Residents show support for preserving Gamble house (Cincinnati, Green: how much, lawyers)

[Cincy Rider]

From cincinnati.com

By Jane Prendergast • November 3, 2010

More than 200 people packed a Cincinnati City Council hearing Wednesday night about the future of the Gamble house, and not one person spoke against preserving it.

Twenty-five people testified - all of them in favor of the city using eminent domain to take the Westwood home that formerly belonged to James Gamble, the creator of Ivory soap. No decision was made, though Councilman Charlie Winburn tried to force the issue. Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls shut him down, saying the hearing was only a step in the process and that council would discuss the next step with city lawyers. Winburn knew that ahead of time, but tried it anyway.

Fred Berger, of Westwood, compared the house to a valuable violin and said demolishing it would be like smashing a Stradivarius. He'd been in the house several years ago, he said, and found it fit for a dinner party, just missing the furniture.
Lari Belivanakis, also of Westwood, chose a 100-year-old home in the neighborhood because she loves the architecture. She's appalled, she said, "at even the notion that people would want to tear down this country's history."
The house is owned by the Greenacres Foundation, which wants to tear it down and turn the property into a park. Opponents to that say the city should take the house and turn it in to an educational facility. What still isn't known, Qualls said, is how much buying, preserving and maintaining the house could cost the city. She said much of the money to do those things would have to come from the city's general fund, which faces a $60 million deficit next year.


1. This line is confusing because opponents in this context isn't defined. Also this is misleading, adding a 3rd option when the two main options are the house being demolished or the house being preserved.

2. Greenacres wants to demolish the house and turn it into a PRIVATE "park"

3. Aren't there were offers to purchase and maintain the house with PRIVATE funds?

Overall a poorly written article that is muddying the water for an agenda I can't figure out.

[progmac]

honestly the enquirer writers just don't know how to write. or the editors are really bad. i could get over the paper's clear conservative bias if the stories and pieces reached even a college-level of journalism. it's aggravating how we have the worst paper in the state.

[deg1114]

Originally Posted by progmac

honestly the enquirer writers just don't know how to write. or the editors are really bad.

The printed edition is pretty bad but cincinnati.com is even worse. How many times have you seen a story that has a catchy headline and the only subject matter is, "we will provide details as we get them". Check back later and there are no details and no story. Pure lazy.

I really don't know what I think about the Gamble House to tell you the truth. I am all for preserving historic architecture but I can't imagine the city taking on another place for a park. I would hate for them to take this on and then have to make cutbacks across the board that could impact the really great parks like Eden Park and Ault Park. My first thought on saving the house was that someone should reach out to P&G to purchase it. If anything, they could use it as an employee retreat - a place to have conferences or team building and perhaps open it to the public on the weekends.

[progmac]

there are choices between razing and public acquisition. certainly there is a way forward that doesn't involve bulldozing something irreplaceable.

[Vintrest]

Cincinnati Preservation Association submitted a generous bid for the property and it was summarily rejected without stating it was not enough or by giving any other reason. Restored, it could help tell the story of Westwood and the business legacy of the Gamble family and their importance to Cincinnati. The current owners propose putting up a couple of rooms in the barn behind the house to tell that story, but being able to tour the unusual historic house would obviously be a much more personally rewarding experience. The more one looks into the recent controversy surrounding this house and property, the less logical any of it seems. A supposedly environmental awareness organization wants to send tons of demolition debris to the landfill rather than find an adaptive re-use for the historic home which would be the environmentally responsible thing to do. And the "Green" mantra regarding structures is that the "Greenest" structure is one that is already built. Again, the whole thing is more about specific personality clashes between individuals than based on any practical principles, hence all of the public outcry and calls for using eminent domain in this unique situation. I just hope it gets resolved soon.