Categories
News

Historic Bank Street Demolitions (update)

Several weeks ago local and regional preservationists united in an attempt to raise awareness of a potential demolition of four historic buildings in Cincinnati’s West End neighborhood. Emails were sent, calls were made, and awareness was reached to a certain extent.

Paul Wilham led these efforts locally and did not have much luck in getting a response back from the Mayor’s office on the matter. I sent my own email out on January 9th to all nine members of City Council and the Mayor’s office. Last week I got a response from Council member Leslie Ghiz (thank you) that included comments from the City’s Code Enforcement Division and Historic Preservation Department.

833-839 Bank Street – Photo by Kevin LeMaster

In the response there were several pieces of useful information. Code Enforcement clarified that the City primarily funds its demolitions with Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). This money is not allowed to be used in demolitions that might have an “adverse impact on a historic structure” as is the case for the Bank Street properties (Streetview). As a result of this contingency, the City engages in very little demolition work of historic structures.

In the particular case here it is the private owner who is preparing to demolish these structures – not the City. The current owners, the Reed family, have applied for the demolition permits and can go forth with the demolitions as planned unless something extraordinary happens.

The Reed family has been the subject of code enforcement actions in the past. Criminal prosecution even occurred in relation to compliance issues for 839 Bank Street. As a result the City has attempted to secure the buildings by barricading them on seven different instances since 2006. The Division cites that they have “no immediate plans to demolish these buildings by governmental action,” and that the owner can choose to either demolish the structures as they currently have planned, or they can bring the properties into compliance through repair.

The question was then asked if approval is needed, from the Historic Conservation Office, for private demolition in this historic district. The response was that in this particular case the answer appears to be “no.”

Additional Reading:
“West End Buildings Doomed” – Building Cincinnati

Categories
News

Getting to know Cincinnati’s stimulus projects

If you’re not already familiar with Cincinnati’s stimulus projects then I suggest you get familiar. Cities from around the country have submitted their “shovel ready” projects to be considered for stimulus money. Cincinnati’s list has 48 projects* totaling $434,916,420.

Projects big and small fill out the list. You will find Cincinnati’s proposed streetcar system, streetscape improvement projects, RecycleBank, green roof projects, street grid for The Banks, stabilization/control of the Ohio River for the new Central Riverfront Park (CRP), forest carbon sequestration, and much more.

A new site – Stimulus Watch – allows you to look through the submitted items from cities all across the nation. The website allows you to vote on each of the submitted items. You can select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as to whether you feel that particular project is critical and worthy of stimulus money. The site then categorizes these projects nationally by the Most and Least Critical, Most Expensive, and Most Active (by votes).

So far Cincinnati’s projects are faring quite well with the streetcar project leading nationally as the Most Critical project according to voters. Also high on the list is the street grid project for The Banks development, bank stabilization for the CRP, and streetscape improvements throughout Over-the-Rhine.

Visit the CINCINNATI PAGE to view all of Cincinnati’s included projects, and give your input on what you would and would not like to see the stimulus money go towards locally.

*DISCLAIMER – These projects are not part of the stimulus bill. They are candidates for funding by federal grant programs once the bill passes.

Categories
News Politics

A taste of Cincinnati’s Climate Protection Action Plan

In September of 2007, Mayor Mallory pushed for the creation of an Environmental Quality Department. This department would oversee the City’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions and hopefully bring Cincinnati in alignment with goals set forth by the Kyoto Protocol set globally in 1992 (183 parties have ratified the Protocol as of 2008).

The Climate Protection Action Plan (CPAP) is the primary document and driving force behind Cincinnati’s localized efforts to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The plan has short, medium, and long term Greenhouse Gas reduction goals which average out to an annual GHG reduction of 2%.

  • Short Term – Reduce GHG emissions 8% below 2006 levels by 2012
  • Medium Term – Reduce GHG emissions 40% below 2006 levels by 2028
  • Long Term – Reduce GHG emissions 84% below 2006 levels by 2050

Within the CPAP there are 5 identified categories that include more than 80 Emission Reduction Measures. One of these measures – eating less meat – has gotten significant coverage over the past 24-36 hours and has caused quite a stir.

The idea is that people try to go one day a week without eating meat. It’s not a mandate or policy, just a suggestion. The response though has been chaotic and emotionally charged with comments filled with anger and misunderstanding.

% of global meat consumptionFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

The fact is that reduced meat consumption can have a very significant impact on our GHG emissions (read CPAP excerpt below). If all Cincinnati residents were to, on average, eat meat one less day per week it would constitute a 14% reduction in meat consumption. That 14% reduction would translate into the reduction of 26,400 tons of GHG emissions by 2012 (short term) and 52,800 tons by 2028 (medium term). This reduction is more profound than the estimated GHG emission reduction by Energy Star Residential Construction (2,500 tons by 2028), Programmable Thermostats (35,000 tons by 2028), Increased Bicycle Usage (6,300 tons by 2028), or Hybrid Transit Busses (12,771 tons by 2028).

Summary of specific issues – A 2006 report by the United Nations‘ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Livestock’s Long Shadow, found that the production of animals for food is responsible for over 18% of the planet‘s greenhouse gas emissions. This is more than twice that of the office buildings and homes (8%) and nearly 40% more than transportation emissions (13%). This figure represents 9% of the planetary carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of the methane (mostly from livestock flatulence and waste matter) and 65% of the nitrous oxide; the latter two gases having 23 times and 296 times the global warming potentials of CO2.

The report concluded ―The livestock sector emerges as one of the… most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global and finds it must become a major policy focus.

A 2005 University of Chicago report, Diet, Energy and Global Warming (597kb pdf) found that the added burden of meat diets above plant based diets accounts for 6% of US total greenhouse gas emissions. The Standard American Diet (SAD), of which around 28% of the caloric intake is derived from meat, produced 1.485 metric tons CO2 equivalent emissions (per person per year) more than an all plant based diet (a conservative figure). A red meat eater‘s mean diet increased this number to 2.52 tons CO2e. This is the equivalent difference between driving a sedan (Camry) and an SUV. A diet of just 20% meat produced an added GHG burden of 1 ton CO2e per person annually; this is the difference between a year of driving a standard sedan (Camry) and the highest efficiency hybrid (Prius).

With 80% of annual world deforestation connected to animal agriculture, an area the size of a football field is razed every second, a practice which has been termed ―”the ‘hamburgerization’ of our forests.” A single SAD meal levels 55 square feet of rain forest.

Estimated greenhouse gas reduction to be achieved – 26,400 tons by 2012 (10% reduction in meat consumption x 20% of the population and 100% reduction by 3% of the population x 1.6 tons/person); 52,800 tons by 2028 (20% reduction in meat consumption x 20% of the population and 100% reduction by 6% of the population x 1.6). The goal will be to have all Cincinnati residents, on average, eat meat one less day per week by 2012, which would be a 14% reduction in meat consumption. The projected GHG emission reductions are based on a more conservative forecast of actual behavior.

Read the full report here (1.94mb pdf).

Categories
News Transportation

Could a City-Wide Water Taxi Network Improve Region’s Mobility?

Cincinnati is a river town. We developed as a major city because of the Ohio River. Multiple satellite cities developed as a result of the several Ohio River tributaries (Little Miami, Great Miami, Licking). These cities have become an integral part of our region and have greatly influenced the population distribution we see today.

Steamboats once darted all over the mighty Ohio River taking people to/from nearby cities and within our own to special destinations like Coney Island. Aside from the historic Anderson Ferry operation there is nothing left to speak of in terms of human transportation along our rivers.

Why not once again tap one of the biggest natural resources our community has as a means for transporting people?

Cincinnati could set up a Central Riverfront water taxi loop that would make stops at Cincinnati’s Central Riverfront Park, Newport on the Levee, and Covington Landing. This 1.65 mile loop could operate daily with one 12 passenger boat running the loop (15min). On the weekends, and for sporting events, a second 12 passenger boat could be deployed to handle greater demand for a route geared towards tourists and special event patrons. The water taxi loop’s reach would be extended with Cincinnati’s proposed streetcar system – making a car-free trip both easy and possible from downtown Covington and Newport all the way to the University of Cincinnati.

Linear routes could then be set up to run to the Central Riverfront Park terminal from the current Anderson Ferry terminal (6.88miles, 28min) to the west and new stops in Columbia Tusculum (4.66miles, 21min) and Coney Island to the east. The Anderson Ferry and Columbia Tusculum docking points would operate daily for commuter traffic, with the additional eastern leg to Coney Island operating on weekends and during special events at Riverbend and Riverdowns – similar to the function of the old “Island Queen” that operated between Coney Island and Downtown Cincinnati.

The water taxis used for the linear routes would hold 27 passengers seated and up to 6 additional standing passengers. Peak operating hours would be during daily commute periods for the Anderson Ferry and Columbia Tusculum terminals with 1 boat operating on each respective leg making for new departures every 40min to 1hr.

Too often we seem to forget how our city and region once functioned when it operated out of a manner of necessity. Riverdowns is feeling the pinch and Coney Island isn’t what it once was prior to the opening of Kings Island. Riverbend has opened a new pavilion and continues to draw big names, but additional service to the concert venue probably wouldn’t hurt.

UPDATE: Covington City Manager, Project Executive for The Banks, and several other riverfront business leaders are working together on collaborative efforts including water taxis – Enquirer 2/16/09.

Categories
News

What’s a Metro Nation without Strong Cities?

I found this to be especially profound while also being “duh” kind of thought process that is often lost amongst our population. The article has been partially reposted from CEOs for Cities

After an interview on WAMU’s Kojo Nnamdi show Thursday, I started thinking again about this idea of America as a “metro nation.” I was on first with guest host Rebecca Roberts, followed by Amy Liu of Brookings, where the idea of regionalism has been pushed hard for the past couple of years.

The concept of regionalism is smart on its face. Economies are regional, we count people at a metro level, air and water issues transcend political boundaries, and, in a perfect world, major amenities — and their cost — are shared regionally.

But no one should be agnostic about where development occurs in a region. Metro regions all across America are littered with the inevitable consequence of that kind of thinking. Let the city core thin out (sucking its vibrancy in the doing) and spread development thinly across the landscape (which never quite becomes vibant). There. You have the worst of both worlds.

When regionalism asserts the centrality of the anchor city and the need to build its vibrancy through renewal, then regionalism makes sense. But too often, the execution of regionalism means the central city gives and gives (and pays and pays), while the suburbs live off the jobs, amenities and identity provided in cities (or, for that matter, another suburb) without paying a dime.

Continue reading the article at: http://www.ceosforcities.org/blog/entry/2084