Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't say I have much recompense for people concerned about dallying around a 1 MIL or more neighborhood. If someone wants to tear it down, so what? If you want to preserve it then put your money out there and do so. Otherwise just let the natural course of events dictate what happens.
Just today I was talking to my son, also an engineer, and stated I consider my house an expendable, I don't care if it lasts beyond me. I have a 1/2 bath on our lower floor which does not now meet our needs. We need a full bath with handicap access. As I told him don't keep trying to fit everything into the current space. Take a couple of feet off that oversize garage and put some more space into the bathroom. In fact I am willing to sacrifice an actual garage to obtain the space for a truly handicap access 1st floor bath. The lot has plenty of space. So as father and son often do we argued a lot.
I'm with you on this...when people bemoan someone tearing a house/building down, my answer to them is if you don't want to see it torn down, why didn't you buy it? If someone is willing to buy a property, as long as they break no laws, I don't think anyone should be able to tell them what to do with it.
I have seen that the house is no longer on the market, but there are some new construction options that are at that address. I am speculating here, but I would guess that a developer bought the property overlooking the 7th hole of the golf course with the intent of tearing the house down and putting up 2 high dollar houses, each on about .18 acres (about the size of many new subdivision lots). Before just destroying the house and putting up the new ones, the developer decided to offer the house for sale, not the property, just the house, so that it could be torn down and as many of the features salvaged as possible. Unless someone was willing to pay the 3-4 million dollars they could get from the sale of the 2 new houses, there is no way they were going to sell the complete property to someone who was keeping the property intact.
I am in no way condoning the practice of destroying properties that have a historic significance, but at least the property was offered so that many of the features could be salvaged.
By the way, the pictures of the inside showed most of the woodwork was painted and the kitchen looked to be from the 50s or early 60s and just flat, painted doors. likely not original.
A few years ago, the HPNC had such a cow about that infill project along Observatory that they got the zoning changed to enforce certain setbacks and lot size requirements. It will be interesting to see if there is similar fallout from this.
I'm with you on this...when people bemoan someone tearing a house/building down, my answer to them is if you don't want to see it torn down, why didn't you buy it? If someone is willing to buy a property, as long as they break no laws, I don't think anyone should be able to tell them what to do with it.
Yup. Ultimately the owner should decide what to do with the property. Unfortunately the collectivist mindset of many seem to think they have the right to push their property rights agenda onto other property owners. Perhaps they should band together and take up a collection of funds to buy the property?
Yup. Ultimately the owner should decide what to do with the property. Unfortunately the collectivist mindset of many seem to think they have the right to push their property rights agenda onto other property owners. Perhaps they should band together and take up a collection of funds to buy the property?
A good statement of fact. The property owners should be the ultimate factor. If this is in fact an estate settlement. the heirs are the determining factor. Sell it to a developer, whatever, the decision is up to the heirs. Those concerned with preserving then have to contest with the marketability. If a developer says I can tear this down and build two new houses on the same property and am willing to pay this price, you have a baseline. Unless someone else is willing to match or exceed that cost, to me it is simple, down it comes.
Those who want to preserve the older architecture of this country need something better than Historical District, etc. to be the driving force. The upcoming generations, while they need to recognize the achievements of the past, should not be shackled by a debt to the past. I am content to let them determine their own path, and then in the end say Why Did I Not Listen More?
I am currently trying to decide how much to reconstruct my current house to serve the needs of the wife and myself. Have concluded screw the future. Our current need is a full handicap bathroom on the 1st floor for the wife. The son and I (another Engineer) are discussing this regularly. Naturally as father and son we argue a lot. The current 1/2 bath just doesn't do the job. We have discussed several options.
My current opinion is put a new opening off our kitchen/eating area into the garage and construct a totally new bathroom. Actually doesn't have to be totally new. We can share commode and such.
My intent is, remodel Your house with only one purpose in mind - what do you need?
I could care less about the future of design. I am living here in the current, this is my reality.
A good statement of fact. The property owners should be the ultimate factor. If this is in fact an estate settlement. the heirs are the determining factor. Sell it to a developer, whatever, the decision is up to the heirs. Those concerned with preserving then have to contest with the marketability. If a developer says I can tear this down and build two new houses on the same property and am willing to pay this price, you have a baseline. Unless someone else is willing to match or exceed that cost, to me it is simple, down it comes.
Those who want to preserve the older architecture of this country need something better than Historical District, etc. to be the driving force. The upcoming generations, while they need to recognize the achievements of the past, should not be shackled by a debt to the past. I am content to let them determine their own path, and then in the end say Why Did I Not Listen More?
I am currently trying to decide how much to reconstruct my current house to serve the needs of the wife and myself. Have concluded screw the future. Our current need is a full handicap bathroom on the 1st floor for the wife. The son and I (another Engineer) are discussing this regularly. Naturally as father and son we argue a lot. The current 1/2 bath just doesn't do the job. We have discussed several options.
My current opinion is put a new opening off our kitchen/eating area into the garage and construct a totally new bathroom. Actually doesn't have to be totally new. We can share commode and such.
My intent is, remodel Your house with only one purpose in mind - what do you need?
I could care less about the future of design. I am living here in the current, this is my reality.
I say, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. When the next generation goes to sell that place in Mason everyone will be happy to tear out the ramps, ditch the first floor bedroom and commode and take down all of the handrails, etc. especially the realtor. It won't add a speck to the cost of fixing it up for sale and you and your wife will have enjoyed greater safety and comfort in your senior years. Everyone wants that for you.
I say, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. When the next generation goes to sell that place in Mason everyone will be happy to tear out the ramps, ditch the first floor bedroom and commode and take down all of the handrails, etc. especially the realtor. It won't add a speck to the cost of fixing it up for sale and you and your wife will have enjoyed greater safety and comfort in your senior years. Everyone wants that for you.
My point exactly. It served our purpose and the 5 bedrooms raised 4 great kids of which I am immensely proud. But now our needs are different. I look at the 1 acre lot and we are happy, feeding all of our wildlife. I keep saying to myself this land is beautiful and they are not building more land.
If I destroy part of this property in the process, so what? The lot is wide enough to support a car port on the side. I am certainly convinced our aging population will be needing handicap housing in the future. Like me, many will be needing an older child to move back home, SOBEIT.
My purpose is simply this. Reconfigure the property you live in for Your needs. Could care less about the future. This much I know, the aging population will require more handicap accessibility.
If I can convert a standard 5 bedroom subdivision house into a handicap accessible vehicle with still 4 intact bedrooms and 2 baths on the 2nd floor, don't believe I am going wrong. Even if I am, WTFK.
If I can convert a standard 5 bedroom subdivision house into a handicap accessible vehicle with still 4 intact bedrooms and 2 baths on the 2nd floor, don't believe I am going wrong. Even if I am, WTFK.
This BS has been going on around Greater Boston for 20 years or so. As usual, Cincinnati is just now catching up. Whether in satellite cities comparable to Norwood or Hamilton, or in "precious" suburbs comparable to Mariemont or Glendale, it wreaks devastation on a neighborhood's appearance and does real damage to its "vibe." You go from having a distinct yet uniform row of houses to one where the row is broken up by disproportionately large McMansions or closely-packed generic "townhomes," where most of the properties have inviting yards but the new construction takes up so much lot capacity that the buildings run right smack up against the sidewalk.
Look no farther than Montgomery's older neighborhoods (constructed during the 1950's and '60s) for a prime example of aesthetic destabilization wrought by tear-downs. It's going at a pretty fierce clip over there. And it's all because Millennials insist upon "everything brand-new" and don't believe a 3 or 4-BR 2-BA ranch house or split-level with a two-car garage could possibly be adequate for their childless or one-child selves. What a country.
For examples of what the CPA has been able to purchase and save, I offer...the Gamble House in Westwood - oops, nope. How about Walnut Hills Presbyterian Church? Oops, only one tower was preserved to overlook a parking lot and the far-from-rapidly redeveloping Gilbert Ave. How about the Theda Bara villa at Ledgewood and Victory Parkway? Oops, XU literally called in wrecking crews in the dead of night on that one. How about the Christian Moerlein mansion in CUF on McMillan St, more recently known as Lenhardt's? Oops, fumbled there too. Beyond that their track record for preservation stays far from stellar. Not good - and that's putting it mildly.
City leaders seem to not realize what sets Cincy apart from other cities in the region such as Indy and Columbus and through lack of vision and sense of history this city in 20 to 30 years will be just as drab aesthetically as those two and other sunbelt cities. Following generations will wonder in amazement of how city leaders let this happen in the same way we wonder why such monstrosities such as those donut stadiums like Riverfront stadium were built in the name of progress and modernity.
City leaders seem to not realize what sets Cincy apart from other cities in the region such as Indy and Columbus and through lack of vision and sense of history this city in 20 to 30 years will be just as drab aesthetically as those two and other sunbelt cities. Following generations will wonder in amazement of how city leaders let this happen in the same way we wonder why such monstrosities such as those donut stadiums like Riverfront stadium were built in the name of progress and modernity.
Being able to save history is expensive. Whether it is deciding whether to tear down a price hill mansion whose materials are worth triple the sum of the house and property itself or deciding whether to rehab a historic landmark. I think both are tremendously important, but it isn't fair to think of the difference between Cincy and some place like Boston being simply 'respect for history' or some other sentiment. It is strictly dollars and cents. It's dead simple to save a building or entire district if you can rehab it and turn a profit in the end. But to save these places otherwise requires far more money than any local government can dream of controlling.
Of course, in the case at hand, a simple historic district would take care of the problem. As Wilson points out, locals may not see a problem at all. Which I guess means I've sort of talked myself into agreeing with you, even though I set out to do the opposite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether in satellite cities comparable to Norwood or Hamilton, or in "precious" suburbs comparable to Mariemont or Glendale, it wreaks devastation on a neighborhood's appearance and does real damage to its "vibe." You go from having a distinct yet uniform row of houses to one where the row is broken up by disproportionately large McMansions or closely-packed generic "townhomes," where most of the properties have inviting yards but the new construction takes up so much lot capacity that the buildings run right smack up against the sidewalk.
