Preservation Sans Politics

WHO NEEDS VICTORIAN WHEN WE HAVE HOME DEPOT

2009-05-29T17:18:00.000-07:00

The image with this post is a 1994 photo of a house in Cleveland, Ohio's famed "Ohio City" Historic District. As of this very day, its original 1897 front porch, has been removed and replaced with a psuedo-"Victorian" front porch, parts courtesy of Home Depot. This is nothing less than an outrage. This is nothing less than full-blown ignorance, and certainly full-blown arrogance. This type of work, according to Cleveland law, can not be done without going in front of a design-review-board, and without getting a permit. Neither was done. The owners have been here for a good number of years and must know 'the rules'. But, perhaps the biggest 'crime' is going to be, if previous similar examples dictate, the City will subject the owners to little more than the proverbial slap-on-the-wrist. There never seems to be any actual punishment for acts like this. Knowing this, why should any owners of historic buildings heed the law? If 'right' could prevail, the original columns and balustrades should be ordered replaced, or, if gone, rebuilt in a similar fashion. But, this is just a pipe-dream in this long-pathetic environment, isn't it?

IGNORANCE PIT

2009-04-24T17:27:00.001-07:00

Pictured here are images of the latest historic Cleveland building whose senseless demolition is being presently planned by the world-famous Cleveland Clinic, who has devoured an area the size of a small city, sometimes vacating entire former streets in their madness to build more and more shiny new structures to dazzle the eyes with. Reportedly built in 1930 as the Carnegie Medical Building, it is a fairly impressive example of the Art Deco style. According to a recent Cleveland newspaper article, the Clinic construction manager referred to this building as a "money pit", that it would be "substandard in comparison with other Clinic buildings", would always be "dark and cramped", and would have only "half the usable space" that other Clinic buildings have. It's always so convenient to use the tired "money pit" cliche, isn't it? What all this really tells us is that the Clinic wants only new buildings. They have no respect for history. Guess what's presently planned for the site -- a parking lot. And just how well will that "structure" measure up to the Clinic's lofty standards for structures? And what about the collosal waste of embodied energy that destroying such a large building will result in? Who cares about Sustainability, here? The only "pit" that's "substandard" and "dark and cramped" is the shallow cesspool of thought that ultimately leads to decisions to destroy buildings like this -- the Ignorance Pit.

SEA OF HOLES

2009-01-19T15:23:00.000-08:00

A perhaps even larger hole [see previous post] to soon appear on a main Cleveland, Ohio, thoroughfare will be on Euclid Avenue, just east of E. 55th. Also scheduled for demolition are two adjacent commercial buildings, one built in 1882 to the designs of Cleveland architects Albert Smith and Anthony Myers [the bottom image], and its 'annex' built in 1895 to the designs of the same, then-partnerless Albert Smith. These two buildings are the sole surviving vestiges of the period when a bustling commercial district existed right here due to the highly used passenger rail station at E. 55th and Euclid. When rail travel declined, so did this district, followed not long after by the severe decline of all of Euclid Avenue and its nearby streets. Interestingly, with the recent cosmetic overhaul of Euclid Avenue, inflatingly promoted as the beginning of a "revival" of the avenue's glorious past, it was easy to think that what was built literally during that hallowed era would be coveted. But, no -- the hypocrisy here knows no bounds. Other historic buildings, across the street from these two, were recently demolished [see the November 2005 archives of this blog] for a 'bike-lane' (which, of course, has since been "used" about as much as the new sidewalks adjacent to it, in front of the expansive now-vacant lots). Clearly, the misguided "Urban Renewal" philosophies of the 1950s are still "alive and well" in Cleveland, even when the "renewal" results in vacant lots. The Beatles wrote about a presumed-imaginary place called the Sea Of Holes -- but, Cleveland is revealing to the whole world that it wasn't imaginary, after all!!

FROM HOLY...TO HOLE

2009-01-19T14:59:00.000-08:00

Some unusually large holes will soon appear on certain main thoroughfares in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, due to the unusually large historic buildings whose demolition is planned for the very near future. One is St. Peter's Hall, the Gothic-Second Empire structure next door to St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church, on Superior Avenue at E. 17th. Built in 1874 as a parochial school and hall for St. Peter's, many Clevelanders will remember it as Erieview Catholic High School, functioning at this location from its founding in 1971 to its demise in 1993. A designated Cleveland Landmark for many years, the local Catholic diocese has been wanting to demolish it for nearly as long. Allowing it to slowly deteriorate (even though this sort of willful neglect is in violation of the Landmark ordinances -- which is cancelled out by the fact that the City has NEVER enforced these ordinances), the diocese has finally been able to demonstate that the deterioration now qualifies for official "nuisance/hazard" designation from the City's Building Department. Meanwhile, with the very successful conversion of a greatly deteriorated historic clothing factory to upscale residential suites, only a block or so from this building, St. Peter's Hall has been an obvious candidate (to at least some of us) for bringing yet more disillusioned suburbanites back to "downtown" Cleveland. But, alas, what we get, instead, is yet another example of "Classic Cleveland" -- one step forward, followed by ten steps backwards.

CLEVELAND'S DEMOLITION MONSTER MAKES ANOTHER KILL

2009-01-12T17:06:00.000-08:00

If you live in the Cleveland, Ohio, area and are interested in historic buildings, you almost certainly are aware of the historic house, built in 1903, in the local Tremont Historic District that was demolished, last month, by the City, against the owner's wishes. This event ignited a firestorm of controversy. This posting represents this blog's perspective on the matter. It seems there was a pronounced difference of opinion as to whether or not this house was in the sort of physical condition that could 'necessitate' demolition. But, it seems the more important topic is whether or not this building was demolished because the City's Building Department personally disliked the owner. It is an absolute fact that there are seemingly countless buildings, all around the city, that are in far worse condition than this house could have been considered by anyone -- buildings that have been that way for far longer -- and, somehow, this particular house's fate was seemingly "rushed". The Building Department has had several "run-ins" with the owner over the past several years. "Politics", indeed. It is nigh time that the long-standing 'methodology' in Cleveland -- a Building Code that isn't enforced, followed by easily 'enforced' demolitions -- needs to end. Sometimes it seems like there is more vacant lots in Cleveland than there are ones with buildings on them, and it sure seems like the City is pretty damn comfortable with that. [NOTE: The image accompanying this post is a Board Of Zoning Appeals photo, taken in 1981, of this just-demolished house, courtesy of the Cleveland Public Library's Photo Collection. The house still had its front-porch, at this time, as you see.]

MORE HISTORY BEING "DEVELOPED" AWAY

2008-07-10T17:25:00.001-07:00

Back to the bad news, unfortunately. And, once again, it is the shameless Cleveland, Ohio, where the latest scene of depravity is playing out. No less than three historic buildings, all adjacent and two unusually large due to multiple units, are being led to the sacrificial alter by the ward councilperson, eager to please a developer who, for some unknown reason, has chosen the site of these three buildings for his plan. This is located in the very historic Brooklyn Centre district, one of the oldest areas on Cleveland's west side. There are vacant tracts nearby, and there are buildings of more recent construction and lesser significance nearby that could be removed, instead. More than likely, the site is appealing because there is no more than three owners to deal with. One of these buildings is a terrace ("rowhousing") built in 1905 and designed by Cleveland architect George King, perhaps best known locally for the Kennedy building on the southeast corner of Detroit & W. 65th. Another building is a strip of stores, built in 1921. The remaining building is a residence, unsympathetically altered, built in the 1880s. Certainly the councilperson is in a position to steer the project away from this site, but, he seems indifferent. Being indifferent about its history is, unfortunately, Cleveland's greatest claim to infamy. One by one, the history of this city is shipped to the local landfills. What will Cleveland be like when the very last historic building is gone?

GOOD THINGS SOMETIMES DO HAPPEN

2008-03-06T17:19:00.001-08:00

It will most likely surprise -- or even shock -- the regular visitors to this blog to see a post that is NOT about a threatened or doomed building. But, for a good number of recent years, this actually was a threatened building. It seems nearly unbelievable that this, somehow, reversed itself. Originally known as the George Howe mansion, it is one of the tiny handful of mansions still standing on the long-ago-glorious Euclid Avenue of Cleveland, Ohio. Designed by Cleveland architects Coburn & Barnum and built in 1893, its exterior is more Renaissance Revival than any style one would expect from 1893. Although having suffered losses of some interior features and unrestorable deterioration of other features, an impressive combination restoration-renovation has recently been completed by its owner, Cleveland State University. The main staircase and several fireplace mantels have survived and look great, today. Primarily, it is already being used for some graduate studies offices, and will also be used as a conference center.

RAPE IN THE CHURCHYARD

2008-01-28T10:29:00.000-08:00

I hope my readers won't mind the absence of a photo with this particular post. This post is about the very same building whose photo appears in the immediately previous post -- the former convent at St. Stanislaus, Cleveland, Ohio. By an almost 'freak' set of circumstances, I was just told of how some individual has paid $30,000 for "salvage rights" to the old convent, and has already begun to sell off anything and everything, including interior architectural features. I guess the fate of this building is fairly obvious now. It would appear that money -- as always -- has once again emerged "victorious" over History. From a local diocese that has a long and inglorious track-record regarding their planned destruction of buildings they cease to use, this certainly comes as no surprise.

IGNORANCE IN THE CHURCHYARD

2007-08-01T17:39:00.000-07:00

Ironically, this next post has some 'similarities' to the previous one. At the very least, the 'villian' is, once again, a Roman Catholic church in the Northeast Ohio Diocese. St. Stanislaus, in Cleveland's "Slavic Village" neighborhood, has decided to demolish their architect-designed Convent, built in 1917. Why? They no longer use many convents, these days, as homes for the 'Sisters' and, so, they think this means it "can no longer can be used" -- which then leads to: "Therefore, it must be demolished." Why does this tunnel-vision type of thinking continue to persist all around us? Why do so many persons, and/or organizations, continue to think that just because they alone can not use a building, that that means it "can't be used"?? For God's sake, have none of these people ever heard of (or even attended) yard-sales, garage-sales, and the like? One man's "junk" is very often some other man's "treasure", as the old saying goes. This particular building isn't even in bad condition, according to a very reliable source. Reportedly, there is some effort at present to find a buyer or tenant that St. Stanislaus will accept. Or, negatively, perhaps they have stubbornly already made up their minds. We'll let you know....

...ANGELS THEY AREN'T...

2007-07-26T17:51:00.000-07:00

By the time any of you read this, it may be true that the building this post is about has been demolished. The building in question is a 1922 Mediterranean Revivial house built for Cleveland brewer Ernst Mueller in his twilight years. He chose to build on a property he had already owned for some years, which had been used at first as a family picnic ground. This is on Rocky River Drive, in Cleveland's West Park neighborhood. This street, adjoining the picturesque valley of the Rocky River, had been a bit of a favorite for country-homes for some of Cleveland's well-heeled, from c. 1890 to c. 1930. Somehow, though, this property later came into the possession of Our Lady Of Angels (they arrived here decades ago, as well), who were immediately to the south of the Mueller property. Now, they have announced they are going to demolish this house -- apparently for the "typical" sort of reasons (e.g., it's old, and/or we have no use for it). The image with this post is a vintage one, certainly taken while Mueller still lived there. As I stated at the beginning of this post, it may already be in some local landfill by the time you read this. [NOTE: This house was demolished, July 30th.]

WIRTH HOUSE.........AGAIN!!

2007-06-11T17:30:00.000-07:00

It has been called to my attention that it has been way, way, way too long since I last made a post. True. The blog is not my entire life. I do other things. My head is still in the same place. I haven't abandoned any and all efforts to help save historic structures worth saving. It has also been called to my attention that another post regarding the threatened Wirth House, Cleveland, Ohio, needs to be made. [Please see September 2006 for previous post.] I hereby submit to the requests of some of the blog's viewers. Wirth House is a house built in 1884 for Frederick Wirth, the final Postmaster of the Village Of Brooklyn, Ohio, before it was annexed to Cleveland, Ohio. The house is owned by a private art-school, who originally planned on restoring/renovating the house for its use. But, they immediately occupied another building on the site...and NEVER did any work on Wirth House. A few years ago, they announced that they wanted to DEMOLISH Wirth House. Why? Apparently, they hate History. Their slogan is "Where Art Lives", but we know that there must be a 'codicil' at the end that reads "And Where History Dies". Numerous citizens who live nearby have expressed their opposition to this. The art-school does not care. After all, they apparently HATE HISTORY -- hence, History must be Destroyed. And this is "Art"?????

Chipping Away History, Building By Building

2006-11-21T17:46:00.000-08:00

Cleveland, Ohio, continues to be one of the shameless leaders in the race to rid itself of all buildings more than 20 years old. One of the latest casualties was a commercial building, with living quarters above, built in 1911 (see photo). It was in perfectly good condition (although the storefronts had been covered over), but, since it was more than 20 years old, it had to go. It has joined many of its former neighbors, along Cleveland's Clark Avenue, near W. 25th Street, in the city's landfills. Old buildings on Clark Avenue have been "dropping like flies", lately. The neighborhood development corporation is undoubtedly promoting this foolishness, which certainly makes it a lot easier to raze the buildings. There is this illusion that everyone with 'influence' on Clark Avenue has that features all sorts of new buildings, with wonderful businesses, popping up like magic to fill in all the spaces left by these senseless demolitions. So far, the only thing Clark Avenue has to "brag" about is a lot of vacant lots. Meanwhile, its long and important history is being chipped away, building by building. "The only 'good' old building is a demolished one." is certainly the 'motto' on Clark Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio.

"Preservation Hall Of SHAME"

2006-10-25T17:55:00.000-07:00

We think the time has come to make an official 'designation' to what we are calling the "Preservation Hall of SHAME". It goes to the one and only Lakewood [Ohio] Board Of Education. So far, in the past year, they have demolished several of their older school buildings, plus they have destroyed an entire block of older houses to expand an adjacent campus (see August 2005 posts). Their latest -- and to be certain not their last -- indignity involves their current plan to demolish the High School -- built in 1916 to the designs of an esteemed local architect named Charles Hopkinson, and, due apparently to plans for a larger campus overall, have acquired several adjacent (at the rear) turn-of-the-century residences that will be demolished. One of these houses is pictured with this post. The City of Lakewood is one of those places that has absolutely no legislation that pertains to historic preservation. Many Lakewood residents would like this, but the political-machine wants no potential interference to any potential new-construction. This is a classic case of the ostrich-with-its-head in the sand; for all its pretenses about 'progressive' thinking, it still believes the very regressive philosophy that older buildings have no real value. If this sort of thing continues, where are the students going to live???

BROAWAY MILLS BUILDING......CONTINUED

2006-06-19T16:55:00.000-07:00

In my initial post regarding the threat to the Broadway Mills building, I indicated that I would eventually post at least two additional images of the building. So far, I had posted one additional image. This post is meant, primarily, to get another image posted. This, too, is a view of a section of the building, near the top, showing some of the carved elements that make this an usually interesting structure. I have not heard anything 'new' regarding the freeway-project that threatens to destroy this building. When I do, though, it will certainly be posted!! Meanwhile, please enjoy this new image.

WHO ASKED FOR THIS NEW FREEWAY, ANYWAY??

2006-05-15T16:51:00.000-07:00

As promised in the previous posting, I am continuing my comments about the proposed destruction of the Broadway Mills Building and the Central Viaduct fragments alongside it. Posted with this is another photo, this time a close-up, showing just two of the six expertly carved medallions on the Broadway Mills Building. Also, today, I'd like to ask a question that I don't think anyone's asked: Whose idea was it, anyway, to "improve" the Innerbelt? I know that I wasn't asked, and I never heard about anyone being asked. Do we really need to "improve" the Innerbelt, in the first place? Or, is this just another bureaucratic-invented project created to give expensive jobs to construction companies?? This project, to me, has the same foul 'smell' as the Euclid Corridor Project [what exactly is 'wrong' with public transit on Euclid Avenue, anyway?]. Is anyone aware of what freeway construction has done to Los Angeles? I think that it's the Innerbelt that should be demolished. What about replacing it with something similar to that 'boulevard' plan suggested for the West Shoreway? Bottom line: Cleveland has had far, far, far too much history destroyed in the name of 'Progress' (or 'Improvement'). Destroying our History is too large a price to pay. Period.

MORE LOCAL HISTORY TO BE LOST FOR FREEWAYS???

2006-05-08T16:35:00.000-07:00

With this post is a photo of a building built as a flour-mill in 1894, designed by architect John N. Richardson. Historically, it is known as the Broadway Mills building. It is located in Cleveland, Ohio, near the Cuyahoga River industrial-valley and, more pertinently, very near a freeway. Plans are now afoot to "re-do" that freeway. Details just lately being revealed include -- what else?? -- the "need" to DESTROY nearby buildings, including the Broadway Mills building. Although the image with this posting does not really show details, there are medallions made of either stone or terra-cotta, along an upper floor, that depict grains, plus there are two more medallions that provide the year of construction. Cleveland architecture has suffered greatly because of freeways. We've lost irreplaceable Euclid Avenue mansions, and both the Brooklyn Centre and Tremont historic neighborhoods have been bisected -- just to mention a very few examples. An attempt by the Cleveland Landmarks Commission to landmark this building is presently being made. Meanwhile, certain local activists are already getting media publicity on this, and related, freeway plans. Freeway projects need to consider the damage they may cause to a community's history. It's a 'bigger picture' than just this one building that really matters. Look for a couple more postings, with other photos, of this building, soon.

WHO NEEDS HISTORY WHEN WE CAN HAVE "GREEN SPACE"?

2006-02-15T17:08:00.000-08:00

This posting concerns a building in Strongsville, Ohio, in the southwest corner of Cuyahoga County. The building threatened with demolition is the old Town Hall. If memory serves correctly, this is the last remaining frame historic town hall in this area. Although nothing "absolute" has actually been revealed, it appears that the City Of Strongsville, particularly the Mayor's Office, wants to remove this building because of a developer's proposal to build some condominiums, nearby. It doesn't need the ground the old town hall sits on. But, the old town hall will be blocking a particular view from the condominiums, if built. The mayor's representatives have been confering with the Strongsville Historical Society, on and off for several months. In the first meetings, they said they wanted to get it on the National Register and then use tax-credits to make repairs. In the latest meeting, they were saying they'd like to see the building 'moved'......for "green space". Despite all this dancing around and all the smoke-screens, it is pretty obvious what is planned. Please contact Karen Lehman, with the Strongsville Historical Society, at kmlehman1@hotmail.com, if you have any good ideas.

MORE NARROW-MINDEDNESS -- THIS TIME IN BURTON, OHIO

2005-11-15T16:40:00.000-08:00

We're finally getting around to stating our two-cents-worth regarding a story that's nearly a month old, now. Perhaps many of you -- if living in the northeast Ohio area -- are already familiar with the story. The Fire Department in Burton, Ohio -- a small community whose every attraction is directly or indirectly related to history -- has announced its intention to destroy a 140-year-old school building, which is located nextdoor to the fire-station and is owned by the Fire Department, so as to 'expand' its operation. You can find an article about this in the October 19th, 2005, edition of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The "best" part of this article is a quote from the Fire Chief, which is, as follows: "I'm all for preserving history, until it infringes on progress....We can't let an 1800s building get in the way of that." And that pretty well sums it all up, doesn't it? Essentially, this worship of the God of "Progress" is what has caused the destruction of historic architecture across the nation. Just what exactly is it about History that so many Americans find so 'unimportant'??

YET MORE SENSELESS DESTRUCTION ON EUCLID AVENUE

2005-11-08T16:46:00.000-08:00

Perhaps by now, some of you may have heard of the so-called Euclid Avenue Corridor Project. It seems someone has this pipedream that if they "rebuild" Euclid Avenue, merchants will want their stores there and residents will want to live there. The 'crux' of this project is entirely related to new ideas our Regional Transit Authority has developed for buses running on Euclid Avenue. One of the primary concepts is a grass-&-trees median. To construct this and to maintain the number and width of the lanes, the street needs to be widened in many spots. As it turns out, some of the older buildings, built close to the street, are "in the way". Therefore, it was decided -- with the usual blessing of the Landmarks Commission -- that since this is a multi-million dollar project, these old buildings are absolutely expendable. The picture accompanying this posting was taken in October. It shows the 5700-block on the south side of Euclid. All of these buildings on this block -- four or five in total -- were given the go-ahead for demolition. The prominent building in the center is the Meriam Building, constructed in 1911 for Edmund Meriam, and designed by Cleveland architect Frank Skeel. All this wasteful destruction for a median. (NOTE: These buildings were demolished in January of 2006.)

KUNSTLER'S CLEVELAND "EYESORE OF THE MONTH"

2005-10-12T16:45:00.000-07:00

This will be a rare example of a posting on this blog that, on its own, won't say very much. Instead, we invite you to take a look at a link that appears in this blog's Link List, but is otherwise provided below. This will link you to a page on the website of James Howard Kunstler, renowned for, among other things, his authorship of the book "Geography Of Nowhere". He has been keeping a monthly 'serial' of usually modern buildings that he, wisely, considers to be "Eyesores". The October "Eyesore" just happens to be a very well-known Cleveland building. Although generally praised by Those Who Know Nothing About Architecture, this building looks like either something out of a cartoon, or, at the very least, a reflection in a funhouse mirror. Mr. Kunstler's take is much better. Check it out!

www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200510.html

"too costly to renovate"

2005-10-04T16:30:00.000-07:00

When is this cliche excuse ever going to go away? Everyone in any way involved in historic preservation knows that this lame excuse is rarely anything more than a convenient lie. Unfortuneately, there are still too many people that believe this lie, therefore, it continues to be used. One of its latest uses was to "explain" why two houses, located nextdoor to each other on E. 115th Street, just off of Euclid Avenue -- both built for brewery magnate Simon Fishel in 1908, one occupied by a son and the other occupied by a married daughter -- were recently demolished by the owner, a prominent institution in the C. W. R. U. vicinity. Additionally, some reference was made to some vague retail/residential development that they expected to occur, sooner or later -- and, so, why not just make a couple more parcels available? Regardless of the stated excuses, this is just another example of the indifference toward local history and the built monuments that are the remaining testimonies to that history. Will some of us see the day when all the historic buildings are destroyed??

WHERE ART LIVES...AND HISTORY DIES

2005-09-30T08:13:00.000-07:00

This is perhaps one of the worst of any "worst-case-scenarios" you're ever likely to read about on this blog. This house, located near Pearl & Denison and built in 1884 for Frederick Wirth, the Postmaster of what was then the Village of Brooklyn, Ohio [now part of Cleveland], is on Cleveland's Historic Architecture Death Row. This is so despite the fact that it is a historic house located within a Local Designated Historic District. It is owned by an art-school, which occupies another building on the property. When they first acquired this property several years ago, they announced that they would be restoring this house for their primary facility, occupying the other building only until that restoration took place. Several months ago, though, they shocked their history-loving community by announcing that they were going to demolish the house, instead. The councilperson, a personal friend of the art-school's director, pushed politically to get this demolition appoved. "Politics" always 'pays off' in this pathetic city, and, sure enough, the City ignored the house's historic status and gave its 'blessing' to the demolition. This has literally infuriated many of the community's residents who take great pride in their neighborhood's history. This house could easily just be sold to someone who could use it, but, the muleheaded, arrogant -- and obviously history-hating -- owner refuses to consider anything other than their announced plans. The City ought to be ashamed of itself for being so hypocritical, but, we know they are not, and never will be. When this house comes down, it will establish a precedent; no structure with official historic status in this city will be safe. (Maybe they never were......)

STAIRWAY TO NOWHERE

2005-09-17T17:34:00.000-07:00

Many of us travel Martin Luther King Boulevard, through Rockefeller Park and Wade Park, between Chester and the Shoreway and, for the architecture-admiring among us, the four turn-of-the-century bridges that serve as road overpasses are perhaps the best part of the journey. The Wade Park Avenue bridge has been, perhaps, the most-admired of the four, primarily because of its romantic, curving pedestrian stairway. It has often been the subject of many a photograph. Tragically, the century-long wear and tear on this stairway has caused some breakage on a few of the individual stairs. Around two years ago (or has it been even longer than that?), the City 'saw fit' to place 'barricades' at both bottom and top of the stairway. Today -- years later -- the situation is unchanged. Apparently, this matter was referred to the "Deferred Maintenance Department". All four of the bridges are City Landmarks, but, that does not free them from the jurisdiction of the "Deferred Maintenance Department". What is the City waiting for? Another mayor? Or, perhaps for the problem to worsen so that they have an excuse to demolish the entire bridge? Bottom line: these 'barricades' are an insult to the artistic character of the bridge, and the Park the bridge rests upon.

OLD RIVER ROAD CONTINUED

2005-08-31T08:45:00.000-07:00

I have recently seen an article pertaining to the Old River Road project, discussed in the previous post [thank you, Byron, for finding and sending to me the on-line version of the article!], published May 17, 2005, in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. One of the statements made by the developer in this article, apparently to "justify" his destruction of an entire block of mostly historic buildings, was that the block is "blighted" and a "slum". Blighted?!?!? Blight is supposed to be a reference to an obvious, outward appearance that displays extreme neglect of maintenance. This is simply UNTRUE!! Agreeably, the buildings do not "sparkle", as if they were new, but, then again, what buildings other than actually-new ones do?? They do not have any sort of 'shabby' appearance, nor is there any other obvious signs of deterioration or decay. As for the "slum" claim made by the developer, since when does a commerical area get to be labelled a "slum"?? A slum, often synonomously referred to as a ghetto, has been traditionally reserved for referring to RESIDENTIAL areas. It usually includes the afore-mentioned "blight", and almost always is accompanied by various negative social conditions, such as poverty and crime. All this section of Old River Road is is a handful of buildings presently not being used. It should be obvious to everyone that these ludicrous "blighted" and "slum" claims are LIES being used to persuade the community that removing these buildings is 'necessary'. The article elsewhere tells of how this project will ultimately result in the spending of $225 million. Well, one thing is for sure: my arguments, which amount to mostly two or three, mostly pertaining to history and significant architecture, certainly can't stand a chance compared to the 225,000,000 arguments that the developer has -- now, can they??

DESTROYING THE OLD ON OLD RIVER ROAD

2005-08-20T17:40:00.000-07:00

Another horrible travesty in the works right now is the planned destruction of AN ENTIRE BLOCK of historic Old River Road, between Main and Front Streets. The plan calls for the construction of some more [why do we need MORE??] high-end housing, and "access to the river". Once again, it is historic buildings that must be 'sacrificed'. Perhaps the most interesting building on this block is the Shepard Building, built in 1891 for J. J. Shepard, to be his office and warehouse for his fire-brick business. The building in the photo with this post is of this building. Other buildings on this block do actually include some fairly new ones, but there is mostly older ones, here. At least one appears to, perhaps, have been constructed in the 1850s. The Cuyahoga River is such a long river. Why does this project have to be located right here? Perhaps what is more important to ask is, why aren't these historic buildings being converted into the desired high-end housing -- like so many have, just up the hill from these, all throughout the Warehouse District? Will this "madness" never end??