Cleveland Clinic threatens another local landmark

*A special thanks to the  Cleveland Area History Blog for the update on this very recent news. All photos and specific building information comes from their website

This church, at 8601 Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, is threatened with demolition. The congregation has been offered an unspecified sum by the Cleveland Clinic in return for demolishing the structure, a Cleveland Landmark, and providing the Clinic with a vacant lot.

The church, originally the Reformed Episcopal Church of the Epiphany, was designed in 1889 by Sidney Badgley, architect of many significant churches both in Cleveland and elsewhere. The cornerstone was laid on September 8, 1889. It was built by Thomas Hamilton, who also responsible for the Hough Avenue Congregational Church, at a cost of $14,000. It was dedicated June 1, 1890. It was said to be the first Reformed Episcopal Church in Ohio.  The Francis Drury mansion, at 8615 Euclid Avenue, was built in 1910-1912. It was designed by Meade & Hamilton, architects, and is one of but a handful of the remaining structures built on this magnificent boulevard. It is quite telling of the time that someone would be willing to build a house of this scale so close to an existing structure.

What, then, should be done?

Cleveland's population has declined with the growth of the suburbs. As we've left to these outlying areas for our various reasons, we've avoided the issues facing the city, leaving them for others. It's not enough for us now to merely "care" about the fate of these historic structures - we must make up for our years of neglect. The argument of the need for land adjacent to the Drury mansion rings hollow as well. Save for the church and the mansion, the entire block, all the way from Euclid to Chester, is vacant. In addition to the beauty of this building, is is important as a fragment of the history of Euclid Avenue and the context it provides. With its demolition, the Francis Drury mansion will lose a significant bit of context, and the city, a significant landmark.

I think a larger question is, why is the Cleveland Clinc spending its money to destroy history and create vacant inner city lots? As of now I have heard of no formal plans for a building or even a parking lot, just vacant space for "future expansion" Fact is the Cleveland Clinic has an abysmal record of detroying Clevland history. They even had a beautiful church located in the heart of their campus mysteriously burn to the ground a few years ago. This is another case of a major political entity being a bully on preservation. There needs to be someone with political clout to stand up to these guys and fight them on these issues. I understand that the Cleveland Clinic is a major if not THE leader worldwide in healthcare innovations and is the city's largest employer but that does not give them the right to do whatever they want and destroy the historic neighborhoods of which existed long before they came around. I wonder if the landmarks commission, planning department or Cleveland Restoration Society has tried to engage them, and if not, why?



Euclid Avenue Congretional Church allegedly destroyed by lightning in the Cleveland  Clinics campus March 23, 2010

Read the story here:
http://www.cleveland.com/religion/index.ssf/2010/11/euclid_ave_congregational_chur.html



Preservation politics in Michigan

 While searching for politicians that are actually interested in preservation (there aren't very many) I came across this guy  Congressman Mark Schauer of Michigan. Schauer recently published his priority projects for 2011 for the upcoming appropriations process. On his website, he described the process by which his team surveyed organizations throughout the state to get input. The result is a list that includes the following:

• $100,000 for the City of Eaton Rapids Flood Damage Reduction which will help protect the city’s historic district from flooding.
• $150,000 to restore and renovate Tibbits Opera House — one of the oldest operating opera houses in Michigan — back to its original 1882 design.
• $294,293 to upgrade the electrical system of Jackson’s Michigan Theatre, which is on that National Register of Historic places due to its architectural significance.

Schauer’s list brought home a really important point for me that I’d like to share with you: One politician simply interested in preservation can make a world of difference. You can have as many interest groups, committees, commissions ect. as you want but if you fail to get support from atleast one key politician it seems like the odds of getting your projects funded are minimal. Though we often think that the endangered historical properties in our own states may be rescued by government funds, preservation efforts take planning and politicians and can’t always be last-minute game changers. This is a good example of the power politics play in the preservation game and how planning is crucial to the process. Often people do not become interested in preservation until the buildings they love are in danger of being demolished.

20 Reasons why Preservation is $mart

On March 3, 1999, at the National Audubon Society of New York's Conference on Smart Growth, Mr. Donovan Rypkema outlined the economical benefits of historic preservation. He is my favorite writer on the practicality of historic preservation
Reason One

Public Infrastructure. Almost without exception historic buildings are where public infrastructure already exists. No new water lines, sewer lines, streets, curbs, gutters required.

Reason Two

Municipalities need financial resources if they are going to grow smart. Vacant, unused, and underused historic buildings brought back, to life are also brought back as tax generating assets for a community.

Reason Three

New activities-residential, retail, office, manufacturing-in historic buildings inherently reinforce the viability of public transportation.

Reason Four

If we are to expect citizens to use their cars less, and use their feet more, then the physical environment within which they live, work, shop and play needs to have a pedestrian rather than vehicular orientation.

Reason Five

Another element in the drive to encourage human movement by means other than the automobile is the interconnection of uses. Based on the foolishness of post World War 11 planning and development patterns, uses have been sharply separated. Historic neighborhoods were built from the beginning with a mix of uses in close proximity. Cities with the foresight to readjust their zoning ordinances to encourage integration of uses are seeing that interconnectivity reemerging in historic areas.

Reason Six

As a strong proponent of economic development, I am certainly glad the phrase is Smart Growth as opposed to no growth. Smart Growth suggests that growth has positive benefits and I would agree that is true. The encouraged reinvestment in historic areas in and of itself revitalizes and revalues the nearby existing investment of both the public and private sectors.

Reason Seven

We see periodic headlines about some real or imagined "Back to the City" movement.
Certainly people moving back to the core of a town or city of any size have a positive impact on a whole range of environmental goals. In nearly every instance it is back to the historic neighborhoods and historic buildings within the city. We need to pay attention to market patterns, and if it is back to historic neighborhoods to which people are moving, we need to keep those neighborhoods viable for that to happen.
Reason Eight

Smart Growth also implies economic growth means new jobs. But who is creating the new jobs in America? Not General Motors, or IBM, or Kodak. Eighty-five percent of all new jobs in America are created by small businesses. And for most small businesses there are few costs that are controllable, but there is one: occupancy. Older and historic buildings often provide the affordable rent that allows small businesses to get started.

Reason Nine

Business districts are sustainably successful where there is a diversity of businesses. And that diverse business mix requires a diverse range of rental rates. Only in downtowns and older commercial neighborhoods is there such diversity. Try finding any rental-rate diversity in the regional shopping center or the s-called office park. There ain't none. Older business districts with their diverse rents are Smart Growth.

Reason Ten

Let me distinguish new construction from rehabilitation in terms of creating jobs. As a general rule new construction is 50 percent labor and 50 percent materials. Rehabilitation, on the other hand, is 60 to 70 percent labor. While we buy an HVAC system from Ohio, sheetrock from Texas and timber from Oregon, we buy services of the carpenter and plumber, painter and electrician from across the street. They subsequently spend that paycheck for a hair cut, membership in the local Y and a new car.
Reason Eleven

Solid waste landfill is expensive in both dollars and environmental quality. Sixty to 65 percent ofmost landfill sites are made up of construction debris. And much of that waste comes from the razing of existing structures. Preserving instead of demolishing our inventory of historic buildings reduces that construction waste. Preserving instead of demolishing our inventory of historic buildings is Smart Growth.

Reason Twelve

Its critics have pointed out that so-called New Urbanism is neither new nor urban. New Urbanist development is fully compatible with the goals of Smart Growth. I would argue that New Urbanism reflects good urban design principles. But those principles have already been at work for a century or more in our historic neighborhoods. The sensitive renewal of those neighborhoods is Smart Growth.
Reason Thirteen

Smart Growth advocates a density of use. Historic residential and commercial neighborhoods are built to be dense.

Reason Fourteen

Historic buildings themselves are not liabilities as often seen by public and private sector demolition advocates, but are assets not yet returned to productive use.

Reason Fifteen

The rehabilitation of older and historic neighborhoods is putting jobs where the workers already are.

Reason Sixteen

Around the country historic preservation is the one form of economic development that is simultaneously community development.

Reason Seventeen

Reinvigorating historic neighborhoods reinforces existing schools and allows them to recapture their important educational, social and cultural role on a neighborhood level.
Reason Eighteen

No new land is consumed when rehabilitating a historic building.

Reason Nineteen

The diversity of housing sites, qualities, styles and characteristics of historic neighborhoods stands in sharp contrast to the monolithic character of current subdivisions. The diversity of housing options means a diversity of human beings who can live in historic neighborhoods.

Reason Twenty

I'm not opposed to acquiring greenbelts around cities or development rights on agricultural properties. Those are certainly important and valuable tools in a comprehensive Smart Growth strategy. But they only reduce the supply of land to be developed; they do not address the demand for the new use of that land. The conversion of a historic warehouse into 40 residential units reduces the demand for ten acres of farmland. The economic revitalization of Main Street reduces the demand for another street.

December Tax Incentives Figures Released by NPS

The National Park Service’s Historic Preservation Certification review of application figures were just released and although it may seem promising, facts are development and tax credit projects are down and not working properly.  The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program has three parts: Part 1 determines the eligibility of a property for the tax incentives program; Part 2 determines whether a proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation; Part 3 determines whether the completed project conforms with the Secretary’s Standards. In December, National Park Service staff reviewed 92 Part 1 applications, 81 Part 2 applications representing nearly $464 million in estimated preservation investment, and 74 Part 3 applications that resulted in $450 million in preservation investment using the federal tax credit. The National Park Service administers this program in cooperation with State Historic Preservation Officers and the Internal Revenue Service.

The problem with these numbers is that although $464 and $450 million worth of projects may seem like a lot, in reality it isn't. This averages out to about a total investment of $2.6 million and $6 million for these projects. Actual money being contributed by the government is around $520,000 and $1.2 million per project respectively. This may seem like a lot of money, and don't get me wrong, its nothing to scoff about however the problem lies in how the building owners can actually gain use of the money. The money is distributed as a Tax Credit, meaning whoever the owner or company is that is restoring the building must pay annually at least $520,000 or $1.2 million in federal taxes. This cancels out most small businesses and private party's that want to use the credit because they simply don't make enough money to have to pay that kind of money in taxes so then what? Ah, yes Tax Credit Partners. Because of this, an owner of a historic property who gains the tax credits can sell them to a larger entity who pays a lot of money in taxes. Banks and other large corporations are always looking for tax credits so they will buy the credits for between 75 and 90 cents on the dollar thus saving themselves money in the long run.

The problem is to be worth a large corporation or banks time, these tax credits usually need to be worth many millions of dollars which as I have demonstrated, they are averaging between a half and $1.2 million. Most corporations won't even bother with a tax credit that is so "small". This creates a major problem, a company could do everything right in accordance with preservation standards, complete the project, and then have no way to cash in the tax credit money they were given by the government. With most of these projects being fairly small, a half to $1.2 million is often the difference between a project thriving and a project going bankrupt. Many states  have similar tax credit programs that can cover between 10 and 20 percent of project expenses, however due to budget problems many states have capped their programs and made them highly competitive. The government needs to put together a program or coalition of major corporations that buy these tax credits from smaller project investors, without it, the goals of the tax credit program will never be fully reached.

Preservation Politics in Over the Rhine

Recently Cincinnati City Council established a Historic Building Loss Task Force. Rhe task force was charged with reviewing city policies and procedures that have led to the demolition of roughly half of Over-the-Rhine’s historic building stock. The changes it recommends are aimed at making the city’s process far simpler and more transparent, however nothing in these changes increases the power or requirements of historic preservation in Cincinnati. The director of this task force claims that this is a radical step forward for historic preservation, as well as blight remediation by simply making the city more efficient, more proactive, making it follow its own laws, making those laws reflect reality, and letting the general public in on the secret of what is expected of them and available to them.”

This story comes from the recent demolition of an apartment building at 142 E. McMicken. Cincinnati Public Schools bought the building and two others as part of the district’s renovation plan for Rothenberg Elementary School. District officials originally planned to demolish the buildings but said they would work to save them after neighborhood activists objected and the city’s Historic Conservation Board denied the request. The district renewed its request for emergency demolition after getting a new engineering report saying the building posed “a significant risk to public safety.”

Architects who have toured the building say it didn't appear unsafe to them. But the report prompted an on-site inspection by Amit Ghosh, deputy director of the city’s department of buildings and inspections. Ghosh approved emergency demolition orders and a demolition permit was granted shortly after.


These loopholes and lack of authority in Cincinnati's preservation laws and politics are really irritating to preservationists and historic neighborhoods. Cincinnati City Council might as well just get rid of their new Historic Building Loss Task Force right now, why waste the resources, time and energy? They have absolutely NO legal authority, and their historic district laws are so full of holes, anybody with power (Cincy Public Schools) can simply throw their weight around and convince somebody who is NOT a professional historic building consultant to simply issue a report claiming the building was "unsafe" and then issue a demolition permit.


Why is this the duty of this individual building inspector, and how can he himself have more authority than an advisory commission that was created to be experts in this area? Cincinnati needs to do away with this new commission since apparently they have no power to do anything but make suggestions that have no weight. They should privatize this aspect of historic building evaluations and hire it out to private unbiased consulting firms that can give an honest opinion of the true condition of the building and then a specialized Landmarks Commission should take the evaluation as primary evidence for ruling on demolition permit requests. Political power can be dangerous when it comes to historic buildings especially when powers (CPS) have other objectives that do not include preserving historic properties in historic districts. Especially when the laws are soft, have many loopholes, and when one individual (with no specialized historic building training more than likely) can be persuaded so easily.

Gamble House Saga Continues

The issue began with an anonymous e-mail sent to the city of Cincinnati criticizing the property's condition, noting a crumbling walkway and peeling paint. City inspectors found code violations at the Westwood home of the world-renowned industrialist, philanthropist and inventor of Ivory Soap. Soon, the owner, Greenacres Foundation, applied for a demolition permit. The request was denied. That denial has generated nearly a year's worth of hearings, meetings, protests, City Council sessions, federal and state court proceedings, purchase offers made and bids rejected.  In September, U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott issued a court order stopping the removal of "wood moldings, stained-glass windows and doors" from the house. In December, she ordered Greenacres to produce an inventory of those removed items. Activists are claiming the foundation has taken part in "demolition by neglect" when an owner, with malicious intent, lets a building deteriorate until it becomes a structural hazard and then turns around and asserts the building's advanced state of deterioration as a reason to justify its demolition.

To me the problem is the city is not enforcing the ordinances in the early stages. They are not doing emergency board ups and stabilization that they could under the law then seek liens against the property. They are not taking owners to court. They are not taking receivership options, but instead are "fast tracking" property to demo that, in many cases, have no structural issues. Those properties should, be stabilized and repaired and billed to the owner. If the owner refuses to pay the city gets claim and they could resell it to a responsible property owner. Many times people buy these properties unaware that orders are out there because the city doesn't lien for Vacant Building Maintenance Licences or board ups and then find they have property they can't even get a loan on to make repairs. Tearing down the buildings at taxpayer expense only hurts the buildings, the neighborhoods and the taxpayer. It does nothing to the bad owner who walks away from it. The city rarely, if ever, goes after the owner to recover demo costs. There needs to be a more coherent plan that prevents a situation like this from happening before it gets to this point.

Where's the Communication?

In historic preservation there is no topic where disconnect and lack of cooperation is more profound than in the field of climate change and energy. Very simply put, The National Park Service (NPS) has been has almost no input or stance when it comes to these issues. In general, responsibility for building efficiency rests with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their joint Energy Star program. Even so, the Department of the Interior (DOI) through the NPS’s Technical Preservation Services branch (TPS) and the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT) embodies the U.S. Government’s most significant concentration of expertise on the material science of existing buildings. The Secretary’s Standards serve as the manual for what changes get made to America’s millions of older and historic buildings which includes retrofitting for energy efficiency. Why is it then that NPS has no formal communication with the DOE, EPA or Energy Star programs on building retrofit? For that matter, why haven’t preservation groups spent any time coordinating or forging relationships with the DOE like they do with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (that has failed to gain significant national attention)? Notice how fashionable the notion of Energy Star rated and "LEED certified" has become in the field of architecture, yet  the ACHP, NPS, and Secretary of the Interior have failed to even discuss or implement a policy that they could use to capitalize on in the same way. In the future I feel that it just may be that the Department of Energy is going to have more to say about the fate of historic buildings than the other "established" preservation groups, and that may not be such a bad thing.