Several days ago, we posted about the challenges faced by proponents of preservation-based revitalization in the context of aggressive, large-scale demolition programs launched by federal neighborhood stabilization funding. This “NSP” money for larger cities comes with required Section 106 review, providing roles for both the Ohio Historic Preservation Office and for local consulting parties. Our previous post also referred to ongoing public discussion in Mansfield.

Some days after our post, we received information that the City of Mansfield would be hosting a public meeting on Thursday with the purpose of setting forth the city’s obligations and intentions pursuant to a recently-received $1.5 million dollar NSP grant. I attended the meeting for three reasons – first, as Ohio’s statewide preservation organization, we are extremely concerned over the ramifications of the use of such funds if spent on piecemeal versus strategically focused demolition; second, to find out first-hand not only how communities are using such funding, but justifying their approaches; and third, to support the strong downtown and neighborhood preservation programs in Mansfield.

Some aspects of the public meeting are shared at the same link that we provided in our previous post. Here, however, are additional objective perspectives from an “outsider” – someone who knows the city of Mansfield well but who is nevertheless not acquainted with any of the civic leadership in that community.

There are certainly positive aspects to report from the meeting. Although city officials shared and repeated that the meeting was to dispel rumors and allegations that the city was setting out to erase local history, it is commendable that the get-together was held. The invitation list was expansive, and included the city’s historic preservation commission, non-profit groups such as the Richland County Historical Society and Downtown Mansfield, Inc., other interested parties and local media. The City Development Director’s overview of Section 106 requirements, policies and procedures was comprehensive and spot-on.

That shared, there were several areas of serious concern, including the following:

•    Slides of Blight - First, there was a slideshow of “blighted” properties from around the city. I was immediately reminded of the “horror story” photos shared by school districts talking about the need for new school buildings – photos taken from the most alarming visual viewpoints, and not necessarily from the most revealing from a replacement or renovation point of view. For example - one photo showed a Mansfield house with trees obstructing its front view, with the observation that that growth rendered the house more susceptible to illegal activity. Instead of the obvious, easy and inexpensive solution, however – cutting down the trees – the unstated assumption was that demolition of the house provided the most logical answer.

Fully half of the photos showed properties that had no historic integrity or interest whatsoever; almost half, however, were properties which would likely be considered to be contributing structures in any potential National Register Historic District. These are not vernacular structures devoid of detail; many retain substantial amounts of original detailing, and some – including Greek Revival and Second Empire houses on South Main Street – are of a style which has almost completely disappeared from the community and should have strong preservation support.

•    A Need for Context - This last point brings up a major topic that was completely missing on Thursday evening – the idea of context. There was nothing shared in terms of the possible impact that demolition of selected properties would have on a neighborhood’s historic character, something which is integrally tied to its ability to attract both investment and incentives tied to listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

This is a time where the input and advice of the city’s own historic preservation commission could prove extremely important. By ordinance, the City of Mansfield Historic Preservation Commission acts “…in an advisory role to other officials and departments of local government regarding the protection of local cultural properties,” and “…as liaison on behalf of the local government to individuals and organizations concerned with historic preservation.” Section 1171.04, City of Mansfield Codified Ordinances. In other words, the HPC acts as the city’s own expert when it comes to such matters. Excluding it from the Section 106 consultation process and/or demolition review is not only counter-intuitive, it means that the city would be ignoring its best source of advice – the very body it created to provide that service.

In Mansfield, you also have a ready and willing non-profit partner – Downtown Mansfield, Inc. – ready to serve as the champion for a truly comprehensive neighborhood development initiative centered on capitalizing on historic integrity and character. No one, including DMI, is saying that just because a structure is old should render it immune from loss – rather only that a careful, considered approach is needed to maximize the benefits of selective demolition. The City of Mansfield is incredibly fortunate to have such a partner waiting in the wings.

•    Demolition for Demolition's Sake is Not an Answer - There appeared to be an overriding message that the only or even the best way to eradicate blight is to remove an offending property – in other words, to blame a structure for what happens inside of it. The Police and Fire Chiefs shared dramatic numbers about the problems associated with neglected structures. At the same time, however, their own statistics shared that with properly securing such properties, that risk would be substantially reduced. And, as the National Vacant Properties Campaign has shared, demolition does not eliminate blight, or the social costs inherent with it. The following is from their 2005 publication, “Vacant Properties: Their True Cost to Communities" (click here for the entire report).

“Demolishing crumbling vacant buildings does not completely eliminate the costs associated with abandonment. The resulting vacant lots still require maintenance. A study of vacant lots in Philadelphia estimated that the city and closely related public agencies spent $1.8 million annually on cleaning vacant lots. At the current level of activity and assuming a three percent inflation rate, this adds up to $49.6 million over the course of twenty years. The study only included the costs of five out of the fifteen agencies that have a role in vacant property management.

Rehabilitation is clearly a better choice. An examination of the St. Paul, Minnesota budget for maintenance and security costs associated with vacant buildings revealed that while demolition saves $4,697,25 the rehabilitation of a vacant building will save an estimated $7,141 in maintenance costs over a twenty-year period.”

The publication goes on to note that vacant lots dramatically reduce the property values and reinvestment potential of surrounding property, and profiles why piecemeal demolition is not the answer.

At the end of the meeting, an attendee questioned city officials on why their presentation centered on the idea of sharing the problems of “blight” which, he stated, needed no explanation. Indeed, the evening seemed to center on the problem, and not on the solution. The City of Mansfield could, if it chose, do something dramatic and pacesetting with this and future NSP grants. Unlike many other communities, it has citizens ready to help -- a trained and willing local historic preservation commission, and a non-profit partner with demonstrated expertise in downtown revitalization. It could – and should – examine the affected neighborhoods and ascertain their eligibility for National Register status (in fact, some of this work has probably already been done through the Ohio Historic Inventory process). It could – and should – allow a non-profit partner to review the affected neighborhoods and obtain expert advice on the best paths toward revitalization. It could – and should – set the model in Ohio for innovative and successful traditional neighborhood revitalization.

Photo: Downtown Mansfield - Creative Commons License

What happens when you ask the right questions of the right people? You get great responses, that’s what. Such is the case with the results of the Fall 2009 Survey recently conducted by Preservation Ohio.

The answers shared were a treasure trove of information – over 100 narrative answers were shared on various topics, in addition to those filling out only the multiple choice questions. From funding ideas, to partnership ideas, to suggestions for change and improvement, those answering the survey clearly showed their strong interest in empowering Ohio’s statewide preservation and revitalization movements. This past Saturday, Preservation Ohio’s Board of Trustees met and considered this input as it sat out to draft a vision for the coming year.

As promised, some of the answers are included below – including the results to every multiple-choice question. We have included a sampling of narrative answers as well to give you a taste of what was on the minds of Ohioans as they completed the survey - again, some of the questions generated dozens and dozens of narrative responses.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to participate in our survey!

---

PRESERVATION OHIO FALL SURVEY

 

In your opinion, what are the greatest threats to or issues confronting historic preservation and preservation-based downtown and neighborhood revitalization in Ohio? (Please choose one or more, but no more than three).

 

ANSWER                                                                                                                                               PERCENT

 

Lack of available financial assistance for renovation                                                                  44

 

Absent of inconsistently applied local regulations                                                                       38

 

Lack of awareness about the benefits of historic preservation                                                  60

 

Aggressiveness of and political clout of the development community                                    22

 

Lack of a strong statewide preservation non-profit organization                                              16

 

Confusion about costs of renovation versus replacement                                                         33

 

Lack of awareness about the relationship between preservation and                                     42

sustainable development

 

Other:

 

·         The general state of economy and business in Ohio

·         Demolition policies

·         Duplication by having 2 preservation statewide groups causes confusion

·         Excessive demolition because of “blight”

·         Lack of public ethic toward history, preservation or heritage

Which area of preservation is of particular interest to you? Please choose as many answers as apply.

 

Historic house or building renovation and restoration                                                                 69

 

Local preservation organizations and efforts                                                                                 64

 

Supporting preservation and revitalization on a statewide basis                                              36

 

Revitalization of Ohio downtowns                                                                                                    73

 

Promotion of heritage tourism – locally, regionally or statewide                                               53

 

Revitalization of Ohio’s traditional neighborhoods                                                                       55

 

Other:

 

·         Save Over-the-Rhine!

·         Historic schools – preservation and reuse as something new

·         Historic school renovation for continued use

·         Presentation of preservation technology for homeowner

·         Historic farmland preservation

Please indicate the geographical area of Ohio in which you live:

 

Northeast                                                                                                                                              36

 

Northwest                                                                                                                                              9

 

Central                                                                                                                                                   31

 

Southeast                                                                                                                                              4

 

Southwest                                                                                                                                             20

In your opinion, what are the primary opportunities or services that a statewide preservation organization needs to address? Please choose no more than three answers.

 

Creating opportunities for local preservationists to connect for advice and support            50

 

Providing technical advice                                                                                                                33

 

Providing information on funding                                                                                                    58

 

Assistance with local advocacy                                                                                                        40

 

Help with downtown revitalization                                                                                                   33

 

Help with neighborhood revitalization                                                                                            38

 

Organizational development assistance                                                                                        15

 

Local downtown and preservation program management services                                        25

 

Other:

 

·         Advocacy in Columbus at the state level

·         All of the above

·         Continued educational use of Ohio’s historic schools

·         Lobbying state for preservation dollars

How can Preservation Ohio, as a statewide preservation organization, better serve you and your community? With what programs or services?

 

·         Encouraging Springfield in their efforts to save and rehab our historical buildings and neighborhoods rather than their typical approach of destroy and "put up a parking lot." We need to save Memorial Hall and the old Springfield South High School buildings.

·         Help Cincinnati overturn its aggressive, anti-preservation demolition policies; help promote Cincinnati's preservation bargains on a national level.

·         I think it needs to support the local groups by lobbying and funding and then technical support.

·         Provide sources or support for funding or financing for private individuals to engage in preservation efforts. Or, serve as a central organization to assist individuals with acquiring said financing.

·         Local advocacy and offering alternative development strategies to demolition.

·         Information on grants and lobbying at the state level, that no property with a historical designation could be destroyed with private money

·         I think Preservation Ohio can better serve the communities of Ohio by informing citizens of the benefits of preservation. Not many people today know how much preserving our history can help us prepare for the future.

·         Downtown revitalization and incentives

·         Get the word out to communities that help IS available!

·         I believe that there should be more public awareness about the importance of preservation/restoration.

·         Directing us to appropriate tools and educating us about the processes we may undertake.

·         More funding and tax incentives to preserve rather than tear down and build new, inferior structures.

·         Highlight sources of funding & grant opportunities.

·         Local governments need educated on long range benefits to the local communities by preserving our heritage for future generations and adaptive reuse of historic structures and their positive impact to the local economy including their architectural appeal.

·         Merge with Heritage Ohio and engage a wider audience through effective planning and communications.

·         Serve as central information clearing house.

·         By helping remove the stereo-typical view that historic schools can not be renovated to provide a 21st century education.

·         Merge with Heritage Ohio.

·         Preservation Ohio is already doing a good job; please continue stoking the enthusiasm of the existing preservation community, and welcoming/encouraging future Ohio preservationists.

·         We need greater advocacy on Preservation and a stop to demolition in our neighborhoods.

Are you currently, or have you been a member of Preservation Ohio (or the Ohio Preservation Alliance) within the past 5 years? (40 answers, 15 skipped).

 

Yes                                                                                                                                                         25

 

No                                                                                                                                                           75

 

Other:

 

·         I just receive the e-mails as well as read the articles on the website.

·         Our organization belongs.

.      Will join shortly; however, currently only involved from a distance via the Internet.

Like many non-profit fields, supporters of historic preservation and preservation-based revitalization continue to be influenced by how they were made aware of the importance of historic resources. One typical avenue toward that awareness is the threat of demolition of an important local landmark, a place that contributes to a community’s sense of place – or, as noted urban advocate Ed McMahon calls them, “places of the heart.” When these demolition crises arrive, individuals and organizations mobilize and seek to influence owners to consider alternative paths. If that is unsuccessful, attention often shifts to encouraging local government officials to enact protections for historic resources.

The best advocacy, of course, is of the proactive variety. One of the key benefits of local historic preservation organizations is their ability to work toward creating “environments for preservation.” Such an environment is one where property owners are made generally aware of possible preservation financial incentives, of the importance of individual buildings and houses to downtowns and neighborhoods, and of the possibility of public outcry if they pursue demolition or insensitive renovation.

A real challenge exists when it is the local government itself that is the source of possible demolition. Such is the situation in Mansfield, where the city is pursuing an aggressive demolition program to combat blight, and local preservation advocates are seeking the opportunity to be a part of the process of evaluating the historic integrity and value of targeted structures. In fact, the ability to do so is written into federal law. Click here to read blog entries profiling this situation.

All over Ohio, local governments are using federal stimulus funds to combat the after-effects of the national foreclosure crisis – but in some cases, are doing so in a piecemeal fashion. Without paying attention to long-term neighborhood revitalization strategies, the net result may well be making the situation worse, not better. As the National Vacant Properties initiative has pointed out, simply creating a vacant lot can actually serve as a substantial long-term disincentive for investment in surrounding properties.

What is needed is a dialogue in Ohio communities on the best way to approach revitalization of traditional neighborhoods. What preservation and revitalization advocates can and should do is to seek ways to become a part of that conversation.

The Ohio Historic Preservation Office recently announced the winners of their 2009 Preservation Awards, and recipients joined this week at the Palace Theatre in Marion to receive their honors.

These year’s list of winners covers a wide range of projects, many of them concentrated in the state’s three largest communities. Included were building renovation projects, educational efforts in both schools and for the general public, and for long-time service to local preservation efforts.

One award went to the new “Buckeye Assets” website, a joint project of the Ohio Department of Development’s Division of Informational Technology, Office of Environmental Services and the Office of Structural Engineering. The site is an interactive map of Ohio bridges – over 7,800 of them listed, with details as to construction type, age, and condition information. Included are the state’s many “historic” bridges, with specification made of those listed on the National Register of Historic Places, those eligible for listing, and those deemed “non-historic.” Most of the profiles also include photographs of a given bridge.

It really doesn’t get any better than this for fans of historic bridges, at least from a documentation point of view. Congrats to all involved for a valuable contribution to making information about Ohio history easily and freely available to all.

Buckeye Assets can be found at: www.buckeyeassets.org.

Photo: Screenshot of Buckeye Assets, showing National Register-listed bridges in Ohio.

On October 23, Preservation Ohio will host its third "live blog" of the year -- this time with a topic of "Social Media Meets Preservation", which will look at the relationship between the world of social media on one hand, and Ohio preservation and revitalization on the other.

An increasing number of statewide and local preservation and revitalization organizations are waking up to the potential of social networking to generate positive awareness, support and revenue. Perhaps the most important benefit of this new area of communication is the ability to build community behind a mission or project. From Facebook to Twitter; from Tumblr to Flickr - as we near the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the potential of social media is outstanding. Learn about best practices, tips and ideas to use social media to your advantage, including exciting projects now launching that use social media to help to communicate the message of preservation and revitalization. We'd be thrilled to welcome statewide and local preservation, Main Street and other preservation-related organizations to the discussion as well.

Preservation Ohio is a national leader in the use of social media to advance the cause of statewide historic preservation. From hosting the country's first and oldest blog on preservation, to owning the most-followed Twitter page for any organization in America, to launching the country's first stand-alone social network for preservation -- we have alot to share! Join us on October 23, from 10:00 a.m. to noon, on any Preservation Ohio website -- including on the main website, on the Ohio Preservation Network, and on this page.

A handful of items which have recently come across the Preservation Ohio desk – or items which we would like to bring to your attention:

LIVE BLOG – Preservation Ohio will be conducting additional “live blogs” this Fall, as we attempt to share the best ideas in advancing local preservation and revitalization efforts – without the need of travel and expense. Live blogs are easy to follow, free, and can be accessed at any of the Preservation Ohio websites, including the Ohio Preservation Network or here on MyHometownOhio.

On October 23 from 10:00 a.m. to noon, we will be looking at the increasing role of social media in preservation. Did you know, for instance, that downtown revitalization organizations in Ohio can easily use Twitter for creating innovative and free merchant advertising campaigns? Did you know that traditional neighborhoods across the country are using social media to generate effective programs to reduce crime, increase investment and connect neighbors? Or – did you know that in Ohio, you can easily ask questions of other preservation and revitalization organizations online? All this and more will be reviewed on the 23rd.

BOO! – All across Ohio, historic resources are the setting for “ghost tours” and other spooky-related events. Those include the 2009 Ghost Tour series from the Columbus Landmarks Foundation, Ghost Walks in Warren, and ghost hunts at Prospect Place near Dresden.

PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION – All across the country, preservation and revitalization advocates are hopeful in the Historic Homeowners Revitalization Act of 2009, introduced in the US House of Representatives this past week. If passed and signed, the bill would provide the following changes to the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit, according to the website of Preservation Action:

• A credit of 20% of the "qualified rehabilitation expenditures made by the taxpayer with respect to a qualified historic home," with a cap of $60,000
• An increase in the credit available for buildings in "high cost" or economically distressed areas
• The ability of the credit to be transferred or assigned, and to be more easily integrated with state and local tax credits.
• Availability of the credit for "for sale" housing.

HISTORY ON THE BALLOT – In a handful of Ohio communities, historic resources will be impacted by issues being considered by voters. That is the case in Cincinnati, where the Cincinnati Museum Center, which includes the venerated Union Terminal building, is the subject of a $16.2 million levy. At the same time, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, the terminal is in need of some $120 to $140 million in repairs. If successfully, the levy will fund ongoing operations and some maintenance, although the larger repairs will remain unfunded.

Photo: Union Terminal, Cincinnati - cincyimages/Creative Commons License

Over the last few months, several Ohio preservation and downtown revitalization organizations have established a more thorough presence on Facebook with the creation of an official “Page.”

Facebook Pages are a more robust version of the former Facebook Groups, the latter of which basically allowed only static information, simple posts and some discussion. Pages have all of this and more, including the ability for those registered as “fans” to receive updates on their own individual sites. Pages can also be outfitted with applications, which provide increased functionality and features.

Both the Cincinnati Preservation Association and Columbus Landmarks Foundation have active Facebook Pages, which are updated often with news, event information, advocacy alerts and more. Fans can comment on these posts, can add their own content, and can embed posts them on their own pages.

Downtown revitalization organizations with Facebook Pages include Downtown Mansfield, Inc., Main Street Kent, the Heritage Centre Association (Mount Vernon), Main Street Oberlin, the Main Street Area Association (Hamilton), the Marysville Uptown Renewal Team, Main Street Canal Winchester, Main Street Medina, Main Street Orrville and Main Street Delaware.

Preservation Ohio’s Facebook Page includes all of the standard features, as well as our latest “Tweets,” the most recent photographs posted on our Flickr page, and the ability to easily invite friends to the page.  The Preservation Ohio Facebook Page interconnects with both our website and the new Ohio Preservation Network. Together, through Twitter, Facebook, the Ohio Preservation Network, Flickr and our blog, MyHometownOhio, Preservation Ohio now enjoys between 2,000 and 3,000 friends, fans, followers and subscribers just through online social networking. All of this work is an attempt to build a cohesive and effective community for preservation and preservation-based revitalization in Ohio.

To access any of the Facebook Pages for the organizations referred to in this post, visit www.facebook.com/preservationohio and look for the “Favorite Pages” in the left-hand column. And, while you’re there, please become a “fan” of Preservation Ohio!

In October of 2007, MyHometownOhio took a look at the state of preservation on the campus of Ohio’s largest college, The Ohio State University. At that time, this is what we wrote:

"Fall has finally hit Ohio in earnest.  As we head into November, thoughts turn to colder temperatures, Thanksgiving, and for Buckeye fans, the Ohio State – Michigan game. This year’s contest is on November 17 in unfriendly territory “up North.”

Ohio’s flagship educational institution is located on a campus where tradition and history live. Although not without a few preservation missteps (University Hall comes to mind), the University has a good overall record in saving important elements of its past – with some particularly good success stories.

One of those positive stories is currently being written with the $79 million renovation and expansion of the William Oxley Thompson Main Library on the Oval at OSU. The original portion of the Main Library opened in 1913, and was designed by the Boston architectural firm of Allen and Collens. In 1951, the familiar 11 story bookstack tower was added to the rear of the original building, and various additions have followed. In the renovation project, the original grand reading room, long-since divided into smaller spaces, will be completely restored to its original two-story appearance....

And, for a trip through the architectural history of The Ohio State University, click here to visit the University’s “Interactive Historical Campus Map.” By adjusting the timeline, visitors to the site can view the physical evolution of the OSU campus from 1871 through 2001.

"The seasons pass, the years will roll; Time and change will surely show, how firm thy friendship - O-HI-O" -- from Carmen Ohio, the OSU Alma Mater."

The intervening two years have made quite a difference – and it could well be said that the University has taken a couple of steps back and one forward from how things stood in October of 2007.  As detailed in an article from earlier this year, OSU recently took the unfortunate step of demolishing two of its oldest structures, Lord Hall and Brown Hall, the former designed by noted Columbus architect Frank Packard. As noted in this 2003 story from the OSU Lantern, the building was “…a historical reminder of the early days of the Ohio State campus.” When Preservation Ohio joined the Columbus Landmarks Foundation and Heritage Ohio for discussions with the building department of OSU just before the demolition, officials pointed to in-house analyses of the buildings’ condition, but did not allow for outside structural analyses to be made. The historic buildings have been replaced with green and utilitarian space, not with new structures.

This month OSU Trustees approved a $1 billion expansion project for OSU Medical Center, which is envisioned to create as many as 15,000 short and long-term jobs. Unfortunately, plans call for the demolition of Means Hall, a 1951 design by noted architectural firm Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. The building was constructed at an important time for the firm, just a year before the well-known Lever House in New York City, called by Wikipedia “…the quintessential and seminal glass box International Style skyscraper.” While not a high-rise structure, Means Hall appears to exhibit elements of the International Style in its use of concrete, glass and aluminum elements. It likely is suffering the fate of many "recent past" buildings, many of which merit preservation.

Recently, however, OSU also unveiled the finished William Oxley Thompson Main Library renovation and expansion project (with a final price tag of $109 million) referred to above – which features some visually stunning new spaces interspersed with restoration of important interior elements. Among the latter, the restored Grand Reading Room is a must-see, with its large windows looking out over the Oval. As noted above, prior to the project this was actually divided into two floors of space. Click here to take an interesting video tour of the “old and new” library, and here to see a dramatic full-screen photo of the Reading Room.

As Ohio’s flagship public university, the state’s preservation community continues to hope that OSU will adopt and adhere to policies which will place it at the forefront of efforts to preserve Ohio’s rich collegiate academic history.

Photo: Grand Reading Room, OSU Main Library, Columbus - jslander/Creative Commons License