE preservation minded person to start a neighborhood turnaround.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree this is always the case. I am rehabbing an 1865 home on Mulberry St. now (and have been for the last 6 years and will be for the next 60) but if it weren't for the new const on Mulberry that signalled the beginnings of true investment in the street, I never would have purchased and 103 would have just sat. The same goes for many of my neighbors. Preservation is one thing, but the market for the preserved property must also be there.

Let me give you an example of preservation gone horribly wrong. The OTR Foundation purchased 101, 105 Peete, 100 E. Clifton and another property on the corner of 14th and Race all in the name of preservation and the dismissal of a demo order. Those 4 properties over the past 5 years have done more to detract investment in the adjacent properties, many of which have now been lost. It takes more than just "saving" a building, and to save one at the expense of 5 others is stupidity. Preservation and new can coexist but only with a market that can support it.

I work with Developers who have not built or rehabbed on certain streets in favor of others due to not wanting to be subjected to Historic. Sometimes it is that one preservationist that can actually limit redevelopment. It is the law of unintended consequence. We need to be of the mindset that both can be positive for the overall good of the neighborhood especially if one is leveraged as a catylyst for the other.

Consider the fact that it cost beteween 8-15K to demo a house. Now a larger mixed use building or brownstone like you find in OTR more than that. To me if the city took the time to file the  liens for boardup, cleanup of lots and filed that as a lien. Then the city has a better legal means (leverage) to get that property out of someones hands who has no real interest in it by going to court to see the lien satified. Yes the city winds up with property.

 

What the city is lacking in my opinion is a good landbanking program tied to an urban historic homesteading program. There is federal monies out there, the city just needs a plan.

 

Take the monies you would normally spend on demolition, take 1/2 of that for facade restoration. So it looks good from the street and get a roof on it so you stop the water deterioration ( the biggest enemy to a historic structure) Advertise it on a landbank. The property has protective covenants and owner must agree as part of the sale to pull permits ( make the fees refundable after final inspection as an incentive) and submit a time line and proof of financial resources to fund the project.

 

If you could get 1 or 2 rehabs per block going on it might be enough of a tipping point to get real developers in. You need people back in the area who have real committment and less out of state "investor types" who are holding waiting for someone else to do the work on a block so they can make a buck.

 

The city has got to change the demolition permits so they can only be pulled by a liscened demolition contractor.  The problem now is its cheaper for a building owner to demo a property himself rather than fix it. If they had to pay a demo contractor 20-30k they would be less likely to tear a property down. Also change the permit that there must be review on historic buildings before a permit is granted.

You might like this view on "blight" versus "disinvestment"

 

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/05/investment-vs-disinvestment.html

 

Once again, the biggest component is having a ready, willing and able buyer at the end to want to purchase. We are moving at a break neck pace in OTR and it is those efforts that will see the saving of most buildings. Just a few short years ago the city had 100s of properties with very few takers. Now that redevelopemnt is happening, others can see not just the potential but the promise that developments like the Q are bringing, only now are these "desirable" properties. Nothing brings development quite like development and to think that just offering buildings up with tighter restrictions alone is a recipe for sucess isn't taking into consideration market reality.

Arenn, great article. That brings up an interesting point too. Often especially in OTR you have buildings that may be too far gone structurally to save. However the street facade is intact. Many cities with historic urban areas like OTR, now require the retention of the street facade and part of new building construction.

 

The city of St Joseph MO Saved a historic cast iron facade and found a developer to build a new structure behind it.

 

http://www.dciconstruction.biz/show_detail/40/Fourth%20Street%20Lofts

 

This maintained the street facade, in OTR these streetscapes are perhaps the most important part of the character of the neighborhood and we need to do more to save them.

Cincinnati's "Blight=Bulldoze" mentality. Time for change?

 

Yes. done and done.

Philly had a similar problem with certain landlords that drove down seriously historic neighborhoods - Songs of the City by Nathaniel Popkin goes into this - essentially one guy was bitter how he was treated by a higher class of folks when he was younger and so when he made it big and bought a lot of their properties as they left the neighborhood, he systematically destroyed the neighborhood even though to all rationale thought it should have been restored at a pretty early stage considering it historical significance and its proximity to neighborhoods that had successfully been fully renovated. One guy brought down an entire corner of the city.

Are you talking about this house:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090603/NEWS01/906040315/1168/NEWS0101/Architectural+gem+may+be++nuisance+

 

Architectural gem may soon be 'nuisance'

 

By Barry M. Horstman • [email protected] • June 3, 2009

 

NORTH AVONDALE - She's 125 years old and a national treasure - with a certificate to prove it - though like most centenarians, she's beginning to show her age.  Now Cincinnati City Hall wants to declare the rambling, 24-room house at 3725 Reading Road a nuisance. But rather than bringing the house closer to the end, that step, city officials insist, is a positive thing - one that could help restore youthful good looks.

 

Thats it! I think the situation is that the owner has NO CLUE what it will take to properly restore it. She is apparently going to submit 'some plan' but if she can't demonstrate the funds to do it we all no what the likely result will be.

Demo would be a Greek Tragedy!!  I actually think a bed and breakfast is a great idea. 

 

So this is a financing issue?

It would appear so, a far too common occurrance when people go into restoration without a real idea of the cost. Given the economy I would think it would be very hard to find a bank willing to loan what will be necessary to properly restore the house , especially for B&B use as the codes are more specific. I wonder if she even knows you are limited on the number of suites? I believe its 5 in Cincinnati? Not sure on that but I read it somewhere .

 

You have 24 room house, Dont forget there is a carriage house to restore as well and you are looking at only 5 suites to rent out you have to have a very high 'book rate' to even cover the costs of upkeep much less if you have a substancial bank note.

 

I've been a consultant on a few B&B and Boutique Hotel projects and I know from doing bid and build specs what this is likely to cost. JUST the buildout, mechanicals, plumbing, electrical , adding baths , new kitchen, HVAC and no doubt LOTS of woodwork refinishing and specialized "artisan"skilled craftsman ' projects you are AT LEAST 5-600,000.00, more likey 750K!

 

So you are "going all the way' and doing a real period restoration? ADD another 100,000.00 for Historic lighting and wallpaper NOT to mention antiques to furnish it.

 

We are restoring, Really restoring, a 1871 Second Empire Cottage. about 1800 square feet and I do restoration for living , mind you. Our budget is 225-250,000 for our house and I am doing much of the work myself. Restoration can typically run 75-200 a square foot depending on the house. She has 9000 square feet, you do the math!

 

Finding a bank,and a bank that understands this kind of project is one thing. Having a business plan to support that kind of investment is another and given location, Appraisal is a big issue.

 

Trust me the folk down at building inspection know what things cost too. Remember those brick townhomes the city 'restored' and went WAY over projections on?

 

She would be better off to go in with a 5 year plan of gradual restoration, Do the outside first so the city would be happy with the appearance, THEN, do the interior work and hopefully the economy will be strong enough and there will be comparable restorations close by you can point to for appraisal purposes.

 

B&B projects  are almost totally self funded. If you don't have the cash, you shoudln't even be thinking about going that route.

 

But then I deal with people who "have a dream" everyday and my perscription is to go rent the movie "Money Pit' and watch it for 24 hours solid until you can't see straight. THEN you have clue what you are getting into!

Amazing, and surprising piece by the editor of the Enquirer is up on the front page today:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170303

 

Now, not soon, is the time to save OTR's historic treasures

 

Soon is not good enough, Cincinnati.

 

Now would be a good time to get serious about saving Over-the-Rhine.

 

And I am not talking about crime there. I'm talking about saving its soul - the building stock that makes it one of the largest urban historic districts in the United States. The crimes are occurring not in the streets, but over them.

 

We are losing a treasure, one building at a time. That is the biggest crime happening in our midst.

 

(Continued at http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170303)

^They actually wrote a series of these articles, its a shame that it took a fire to the Moerlein Brewery to make them realize the potential of the neighborhood. 

 

Acres of historic treasures

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170302

 

Over-the-Rhine revitalization isn't just about the money

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170305

 

Cincinnati has a great opportunity to restore economic and cultural gems

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170306

 

What separates Cincinnati from Charleston, New Orleans are choices we've made

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170307

 

Preserving one historic neighborhood's past is key to city's future

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170308

 

City's rich history - and architecture - is its greatest untapped potential

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170309

Amazing, and surprising piece by the editor of the Enquirer is up on the front page today:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170303

 

Now, not soon, is the time to save OTR's historic treasures

 

Soon is not good enough, Cincinnati.

 

Now would be a good time to get serious about saving Over-the-Rhine.

 

And I am not talking about crime there. I'm talking about saving its soul - the building stock that makes it one of the largest urban historic districts in the United States. The crimes are occurring not in the streets, but over them.

 

We are losing a treasure, one building at a time. That is the biggest crime happening in our midst.

 

(Continued at http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170303)

Amen to this editorial.  Over-the-Rhine should be full of golden pastures.  I don't know of city with something as good as OTR.  This is one of the top assets for Cincinnati.  The Enquirer just impressed me big time.

 

"But Gateway is a small gem in what should be the golden pastures of Over-the-Rhine.

 

And crime - or the absence of it - will not be the singular factor in Over-the-Rhine's success or failure. The loss of its housing stock to outside interests and inside apathy is this magnificent neighborhood's biggest threat."

 

Over-the-Rhine is Cincinnati's French Quarter. 

more on Cincinnati vs. New Orleans: http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=20100114&Kategori=EDIT03&Lopenr=1170307&Ref=AR

^They actually wrote a series of these articles, its a shame that it took a fire to the Moerlein Brewery to make them realize the potential of the neighborhood.

 

Acres of historic treasures

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170302

 

Over-the-Rhine revitalization isn't just about the money

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170305

 

Cincinnati has a great opportunity to restore economic and cultural gems

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170306

 

What separates Cincinnati from Charleston, New Orleans are choices we've made

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170307

 

Preserving one historic neighborhood's past is key to city's future

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170308

 

City's rich history - and architecture - is its greatest untapped potential

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100114/EDIT03/1170309

The fire at Moerlein should serve as a major wake-up for anyone who cares about Cincinnati, downtown, preservation, history and the future.  OTR has major, major potential and these articles are incredible.  Somehow people need to unite for it before anymore is lost.

^ Agreed. Great editorial.

What a fantastic editorial, and one that completely surprised me. I hope that the Enquirer continues to meet with folks from the neighborhood to listen to their comments and perceptions of not only the neighborhood, but the newspaper, to see what (and if) anything needs to change.

Great article.  But after reading it is obvious change needs to happen, but how?  Me moving there isn't feasible.  I love going there as much as possible but that isn't going to save OTR.  Does the city need to step in to really save the area and the historic architecture?  It kills me everytime an old building in OTR comes down.  I couldn't believe my eyes when I was watching the news and saw the fire to the Christian Moerlein building.

I found it appropriate to write an Email to Mr Callinan, thanking him for the editorial and encouraging the paper to keep up its positive portrayal of the city.  His email is [email protected] if any of you would also like to send him a note

I'm going to write him an email as well.  I wonder if the Cincy bloggers could target the non-urban Cincinnatians to help them get involved.  I wonder if anyone could get the Bengals/Reds into the effort somehow.

^^i wrote a thank-you as well

Hello all, I'm Neil, an ex Cincinnatian now living in Chicago who's read this forum for a few years but never had the chance to post.  Oddly enough I find myself more interested in Cincinnati local news than Chicago's these days, because while Chicago has its fair share of problems, it feels like an absolute paradise compared to Cincinnati in a lot of regards.

 

Anyways, this article really got my attention, I'm really happy that the Enquirer finally is stating what people in Cincinnati should already understand about their city, its special, there are very few places like it in the united states and it is worth preserving.

 

I'm really shocked that he was comparing it to New Orleans or Charleston North Carolina, two places that Cincinnati should really try to live up to in terms of preservation and in terms of a Tourist Model (though New Orleans is probably a bit too wild for the powers that be in Cincy, but I digress).  Its wonderful to see clueless blinded people finally see the light of what they live in.

 

Lets hope this is a catalyst for more good things, one day I want to be able to get off the train in Cincinnati and be greeted by a city that is a smaller but still quite vibrant place than the one I left.

 

^Huh?

I'm really shocked that he was comparing it to New Orleans or Charleston North Carolina, two places that Cincinnati should really try to live up to in terms of preservation and in terms of a Tourist Model (though New Orleans is probably a bit too wild for the powers that be in Cincy, but I digress). Its wonderful to see clueless blinded people finally see the light of what they live in.

Cincinnati is growing quite the backbone.

^Huh?

 

I would say that Cincinnati has a very lackluster preservation program compared to other cities, which would be what he would be getting at. Some of these cities would have ramped up efforts to prevent these buildings from approaching the condition they are in decades ago, but we still haven't figured that out, as evidenced by the conflicts we still have with owners that let these buildings deteriorate and then claim they are too unsafe to keep standing. So the city okays demolition, such as Elm/Liberty and really, all over the city.

 

Other cities have had strong preservation programs dating to the 1960s, such as Charleston and New Orleans. Others, such as Covington and Newport, force owners to keep up the property lest they want their property rates to skyrocket to compensate the city for the loss of value (and force the owner to relinquish the lots to the city).

...Others, such as Covington and Newport, force owners to keep up the property lest they want their property rates to skyrocket to compensate the city for the loss of value (and force the owner to relinquish the lots to the city).

Haven't heard about this, are you sure?

...Others, such as Covington and Newport, force owners to keep up the property lest they want their property rates to skyrocket to compensate the city for the loss of value (and force the owner to relinquish the lots to the city).

If that were the case, then a lot of people would probably have a good legal case against the city if it were indeed merely for "loss of value". As for increasing the millage rate to compensate for lost revenue, I am not sure how their county would differ from ours but I can't imagine condemnation over loss of value.

Sherman, you have been to Clifton, East Walnut Hills, Hyde Park, etc., right?  This city has tons -- thousands -- of perfectly preserved homes from the 1800's.  We were the 10th biggest city in 1900, so there are only 9 out of the 40 or so major cities that have more old stuff than we do.  And only about 4 of them (NYC, Boston, Philly, Baltimore) have anything resembling the 1870's-1880's buildings and the sheer number of them that exist in Over-the-Rhine. 

 

Neither Charleston or New Orleans have an area that in any way resembles Over-the-Rhine.  The French Quarter is mostly 2-floor buildings with a handful of 3 and 4-floor ones.  There are also many single-floor shotguns throughout that area.  Charleston is free-standing homes with yards.  Both situations are fundamentally different and much easier to redevelop than what we have here.  The French Quarter has a lower population now than does OTR, and it's fully occupied.  The buildings are smaller, so were cheaper to rehab, are easier to manage, and require much less parking. 

 

Again, we have several very large historic areas which have been perfectly preserved and that preservation has been market-driven.  None of those areas (Clifton, E. Walnut Hills, etc.) had the Dropp-In shelter dumped on them, none of them were turned into political pawns by Buddy Grays, and none of them face the fundamental parking problem that hangs like a toxic cloud over OTR. 

 

Hyde Park and to an extent, Oakley, has wealth. Walnut Hills, with the exception of the eastern fringe, no longer has that and has seen an increasing number of tear-downs because of a lack of comprehensive preservation ordinances that are enforceable. Look at how much trouble that PreservationConsultant has over in Knox Hill -- an area that arguably does not have a concentration of wealth. He constantly has to fight the city so that he can preserve his residence and to prevent neighboring good condition houses from being neglected or torn down by absentee landlords and owners. We spend much more in this city to tear down buildings than we do to preserve them, and if we only began serious efforts to enforce the laws that we already have on the books and to collect these fines, and ramp up our efforts, we'd have a much stronger alliance and organization.

 

I wasn't inferring that OTR has the same building stock or character as historic Charleston or French Quarter. But what they both share is the bond and history that OTR featured at one point. Both are/were dense, collective neighborhoods that, despite their varied housing stock, had at one point been a bit more 'rough' in their past. Except that other cities took a much more proactive approach in handling these ongoing issues than Cincinnati years ago. We had plans in place back in the 1960s and 1980s to handle this, but nothing ever came about it.

 

And I agree with your last paragraph, we have large historic areas that have been preserved, but I would disagree with on certain areas, such as Uptown. While the housing stock is still there, it is often tenement or college housing and while that is because it is adjacent to the university, it doesn't do much to preserve the neighorhood's integrity in the long-term. Of course, those neighborhoods didn't have politicizing squatters or the social service agency dumps.

I am not sure what your point is re Clifton.  There is a ton of well preserved single family housing stock north of the Ludlow/Jefferson strip going all the way back to the Northern border and West to Mt. Storm and then down Lafayette etc.  Certainly not tenement or college housing.....

 

but we're getting waaaay off topic here so...in any event......carry on.

Here is a great blog post that details out what I was trying to say, but in a more concise (and not rushed) manner:

http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2010/01/foreclosure-crisiscincinnati-solution.html

Here is a great blog post that details out what I was trying to say, but in a more concise (and not rushed) manner:

http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2010/01/foreclosure-crisiscincinnati-solution.html

Very good post, thank you for drawing it to my attention.

And I agree with your last paragraph, we have large historic areas that have been preserved, but I would disagree with on certain areas, such as Clifton. While the housing stock is still there, it is often tenement or college housing and while that is because it is adjacent to the university, it doesn't do much to preserve the neighorhood's integrity in the long-term.

 

This is a completely inaccurate assessment of Clifton.  The overwhelming majority of Clifton is single family homes occupied by either young families or older more established people.  The college students (primarily grads) that do live in Clifton usually are found in the large, old apartment structures found around Ludlow and Clifton avenues.  Maybe you're thinking of the CUF area.

Sorry, amended to say Uptown in general. But it does vary on specific neighborhood. Clifton is different than say, the typical college town near the university.

But it really isn't even an accurate statement for Uptown.  You're specifically referring to the Clifton Heights, University Heights, Fairview neighborhoods often referred to as CUF.  Corryville is not in good shape, but it's dynamic is not what you described either.  Then you have Avondale and Mt. Auburn which are completely different animals altogether.

Lets hope this is a catalyst for more good things, one day I want to be able to get off the train in Cincinnati and be greeted by a city that is a smaller but still quite vibrant place than the one I left.

 

I wasn't too clear with this statement, let me clarify.  I mean to say that I'd be happy to one day go from a very large vibrant city (Chicago) and arrive by train (which should happen eventually) in a smaller but just as unique city, Cincinnati.

 

I think that should clear up any confusion. :)

Preservation should be at the top of any list of priorities in urban areas today.  That preservation isn't valued for its own sake except by a small handful is indicative of the barriers we face in preserving our authenticity against the forces of banality.

 

I love Cincinnati's newfound cocksure attitude. There's no reason Charleston or New Orleans should have preserved historic quarters and Cincinnati should not.

 

What would be better than joining CPA and helping to lead Cincinnati's urban renaissance?

 

I would join right now if they had an online payment option.

Let's rewind yet again.  The historic area of Charleston is smaller than OTR and it comprises all of what everyone goes ape for in Charleston.  Unlike Cincinnati, which has a half dozen premier historic areas, there are not other historic areas of Charleston, in fact there's a Wal-Mart just out of site of the historic area. Again, people drive or fly all those miles to see an area smaller than OTR comprised of single-family homes.  The population of that area is lower than OTR now, and tens of thousands less than OTR at its peak.  It's a completely, completely different situation. 

 

Rewind again....There is the French Quarter and The Garden District in New Orleans and that's pretty much it.  Combined they comprise a little over a square mile.  Much of the rest of New Orleans is crappy 1970's apartment complexes and dreadful public housing. We've definitely got more quality surviving 18th century stuff here than there.  Plus we have a variety of truly iconic structures that New Orleans cannot match -- they have no landmark bridge, they have nothing that can match Music Hall, nothing like Union Terminal, nothing like The Carew Tower.   

 

Sherman, you might not know that there is a true "Clifton" part of Clifton. Thrall, Evanswood, Middleton, Telford, Bryant, Resor, McAlpin, Interwood, Bishop, Brookline, Lafayette, etc., are some of the finest 19th century streets in America.  They're better streets than most of Hyde Park.  If Clifton was in Boston instead of Cincinnati, it would be famous.  If it was in New Orleans instead of Cincinnati, it would be famous.