Eric Russo
Guest columnist

The Hillside Trust is part of the opposition that took a strong stance against the luxury condos planned for East Price Hill. The reason was simple. The building does not fit the Environmental Quality (EQ) hillside guidelines that were designed, in part, to preserve the visual integrity of this landmark hillside.

The EQ guidelines (1976) and The Hillside Trust (1976) are relatives of a movement that originated in the 1960s. Beginning in 1967, some of the leading citizens and organizations of the day worked cooperatively with city officials to explore proactive strategies for preserving the beauty and stability of our extraordinary hillsides. This was a direct response to the sudden appearance of such buildings as the Highland Tower in Mount Adams (1963), and the Queen's Tower in East Price Hill (1967) that were built without any consideration for the visual character of their respective hillside settings. It also was in recognition that our hillsides, as last frontiers for growth, are slippery slopes that can wreak havoc when inappropriate and ill-advised developments are allowed to be built on them.

It's no accident that the first EQ hillside district adopted was the East Price Hill Front. Residents lobbied hard for this zoning overlay that protects the aesthetic beauty and slope stability of their prominent hillside community, and allows them to review neighborhood development plans.

Those living near the current development proposal do not want a 100-foot tall (eight story high) 320 foot wide condominium towering over their homes, which also degrades the visual profile of their hillside. They do not want a gated community that ignores the architectural, environmental and social aspects of their neighborhood. They do want something more appropriate, similar to the 18 single-family homes designed for this very site in 2000. That plan was endorsed by The Hillside Trust and approved by EQ hearing examiner, Robert Richardson, although the developer eventually withdrew his proposal.

Mr. Richardson's denial of the current proposal does not preclude development of the property. Instead of appealing the decision, the developer has the option of resubmitting a better plan. The developer is correct that the density of his project meets the underlying zoning, which allows for more units than the 55 he is proposing. If the underlying zoning is the most important consideration however, then why have EQ guidelines in the first place? Are they relevant only to those who wish to conform to them? The new zoning code update is said to discourage this kind of project.

Meanwhile, the developer is crying foul and the Mayor is pressuring City Council to endorse the project as a panacea for Price Hill's economic woes. Truthfully, it is impossible to simply build our way out of any social and economic ills that plague our city. If anything, the last 40 years should teach us that it is counterproductive to our social and economic well-being to support development when it comes at the expense of our neighborhoods, our small businesses, and our historical and environmental assets. How ironic that Cincinnati has lost over 170,000 residents since 1960 during which time a number of its cultural and natural assets have been sacrificed in the name of growth.

The City has both the obligation and the authority to demand a better product than what is currently proposed for East Price Hill. Will it bow to political pressure and narrow special interests, or will it stand up for the greater good? The Hillside Trust believes the developer can design a smaller more compatible project, and still make a profit. The Trust also believes that Mr. Richardson made the right call.

---

Eric Russo is executive director of the Hillside Trust. The Hillside Trust is a private non-profit organization that advocates the thoughtful use of our hillsides through a three-part mission of research and education, land conservation, and advocacy of responsible land use.