By Gregory Korte
The Cincinnati Enquirer

Thomas Patton (left) and Lowell Orr stand in front of the historic Germania Building in Over-the-Rhine. Patton manages the building. (Steven M. Herppich photo) | ZOOM |

Some say it would unshackle pent-up development in Over-the-Rhine. Others say it will lead to the unfettered, wholesale demolition of historic buildings.

Cincinnati Councilman Paul Booth's proposal to abolish the two historic districts in Over-the-Rhine has reignited a debate over development, preservation and what's worth saving in the city's oldest - and poorest - neighborhood.

"Developers are so restricted by the historic overlay that the developer often finds it not worth the trouble to try to rehab properties in Over-the-Rhine," Booth said. He said his proposal would "restore the gem" to Over-the-Rhine by removing the red tape that comes with working on historic buildings.

"It seems odd to me that you would seek to restore the gem by removing the gemstone," said architect Jeff Raser, a critic of the plan.

City Council enacted the Over-the-Rhine South district, which includes properties south of Liberty Street, in 1993. The North district came in November 2001.

Both require approval from the Historic Conservation Board before getting a building permit for any work that would alter the outward appearance of the building.

The 126-year-old Germania Building at 12th and Walnut streets has been called "the foremost example of German-American architecture in the United States." The second-story statue of Germania, a symbol of the German spirit, represents arts, culture and learning.

One story below, a window air-conditioning unit sticks out above aluminum doors. And above, a sign reading "Deutsche Gegenseitige Versicherungs Gesellschaft von Cincinnati" is covered up, so as not to betray its original owner, the German Mutual Insurance Company of Cincinnati. Wooden doors and windows have been replaced with aluminum.

Indeed, when the old wooden doors became so battered that they became a security problem, the owners tried to replace them with sturdy metal doors. The city insisted on wooden doors that would cost $2,300 each.

The owners had to present cost estimates, diagrams, photos and affidavits from tenants. They won their appeal, but the process took two months.

"Meanwhile, we lost a tenant," said building manager Thomas V. Patton. "Don't you think you should be able to put up whatever door you want, as long as you pay for it?"

Building owner Lowell Orr, who bought the landmark in 1982, said he agrees with the city's efforts to establish guidelines for historic rehabilitation. "But they're idealists. They're not practical," he said.

William L. "Skip" Forwood Jr., the city's urban conservator, rebuts claims that the city's process is overly burdensome.

He cited these statistics:

Last year, business owners submitted 242 building permit applications for Over-the-Rhine. The city's conservation staff denied 19 permits, which were appealed to the Historic Conservation Board. Of those, only two were denied zoning variances.

After the Historic Conservation Board, the next appeal is to City Council, putting council members in the awkward position of trying to determine what kind of windows are architecturally appropriate.

Booth said it's those cases that have convinced him that the city's guidelines are too burdensome. But city staffers point out that City Council has heard only four appeals in the last five years - and none in Over-the-Rhine.

As the debate wages at City Hall, many Over-the-Rhine developers find themselves somewhere in the middle.

They want the historic designation, but less stringent guidelines.

"In general, we're not big on regulation down here. We feel there's too much as it is," said Chris Frutkin of City Center Properties, the president of the Over-the-Rhine Chamber of Commerce.

"A free-for-all demolition of buildings down here, I would not support. I still have good feelings about what a historic district does."

Booth's proposal doesn't appear to have much support at City Hall. Council members David Pepper and John Cranley think it's such a bad idea that they tried to kill it in the Neighborhood and Public Works Committee this week.

"We just passed this in November 2001. It can't possibly be the reason why there are hundreds and hundreds of vacant buildings in Over-the-Rhine," Pepper said.

Booth, the committee chairman, merely postponed a vote.

"I want to be sure this issue gets a free and unbiased hearing before we railroad it," he said. "I haven't heard anyone say the process couldn't be improved or streamlined."

E-mail gkorte@enquirer.com