Gambling away history

 

Gambling away history.

 

Well, short of a pun, that is essentially what the Greenacres Foundation wants to do with the historic Gamble Estate in Westwood, a western neighborhood of Cincinnati. The historic mansion, constructed in the Queen Anne style in 1875 by James Norris Gamble, son of Proctor and Gamble Corporation's co-founder, it resided as a country estate amongst other rambling lots and farms near Harrison Pike.

 

James Gamble, an inventor and humanitarian, lived in the house for 57 years before passing away in 1932. His daughter lived in the residence until she died in the 1960s. From then on, it was in the ownership of the Nippert's.

 

Here is where the irony begins.

 

Continue on reading the remainder of the journal entry or check out the Gamble House article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great photos.

Apparently the police were called after those night shots were taken.

Super cute picture of the kid, and I hope they save the estate.

*fingers crossed*

I know I am going to get slammed here but I am going to write this anyway...

 

I understand the history here and the signifigance of this property, but...

This is private property is it not? If all these activist want it saved then pony up the money to do it. If the foundation does not want the house then they can do what they want with it.

 

 

"If people were so concerned, he said they could "write a check." That alluded that the Foundation was short of money or could not maintain the property."

This alludes to nothing. All it says is that the Foundation is not interested in preserving it. We all know they got the money.

 

"Initiating further controversy is that the Foundation has not offered the property for sale, despite saying that anyone could purchase it if they "wrote a check." In addition, the Foundation noted that if it was sold, it could not be used for any commercial enterprise. It also did not want to see the house rehabilitated into a museum."

Correct, it is not for sale unless you write a check for it. Write a check and it is yours. Where is the controversy? My home is not for sale, but if someone offered me a check or cash money, SOLD!

 

Again, I know I am ruffling some feathers here, and I mean NO DISRESPECT to anyone here just stating what I think even though it is probably wrong.

 

Go ahead and abuse me in the post to follow.... :oops:

Oh, no worries :) I love hearing about different opinions. That's what makes this forum great.

 

There have been many interested parties -- some very wealthy, that have approached Greenacres to purchase the house, but they have categorically denied all offers. They have stated that if it is sold, it couldn't be used for commercial purposes, as a residence or a museum, despite the single family zoning.

 

While it is their property, if we allowed property owners to do as they willed and wished at times, we'd have very little of Over-the-Rhine remaining. Many of these historic properties that are cherished in the city today could have been demolished. It is with these preservation organizations and district overlays, along with landmark designations and activists that work on our behalf, that we are able to save these properties from demolition.

 

I think what really kicks everyone in the gut here is the ferocity that Greenhills has undertaken in this. They have sought no outside comment on this and as Mr. Randolph stated, he has no idea why other people cared about the Gamble Estate. Yet, under the same breath, they actively restored properties in Indian Hill for much more, but can't even spend a dime to stabilize the Gamble Estate. Something is fishy, or they just don't care about Westwood. Someone alluded to the old west-east rivalry, and I wonder if that plays a part?

 

In addition, he stated on Feb. 11 that he was no closer to demolition of the estate, yet had solicited bids the week prior. Then, an hour before the protest began a few days ago, he files a lawsuit to expedite the process. If that's not listening to the community's desires or even comments...

 

Another aspect to think over is his summer estate in Florida. It's on the National Historic Register, and has been declared a local landmark and preserved. It's a museum today. There are countless uses for the Gamble Estate, with my preference on a residence. There is another house (on another deed) behind the Gamble Estate and it is occupied -- by Greenhills, so I have to wonder if Greenhills has any intention of creating this so-called nature preserve on the house lot, or if they just wanted an expanded front yard.

There have been many interested parties -- some very wealthy, that have approached Greenacres to purchase the house, but they have categorically denied all offers.

Ok that does not make sense, something weird there if people are offering to buy but they are denying those offers.

 

While it is their property, if we allowed property owners to do as they willed and wished at times, we'd have very little of Over-the-Rhine remaining. Many of these historic properties that are cherished in the city today could have been demolished. It is with these preservation organizations and district overlays, along with landmark designations and activists that work on our behalf, that we are able to save these properties from demolition.

Agree, if someone comes along and takes over the property before it gets demolished by the owner then go for it. But if an owner of a property wants it gone, then that is their choice, but i would try to sell before destroying the property.

 

There is another house (on another deed) behind the Gamble Estate and it is occupied -- by Greenhills, so I have to wonder if Greenhills has any intention of creating this so-called nature preserve on the house lot, or if they just wanted an expanded front yard.

That is a good assumption, and maybe what they are looking for since they refused offers to buy the property.

 

I suck at trying to make a point typing, I would rather talk face to face, I make better points then. :yap:

 

Someone alluded to the old west-east rivalry, and I wonder if that plays a part?

 

I would hope that would not be the case, but I can tell you if this gets demolished it has the potential to reignite that sentiment. 

 

1) Look at just the past few years with (westside) members of CMHA pushing for more subsidized housing out east after decades of concentrating them in Price Hill and Westwood. 

2) And then we have the whole Westwood debating whether to secede from the city as well. 

3) I think it was last year that a nursing home in Price Hill was raided a few times then shut down over poor living conditions.  Again, the owner was from Indian Hill.

 

There is NO DENYING that the westside gets the shaft more times than not, albeit by the city or the absentee landlords who live out east.  It's very sad that our city is so divided, but all one has to do is look at history to see the writing on the wall. 

 

http://www.abandonedonline.net/index.php?catid=575

 

"If the Gamble house goes, Louise Nippert's legacy will be forever tainted west of I-75. West Siders have long memories. We will never forget how she was a champion of the arts with her millions, but gave nothing to save this historic house."

 

-Reg Goolsby, who lives across the street from the Gamble estate

From  Bob Prokop --

 

UPDATE from COURT HEARING:

Great turnout from supporters -- we had at least 16 people show up and pack the house! Council Member Jeff Berding was also in attendance to lend support -- thank you, Jeff! Larry Harris, Cincinnati's Urban Conservator was also in attendance.

 

The house will stand—at least for now. Monday's pre-...designation hearing with the Historic Conservation Board is a go -- so please plan on attending. We need to see LOTS of people in the house.

 

I'm not qualified to tell you exactly what happened in the courtroom today, but there was plenty of news media in the house -- so be watching the 12 noon news.

 

The important thing to understand from today is that the demolition permit was not issued, and the house will remain standing—at least long enough for it to go through proper Historic Conservation Board review.

 

More news to come later...

 

Thanks again for the GREAT showing!

cincybiker:

 

I understand your point about "if I own this property, I should be able to do what I want with it," but that's 1) not how things work, and 2) not how (I think) they should work. We have zoning ordinances, aesthetic regulations (signs, etc.), historic/landmark property designations, etc. The reason for this stuff is, when you own a piece of property in an area, you also own a stake in that area, generally. You have a responsibility to maintain your property in accordance with the consensus's expectations and the good of the community. If you're unwilling or unable to conform to these expectations, then you are free to buy property somewhere where what you want to do conforms to the local expectations.

 

Demolishing a house like the Gamble House (particularly when you're in a position to easily save it) is being a bad neighbor. It's not living up to your obligations to the community, or your social contract. Being an absentee landlord is another example of being a bad neighbor. Because what you do with your property has an effect on many outside things (local property values, aesthetic/historic character, density, etc.), it's not just a matter of "this is my property, I can do what I want."

 

If I break a dish I own, it doesn't hurt my neighbors, but if I tear down a house, it easily can. I knew this when I bought the land, so there is no excuse and no right to complain about restrictions on what I can do. Likewise, neighbors have every right to voice their concerns about what I want to do with my property: when I bought the property, I signed on to obligations to the neighborhood/municipality/county/state/country/etc.

From Bob Prokop --

 

UPDATE from COURT HEARING:

Great turnout from supporters -- we had at least 16 people show up and pack the house! Council Member Jeff Berding was also in attendance to lend support -- thank you, Jeff! Larry Harris, Cincinnati's Urban Conservator was also in attendance.

 

The house will standat least for now. Monday's pre-...designation hearing with the Historic Conservation Board is a go -- so please plan on attending. We need to see LOTS of people in the house.

 

I'm not qualified to tell you exactly what happened in the courtroom today, but there was plenty of news media in the house -- so be watching the 12 noon news.

 

The important thing to understand from today is that the demolition permit was not issued, and the house will remain standingat least long enough for it to go through proper Historic Conservation Board review.

 

More news to come later...

 

Thanks again for the GREAT showing!

 

City law department is looking into it.  Per City Hall--Problem with landmark Designation is that they already applied for demo permit (even if not yet awarded), so any subsequent Landmark designation will be insufficient to prevent a demolition.  They are trying to work on alternative strategies.

 

really, tho, public opinion and pressure in the right places is probably the only hope. 

^---"that's not how things work"

 

  What you are saying is that the nominal property owner doesn't really own the property if he can't control it.

 

  Zoning, historical preservation, etc., are socialist concepts. Everyone who lives in the neighborhood has a share of ownership of every property. It wasn't always like this in America. Whether socialism is good or bad is another topic.

 

 

^---"that's not how things work"

 

  What you are saying is that the nominal property owner doesn't really own the property if he can't control it.

 

  Zoning, historical preservation, etc., are socialist concepts. Everyone who lives in the neighborhood has a share of ownership of every property. It wasn't always like this in America. Whether socialism is good or bad is another topic.

He owns it, but there are regulations on what he can do with it. It's a mixture of capitalism and socialism, which reflects our government generally. I wouldn't say "he doesn't own it," but you're generally correct.

 

We'd have to do away with the notions of neighborhood and community if we were going to justify getting rid of these regulations. It's interesting to note that "conservatives" often lament the downfall of the neighborhood/community.

Zoning, historical preservation, etc., are socialist concepts. Everyone who lives in the neighborhood has a share of ownership of every property. It wasn't always like this in America. Whether socialism is good or bad is another topic.

 

I will try to make this brief -- but no, you are very wrong. It was always like this in America. Land use restrictions have been part of Western civilization since ancient Rome, continued on to England, and have been in place since the very earliest days of colonial America. The founding fathers would not understand nor would they support the concept of "property rights" as we know it -- that is a concept which has been developed, nurtured and sold post World War II by those who stand to make money when all regulation disappears. Property rights have always been intertwined with property responsibilities in the common law system of real estate ownership.

 

Historic district overlays make terrific economic sense because they provide stability in the marketplace. If a property owner makes a substantial investment, he or she knows that their neighbor cannot act in a manner which would jeopardize that investment. Conservatives and liberals should both embrace creating stable markets for investment.

 

    Zoning regulations as we know them and historic preservation have only occurred in the last century in Ohio. Sure, there have been regulations about sale of alcohol, building across property lines into streets, fences, and things like that, but there were never any rules regarding minimum lot sizes, setback, historic buildings, or any of that until after 1900.

 

  "Historic districts overlays make terrific economic sense because they provide stability..."

 

    Maybe in some cases, but they also prevent new development in others. Historic overlays don't always pay off.

Setback provisions and landscaping restrictions date back to ancient Rome, and land usage restrictions have hundreds of years of history in America (as far back as 1635). You are right in one sense -- these earlier restrictions were based on the law of nuisance, the idea that no one should be able to use their property in a way that unreasonably harms neighboring property, and not on "official" governmental action. Modern zoning arrived in the early 20th century, and Charleston (SC) adopted the first preservation ordinance in the 1930s, I believe. These governmental actions, however, merely codified pre-existing laws of nuisance.

 

Poorly created and inconsistently enforced historic overlay districts don't always pay off, true -- but that's why they should be administered fairly and completely. Those that are have a remarkable track record.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

New life for historic Gamble house

By Cliff Radel • [email protected] • March 8, 2010

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100308/NEWS01/303080112/New+life+for+historic+Gamble+house

 

The opponents were C. Francis Barrett, attorney for Greenacres Foundation, the house’s owner, and Carter Randolph, Greenacres’ vice president. Speaking for 22 minutes, 11 times the allotted two-minute limit, Barrett noted that his client “did not realize the strong sentiment” the house generated.  He asked the board to delay its decision.

 

Somehow, I call BS on Barrett. Randolph sensed that he was on the losing edge of the battle, and noted that his reputation and that of the fountain could have suffered greatly if this was demolished.

Fountain or foundation?

Somehow, I call BS on Barrett. Randolph sensed that he was on the losing edge of the battle, and noted that his reputation and that of the foundation could have suffered greatly if this was demolished.

totally agree with this analysis.

So, it looks like Greenacres lied to the city, claiming that zoning prohibited many (if all) practical uses for the house, giving it due cause to demolish the property. From the article,

"By the way, the Kissels have read every will and deed applying to the house. Enquirer research confirms their findings. No restrictions have been put in writing to prevent the house from being used as a museum or arts center."

 

Impact of James N. Gamble still felt in Cincinnati

By Cliff Radel, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 18, 2010

 

They called him Mister Gamble.

 

Because, James N. Gamble treated everyone with respect. And, he humbly showered his hometown, his neighbors and needy strangers with kindness.

 

As the battle rages over saving his beloved Ratonagh - the endangered Westwood home where he died at the age of 95 in 1932 - attention should be paid to James N. Gamble, the man. And, what a man he was.

 

Read on...

Surprisingly well written story!

Does anyone know if the family is involved?  The Procter or Gamble descendants?

Does anyone know if the family is involved? The Procter or Gamble descendants?

Louise Nippert, whose husband Louis Nippert was the grandson of James Gamble, is the one who donated the house to Greenacres Foundation. I believe she is the head of the Board, nominally, but she is something like 98 years old. So it seems this Carter Randolph dude runs the show, and he's a pretty unsavory character.

^---"that's not how things work"

 

  What you are saying is that the nominal property owner doesn't really own the property if he can't control it.

 

  Zoning, historical preservation, etc., are socialist concepts. Everyone who lives in the neighborhood has a share of ownership of every property. It wasn't always like this in America. Whether socialism is good or bad is another topic.

 

 

Without zoning EVERY street could have parcels that look like this!

Read the article... Greenacres further proves they are jackasses.

 

Judge puts off Gamble ruling pending tour

By Cliff Radel, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 26, 2010

 

The latest episode in the continuing saga of James N. Gamble's endangered house could be titled: "This Old House: Death Row Edition."

 

After hearing testimony Friday for 10 minutes shy of five hours - with no lunch break for the 32 spectators, witnesses and attorneys in the courtroom - Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Norbert Nadel decided to take what he had just heard under advisement.

 

He also decided to take a tour of the deteriorating house at 2 p.m. April 23. The house's next day in court is May 7.

If this does not piss you off, it seems as if Greenhills has been inside busy ripping up the flooring and carting away the decorative windows and woodwork. I don't think I've ever read anything so troubling, and whether there is legal ramifications for something so cowardly.

 

Gamble home tour brings surprises

By Cliff Radel, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 21, 2010

 

As befits a man who made soap for a living, James N. Gamble liked to take showers. He'd lather up with his invention - Ivory Soap - and then get really, really wet.

 

(...)

 

"The only things I've heard in the last three weeks," she said, "are the sounds of hammers and saws and crowbars. Workers have been boarding up the place and carting off the decorative windows."

As befits a man who made soap for a living, James N. Gamble liked to take showers. He'd lather up with his invention - Ivory Soap - and then get really, really wet.

Mmm, hot!

Carter Randolph & the silent trustees of the Greenacres Foundation have desecrated the Historic James Norris Gamble House and betrayed the trust & responsibilities bestowed upon them by the honorable Mr. & Mrs. Louis Nippert. Now, Randolph has ordered the building stripped of all value. Come take the gloves off at this protest in Indian Hill and help save the Gamble House from Randolph!

 

 

The GLOVES are OFF: PROTEST at INDIAN HILL

Date: Thursday, April 29, 2010

Time: 5:00pm - 7:00pm

Location: Indian Hill > Shawnee Run & Drake Road

 

"It just an old house... Won't you be glad when this old house is gone?"

-Attorney Fran Barrett, representing the Greenacres Foundation

 

Carter Randolph & the silent trustees of the Greenacres Foundation have desecrated the Historic James Norris Gamble House and betrayed the trust & responsibilities bestowed upon them by the honorable Mr. & Mrs. Louis Nippert. Randolph ordered the removal of beautiful architectural molding, trim, banisters, fret work, doors, and other interior (and perhaps exterior) details from the house during the past month — without cause, and without reason. The house was boarded up, with plywood on both the exterior AND the interior windows. One can only assume this "work" was performed to make the home look to be in worse shape than it really is in advance of Judge Nadel's visit to inspect/tour the house.

 

Shocked City officials described the scene as "...architectural rape..."

 

When word of the destruction reached preservationist Greg Kissel, the architect was visibly moved. "This is so sad," he said as he stood by the carriage gate. "This shows no regard for the historic nature of the house or the man who lived there."

 

Larry Harris, the city's urban conservator, was "stunned" by the piles of woodwork and missing window frames and doors. "If someone wanted to make this place look worse than it is," he said, "they sure did a bang-up job."

 

The behavior of Mr. Randolph and the Greenacres Foundation can no longer be excused or brushed aside. While the Cincinnati Preservation Association and the Westwood Historical Society have tried to negotiate with Carter Randolph in an honest and genuine fashion, they have been met with the exact opposite from the Foundation.

 

TO OUR EAST-SIDE SUPPORTERS: Please show up in force! This is our time to join hands once again and let the City know that this behavior is unacceptable and should not go unpunished.

WHAT: Protest of Carter Randolph and the current Board of the Greenacres Foundation and their desecration of the historic James Norris Gamble House when good-faith negotiations were supposedly underway.

WHEN: Thursday, April 29, 2010

TIME: Be at the Indian Hill protest location at 5:00PM

WEST-SIDERS: We have arranged for transportation via 2 full-sized buses. These vehicles are capable of carrying up to 48 passengers each — and we want to PACK THEM FULL! We will meet for a rally before the protest at 4:00PM on McKinley Avenue in Westwood (just off Werk). We will board the buses between 4:15PM and 4:30PM and head for the protest location at Indian Hill.

LOCATION: Corner of Shawnee Run & Drake Road, Indian Hill, Ohio. Stay on the sidewalk, and out of the bike lane :)

MAPS: Google Maps: http://bit.ly/cDyTkN | Bing birds-eye: http://bit.ly/b3jDEG

SIGNS: Let's see some creative signs! The media will no doubt be there in great numbers. It's time to turn up the heat!

Do any of the F500 players downtown donate to these clowns?

Gamble advocates take on Indian Hill group

By Cliff Radel, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 26, 2010

 

The gloves are off.

 

Preservationists are fighting mad over the apparent gutting of the James N. Gamble house in Westwood and plan to take on the endangered home's Indian Hill-based owner this week.

 

Westwood Concern, a grassroots community group, is circulating flyers featuring two bare-chested, bare-knuckled pugilists squaring off above the declaration, "The gloves are off." The fighters stand under the slogan: "Fix it or sell it."

The way the Green Acres foundation is acting is really surprising to me.  I worked with them in highschool while filming a movie for a class, and they were very nice, and accomodating.  They let us on their farm to film, and seemed like very nice people.  The farm has a number of historic structures, and the estate is historic and well preserved.  I wonder what the motive is for their actions regarding the Gamble house.

A lot of good vibes at yesterday's protest. I could not make it but would like to thank the supporters for coming out in droves!

 

Fate of Gamble House stirs protest

By Cliff Radel, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 29, 2010

 

For a boarded-up, run-down old place, James N. Gamble’s endangered Westwood mansion has seen plenty of action in the last 24 hours.

 

An offer was made to buy the 13-room Victorian home. Protestors drove to Indian Hill to object to the house’s proposed demolition. And, the mansion landed on a list of Ohio’s most-endangered sites.

 

The Cincinnati Preservation Association made the offer to buy the house from its owner, the Greenacres Foundation.

Cincinnati City Council likely to protect James Gamble House

By Jane Prendergast, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 11, 2010

 

Owners of the Gamble House in Westwood would have to get permission to change its exterior or tear it down if the Cincinnati City Council - as expected - votes Wednesday to protect the historic property.

 

The ordinance to designate part of the Werk Road property a "historic district overlay" passed through council's Livable Communities Committee on Tuesday after testimony from supporters of protecting the house.

Activity at the Gamble Estate

Abandoned, September 21, 2010

 

It has been made apparent that construction contractors at the historic Gamble Estate  in Cincinnati, Ohio have been busy this morning. According to Reginald Goolsby, a Westwood neighborhood resident, several industrial trucks, including a dump truck and a front-end loader, have arrived on the scene. Two news crews, one from WCPO, and the other from WKRC, had arrived and were told that a spokesperson from Greenacres would be made available for comment. Instead, Greenacres called for the Cincinnati Police, and had them escorted from the property.

Where have you been, Sherman!?

It has been made apparent that construction contractors at the historic Gamble Estate in Cincinnati, Ohio have been busy this morning. According to Reginald Goolsby, a Westwood neighborhood resident, several industrial trucks, including a dump truck and a front-end loader, have arrived on the scene. Two news crews, one from WCPO, and the other from WKRC, had arrived and were told that a spokesperson from Greenacres would be made available for comment. Instead, Greenacres called for the Cincinnati Police, and had them escorted from the property.

 

Saw the facebook group postings. So does anyone know what's really up? Looks like the dug trenches might be for irrigation or utility supply lines. The struggle to save the Gamble House has come too long of a way to now fall short. With all the public and media attention, I'd think the owners would not want to try and pull a fast one while in the public spotlight, no matter how arrogant they might be. They did turn down the independent offer to buy the property; was it not considered enough money or was it just an obstinate case of "sorry, but it's not for sale?" The immense community goodwill that this organization is thowing away in its irrational defiance boggles the mind. Do they really think Cincinnati citizens will appreciate the Gamble House being destroyed now after it was just unanimously declared a landmark? If they were that serious about wanting a demolition, they should have quietly had it done a long time ago; to do so now risks more damage to the organization's reputation than any further damage they might inflict on this historic landmark even if it comes down. Hopefully, somewhere in all of this reckless brinkmanship and one-upmanship, common sense and sanity will prevail. An independent negotiator should step in and bring the interested parties together to reach a suitable settlement. Even moving the house is perferable to destroying it. Are there no vacant lots nearby? Please post any new updates.

 

 

 

(Edit 09/22-2010 to fix missing quote bracket - Robert Pence)

^ Vacant lots?  They have something around 21 acres that surround the home that they COULD use.

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qhq3tb7yh6d0&scene=51568084&lvl=2&sty=b

 

This outfit is a disgrace to the Nippert name, and I wouldn't want to be affiliated with them in any way, shape, or form!!!  I'd prefer they keep their bags packed and march right back to Indian Hill.  They sure as hell won't get any support from any westsiders I know.  I don't care what they build or who it's for!!

Yes, I know about their large land holdings. That is not the point. If the objective is to save the Gamble House from destruction then a way has to be found to do it under the owner's terms, not to contemplate what you or I would do if we owned the house and property. Righteous indignation may be justified, but again, pragmatism must take precedence over outrage. If someone is holding your child hostage, you don't waste time by cussing the perpetrator out and vocalizing your anger, you put the child's safety first and try to find out what the perpetrator wants so the child can be rescued and saved. While the Gamble House is certainly not the same as a child being held hostage, neighborhood politics and anger must take a back seat to the primary goal of saving the landmark home because in essence, it IS being held "hostage" by owners hostile towards its preservation. Therefore, the terms under which they would allow it to be saved need to be persued and found out-if it's money, then how much? If it cannot be allowed to stand on its original site, then can it be moved? When? Where? Surely it means nothing to the organization whether the house is smashed to bits or moved off the land-either way, they get what they want. However, the time to make any arguments for or against the owning organization is after the house has been rescued and stabilized. Otherwise, you are just taunting the owners into a "I dare you to" situation and we all know how that usually ends. They probably need an opportunity to save face without appearing to capitulate. No legal means exists to remove their ownership of the property and a protracted stalemate will only hurt the house with even more deterioration. A stalemate is the current situation so why can't an outside party meet and try to find a common ground where the house can be saved? If the owners are completely opposed to any and all negotiation, then at least the offer needs to be left on the table while other strategies are explored. Those who cherish the history embodied in the Gamble House must never lose sight of the most important goal, which is to save it from destruction.

Where have you been, Sherman!?

 

Busy as hell, and traveling a lot :) I work as a full-time photographer for Xavier, and just did a two-week excursion out west.

 

@John S: The CPA offer was very generous, but was turned down. They even offered to pay for its relocation, but Greenacres wasn't interested in that either.

 

Interesting to note, they bothered to restore a yeast baron's house in Indian Hill, but can't be moved for a Gamble estate on the west side?

 

As for the construction equipment, it seems that they are preparing now (as of this morning) to relocate utility lines from the house.

Looks like they have stripped the entire house of its ornate woodwork, and have moved it to the barn. Their plan is to "recreate" a few rooms in the barn.

 

This fucking sucks.

Sherman,

I agree with you completely... by their actions, they are acting like a petulant child kicking his toys around the room in a tantrum. Hardly the kind of behavior one would expect from a responsible organization allegedly dedicated to teaching and training Cincinnatians about ecological awareness. Even the Enright eco-village in Price Hill has adaptively re-used its surrounding old houses. One of the mantras of the ecological movement is that the Greenest house is one that is already built, but this is not about anything ecological, it about a display of their "rights" to do as they please with anything that happens to be on their property. Using the child being held hostage example, in this case, they are now injuring the "child" just to taunt everyone. If it isn't sadistic, at the very least its deliberate and malicious. Again, hardly what one would expect from a group professing to have a community outreach mission. By going this destructive route, they are knowingly losing every shred of community credibility and goodwill and towards what logical purpose? To then say with proud swagger that they tore down a community landmark which even the City has recognized its value to the entire community? A good argument could be made that this re-creation from scratch of Gamble House "rooms" in the barn equals or exceeds the amount of labor and expense of restoring the original house-again, what is it about this house that demands its destruction? Since they were given a bona-fide generous offer and summarily refused it, the whole mess seems exceeding childish and would be a major embarassment and PR nightmare for most reputable organizations. At the very least, it would seem reasonable for them to tell local preservationists to just jack up and move the old house off the property within a feasible time limit. What possible good can come from sending tons of demolition debris to the landfill rather than allowing someone else to adaptively reuse the house? That's not very ecological or logical.

Winburn: City must take Gamble house

By Cliff Radel • [email protected] • September 24, 2010

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100924/NEWS0108/9250332/Winburn-City-to-seize-Gamble-house-

^ Was wondering when this was going to happen. You act like a child, the government might just treat you like a child and take your toys away.

I do not support tearing this down.  But if I understand the situation correctly and please let me know if I do not.  This is controled by a party actively seeking to tear it down.  That party has full control of the property and should be aware of the widespread opposition to its destruction but does not care.

 

While I don't support tearing the structure down; this sounds like a private property issue to me.  Many in the public don't want its destruction but those that control the property do.

 

I like the city getting involved in this but I don't like the way they are going about it and I can't support the eminent domain push.

As often happens, the real "story" was found in the comments section after the article. There are some very scary people in the local population who would apparently cheer with Emperor Nero-like glee if the entire city of Cincinnati were going up in flames. They not only oppose saving the Gamble House but want the new streetcar project quashed and basically would smile smuggly if Cincinnati regressed and spiralled downward into becoming the next Detroit. These myopic folks are certainly not city boosters but their attitudes disturbingly reveal underlying self-loathing. They actually want their city to fail. If they really hate their hometown that much, then why do they remain there? The guy who claimed he would be sitting there with his beer cooler happily watching the Gamble house being bulldozed was representative of this peculiar but sad mentality. Would he also bring a pile of objectionable books to burn in the bonfire?

 

As for the article, it was almost comical when the organization's lawyer quipped if the Gamble House's decorative windows were "inadvertently" taken out (by mistake?), then they would be put back in. In lawyer-speak: if their removal is deemed illegal, then it was an 'honest" mistake, and not a deliberate act. This admission suggests that no one working on the organization's property knows what's going on and no one is in charge. I think the facts support quite the opposite conclusion: that this organization is deliberately and maliciously defying everyone to assert some "rights" that they do not actually have.

 

If you or I were to seek to make major changes or demolish a structure, we would have to have a valid permit to do so. Their demolition permit is currently being challenged in the courts and until the matter is legally resolved, they do not have a valid permit to be deconstructing the Gamble House in the interim, but they are doing so anyway.

 

Emminent domain is a tricky legal strategy but in their defiant actions disregarding lawful process, the organization is not doing much to help their case. They hardly look like hapless "victims" but are day by day making themselves look more like the villains in this situation. At a minimum, they should respect the law and allow the legal process to proceed instead of acting like a mob of architectural vigilantes. If they should win this one in the courts, then it would be a mockery of justice and respect for the law.

don't lump those who are against the streetcar as being anti cincinnati.  One can be anti streetcar and pro city.

 

Did anyone read the article in Cincinnati Magazine about the person handling the foundation for the Nipperts?  Interesting take on the situation as to their opinion, which I don't agree with.  This entire process is a shame.

^^^These individuals who are in controll of the property did not buy the property outright themselves.  If an individual bought it, I would agree with you.  Lady Nippert is 98 years old and left it to HER organization back when she was in a better state of mind.  I'm sure her intentions were to use the 20 some odd acres of land as the park, not destroy one of the most historic structures left on the westside.  How many houses can say, Ivory Soap was invented here?  PG was born here, but unfortunately even the folks in the twin towers downtown don't recognize that.  I was born and raised off of this company and I am ashamed that they haven't stepped in and try to offer a solution on the matter, considering everybody involved has sucked off the company teet to get to where they are today.

 

They have been offered a buyout.  What's the point of dragging this out??

 

Louise Nippert, whose late husband was Gamble's grandson, presides over Greenacres. Nippert, 98, has never attended any hearing about the Gamble house. Greenacres' executive vice president, Carter Randolph, and attorney C. Francis Barrett represent her interests.

 

I'm going to have to quote and agree with two of my neighbors when I say " They're just being assholes, now!"

don't lump those who are against the streetcar as being anti cincinnati. One can be anti streetcar and pro city.

 

Ok, fair enough. I suppose the whole streetcar thing could turn into a boondoggle, it once did long ago. But it's hard to suggest having the goal of a viable public transportation system for the city as being a negative. But I'll leave that discussion right there as it is a whole 'nother topic. (with a long separate message topic thread)

 

I have read repeatedly about people wondering why P & G is not getting directly involved. Since this is an on-going private legal matter, why should they try to get involved in the controversy at this point? It makes more sense for them to await the ultimate outcome of the legal challenges before stepping up with donations or other assistance. Given that one of their major shareholders is involved, (Mrs. Nippert and her representatives) it makes perfect sense for them to maintain a position of neutrality until the matter has been resolved. From what little information I've seen posted, P & G is apparently interested in helping if the house is ultimately saved. One cannot realistically expect them to go against Mrs. Nippert and her representatives' wishes or to alternately, take an official position against saving the house. As a multi-national corporate entity, they are wise to seldom get publicly involved in local politics and neighborhood controversies, even if they are based in Cincinnati.