City Wide Demolition (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton: for sale, foreclosed, insurance)

[CinciFan]

Cincy should be doing everything they can to save these historic buildings, not destroy them.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by CinciFan

Cincy should be doing everything they can to save these historic buildings, not destroy them.

I think that's the key. But not all of them are historic. Crappy apartment buildings come to mind.

[CinciFan]

Agreed. By all means, tear down all those crappy 60's era apartment buildings along Harrison Avenue. That would be great for Westwood if developers could come in and build some nice, high quality (nothing like Incline Village) market rate units along that stretch. But if it has a cornice or other unique architectural features, leave it alone.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

I think that's the key. But not all of them are historic. Crappy apartment buildings come to mind.

That makes sense to me. But is anyone keeping track of the about to fall down, cheap ass buildings on the demolition list versus the historical architecture buildings worth saving?

CinciFan has done a great job capturing the various investments in the core City and their impact in the Development News thread. I know it impresses me.

Is anyone familiar with the subject able to take on the load in a separate thread to document the succeses or failures of the demolition of historical properties? I know it is more complicated and documented occasions are fewer. But it seems like a worthwhile endeavor.

[progmac]

it is one thing to say, 'save the buildings!!!' it is quite another to find people to live in them or repair them. it isn't half a dozen buildings or something. it is hundreds upon hundreds. who foots the bill for keeping them up?

if you had a vacant building next to you, a vacant building that was used for crime, and one that no one will buy, what would you want?

[natininja]

progmac, the alternative is usually an overgrown empty lot, frequently used for dumping. At least the blighted building has more taxable value. And that $9k for demolition doesn't materialize out of nowhere.

kjbrill: You might be interested in the "Wrecking Cincinnati" series on this blog: www.building-cincinnati.com
As well as the Public Nuisance lists, etc.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by progmac

it is one thing to say, 'save the buildings!!!' it is quite another to find people to live in them or repair them. it isn't half a dozen buildings or something. it is hundreds upon hundreds. who foots the bill for keeping them up?

if you had a vacant building next to you, a vacant building that was used for crime, and one that no one will buy, what would you want?

Very simple - DEMO it! That is why I believe those who believe there are buildings worth saving, either due to their design/architecture or whatever need to step up and spearhead the activity to save them.

I will be most honest, in my opinion if it is over 50 years old, level it and build something new. But that is just my opinion. Anyone who wants to fight to preserve old architecture is also entitled to their opinion. I simply say don't expect everyone else to embrace your outlook. If it is your passion then back it up with both your physical energy and your pocketbook. But don't expect everyone else to fund the endeavor.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

I will be most honest, in my opinion if it is over 50 years old, level it and build something new. But that is just my opinion.

No, you don't have to embrace anything from anyone else, we're cool as far as that goes.

My point is this: Usually, if the building is more modern then the building tends to be more cheaply made within middle class neighborhoods. With your background, even you have to admit you will not find the craftsmanship in new construction (unless mega bucks are involved) that you did a hundred years ago. This is why restoration and preservation is a speciality of it's own.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by CinciFan

Cincy should be doing everything they can to save these historic buildings, not destroy them.

I agree. I think by saying Cincy (correct me if I am wrong) you mean the city of Cincinnati. This is where it will take people like restorationconsultant organizing efforts to stave off the demolition of worthy properties. Just my 2 cents anyway.

[CinciFan]

I am not always against demolition of older buildings. I am fine with it, as long as they are being replaced with something of comparable quality. In my opinion tearing down a beautiful old building to make way for a parking lot, vacant lot, or piece of crap new building (ex. Cranley's Incline Village development) is a real lost opportunity. If however, a building or two (not in a historic district) needs to come down for a well designed, high quality building, then I will probably be ok with it.