To Mr. LeMaster and everyone else at Building Cincinnati, does anyone have a logical answer as to why historic, architecturally-interesting structures such as this one are demolished by the City? Any logical answer at all?

to W. White:
HAZARD: January 2010, added siding pulling away from structure and evidence of foundation failure.
CONDEMNED: July 2009, for driveway retaining wall, rotted cornice, gutters and downspouts, litter and weeds
Were YOU going to buy it and restore it?

Buildings more than 50 years old are subject to an additional review by the Urban Conservator, a public hearing during which anyone can speak and present evidence about the historical significance of any building on the docket.

Unfortunately, from the City side, its "historic inventory" list is woefully inadequate. Interested parties lack the funding, time, or wherewithal to do the necessary research. Notifications, done through the weekly City Bulletin, don't reach the people in the community who could give the most help.

And, from the other side, buildings are left to languish for years. "Why don't you just buy the building?" isn't the best argument. These are freaking BUILDINGS fraught with problems, not candy bars or a shitty Wal-Mart $6 pair of pants.

To Anonymous,

I would ask you when would I have had the chance to purchase this house? When has this house been for sale in recent years? Perhaps I have just overlooked the listing, but I cannot recall seeing this house for sale in the past two or three years. Three years ago, judging by the city orders, this house could have been repaired. Retaining walls are not particularly difficult to repair (can be expensive depending on what and how much they are retaining), cornice work is not especially difficult either unless there is underlying roofing damage. Replacing gutters and downspouts, pulling up weeds, and carting off litter are all weekend projects. Even two years ago the house could have been repaired, though much more expensively due to the foundation damage. Yet, no one had the chance to undertake any such work because the owner, Terrence R. Dickey, sat on the property, allowed it to deteriorate, then stuck taxpayers with the bill for a demolition that could have been prevented. That does not take into account the lost property tax revenue the city faces from this property now that it goes from a $61,260 house to a $3-5,000 vacant, trash-strewn lot.

There are so many more economically productive ways to deal with the problem of vacant, deteriorating structures than what the City of Cincinnati (any many, many other cities, I am not just picking on Cincinnati) is doing right now. A city-wide OTR Adopt model run by the city would improve the tax base while being historically and environmentally-friendly and all those other "Green" trends. St. Louis has a similar program through its Land Reutilization Authority, where people can purchase houses for $1,000, $2,000, $4,000, or more depending on the size and location.

While the demolition of 3573 Glenwood Pl. is not the end of the world. However, its demolition and the demolition of other houses like it, such as 3726 Mead Ave., 3240 Gaff Ave., and 261 Renner St. (in "up and coming" OTR, no less) are symptomatic of other deeper issues that will effect the long-term viability and livability of Cincinnati.