Calendar

News

Service Learning - Michael Hesselschwardt Essay

Michael Hesselschwardt
Kate Holterhoff
English 102H
5 June 2009




    For the last four decades, Over-the-Rhine, a small neighborhood near downtown Cincinnati, has been considered “the area where you lock your doors” (“When campus”).  With over 15,534 calls for police service in 2008 alone (second most among Cincinnati neighborhoods despite a population of merely 7,000 residents) it is no wonder the area is considered a hotspot for criminal activity (Cincinnati PD).  Recently, however, efforts have been made to salvage the crime-ravaged community through beautification endeavors and structural revamping.  Essentially, the City of Cincinnati is attempting to “clean up” the area and eliminate its unfavorable stereotype by attacking the problem from within.  This plan sounds like quite the gallant undertaking, yet many questions are being raised as to the true motives behind the city’s enterprises.  The central issue surrounding these projects involves gentrification, described by Journal of Urban Economics contributing author Arthur O’Sullivan as “typically referring to a variety of changes in inner cities caused by the displacement of lower-income households by higher-income households” (73).  Once again, this does not sound like something that would generate any type of controversy, especially in a poverty-stricken neighborhood such as Over-the-Rhine.  Yet that key word “displacement” is causing much skepticism among residents as to the city’s intentions regarding income and race discrimination.  Simply stated, are gentrification efforts in Over-the-Rhine explicitly displacing the poor in an attempt to bring in more affluent, and generally white, residents?


    Before examining these claims, however, an analysis of the area’s background must first be explored.  The City of Cincinnati’s plan to revitalize the Over-the-Rhine community was not constructed without precedent.  In the 1960’s, Over-the-Rhine surrendered most of its population and income in a suburban exodus like many urban neighborhoods across the nation.  Due to the preference of suburban rather than inner-city development at the time, depreciated property values and tax revenue losses prompted a downward economic spiral in the neighborhood, leading to the departure of most of the working and middle class residents from the area.  Over-the-Rhine ultimately entered a cycle of economic peril, naturally followed by an exponential jump in crime rate – and worse off, there appeared to be no way of stopping the neighborhood’s descent (OTRCH).  Despite this long period of social and economic subjugation, the city has only recently taken an interest in returning the area to its once respectable state.  From the late 18th to early 19th centuries, Over-the-Rhine contained more than 45,000 inhabitants and was a hub of political and societal activity, as the community even played host to three presidential conventions (“City should aid” 1).  Presently, however, one could hardly imagine that the vicinity so well-known for its abandoned buildings and criminal activity was once a thriving component of the Cincinnati community.  And now, Cincinnati is attempting to “win back” Over-the-Rhine.
   

   Yet what exactly constitutes a success in the city’s eye?  Lowered crime rates? Increased population? Elevated income levels?  All three seem like admirable goals, but in each, the topic of gentrification persistently rears its controversial head.  As mentioned before, gentrification in itself is not a horrific occurrence; it is when gentrification triggers the intended removal of previous residents based on discriminatory criteria that the word carries a negative connotation.  Also, it is not as if the City of Cincinnati is travelling out to the suburbs, rounding up well-to-do citizens, and placing them in homes once inhabited by lower-income residents.  The debate over gentrification is that much more subtle means are being employed by city officials, behind an altruistic façade, in order to garner similar results.  Specifically, are the prospects of improvements in areas such as living standards, economy, and crime rate enough to justify gentrification of any sort, whether based on discriminatory factors or not?


    Crime prevention is a foremost concern in nearly every major city across the nation, with Cincinnati being no exception.  In fact, with over 60% of the city’s budget going toward public safety, it seems odd that Cincinnati is ranked an unnervingly lofty 17th out of the 256 largest cities in the U.S. in crime rate (Cincinnati PD).  This is largely due to areas like Over-the-Rhine, where poverty and criminal activity have run rampant for much of the last half-century.  However, due to associations such as the Over-the-Rhine Community Housing Organization (OTRCH) and the Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC), efforts have been made to revamp the Over-the-Rhine area through residential and commercial restoration.  Through these undertakings, the city hopes to achieve a significant decrease in criminal activity via an extensive rehabbing of the neighborhood.  And based on prior research and experience, the projects presented in the Over-the-Rhine plan may actually do just that.


    As previously mentioned, the OTRCH and 3CDC have been instrumental in the planning and executing of both residential and commercial revitalization in Over-the-Rhine.  The OTRCH provides both subsidized and supportive housing for qualified residents, with below-market-value affordability.  As the OTRCH states,
By rehabbing formerly abandoned buildings, and occupying them with a stable tenant base, [the OTRCH] increases local property values, improves the social and economic climate of the community, and makes a better neighborhood for all.


Along the same lines, the 3CDC undertakings have been rather extensive as well.  Throughout the last three years, the organization has stood by a “homeownership cures all” policy, focusing its redevelopment efforts on a massive plan entitled the Gateway Project.  The endeavor calls for $11 million in publicly-subsidized restoration efforts, along with countless millions funded by other organizations, in the hope of providing a channel through which private development, and ultimately homeownership, will ensue.  The city has already drawn in an assortment of nouveau shops and small businesses through the Gateway Project, establishing Over-the-Rhine as an arts district that has effectively attracted an influx of empty-nesters and young professionals (Gateway).


This entire enterprise is centered on the city’s attempt at economic revival in Over-the-Rhine, as well the application of the Broken Window Theory to deter crime and poverty.  This theory, in summary, elaborates on the importance of visibly “cleaning up” a neighborhood, which will effectually reduce crime in the area (Kelling & Coles).  Making a neighborhood seem more aesthetically appealing may seem like a trivial task when considering the large-scale crime and poverty problems facing Over-the-Rhine, yet numerous case studies involving major cities such as Portland, Oregon and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have proven that applications of the Broken Window Theory have significantly reduced crime rates (O’Sullivan 76).  Therefore, the city of Cincinnati has personally initiated its own programs, aided by organizations such as Keep Cincinnati Beautiful, to reverse the presence of crime through beautification methods.  Essentially, though the Gateway Project was initially established as a means of stimulating economic progress in downtrodden areas like Over-the-Rhine, its effects have improved the Cincinnati area in numerous other ways as well.


    As previously referenced, a major positive correlation between Over-the-Rhine and the Gateway Project has been the reduction of crime in recent years.  Since the middle of the 20th century, rampant crime rates and excessive poverty levels in certain regions of Cincinnati have put a damper on any economic progress made by the city as a whole.  Since ten major Fortune 500 companies call Cincinnati home to their headquarters, the city wants to ensure that unbridled crime rates do not coax these economically-beneficial corporations into relocating.  Consequently, and largely due to the Gateway Project, the city has implemented massive “attacks on crime” in pivotal locations; in Over-the-Rhine alone, the occurrence of Part 1 crimes (homicide, armed assault, rape, etc.) has decreased from nearly 2,000 incidents in 2004 to less than 1,200 in 2008 (Cincinnati PD).  From a statistical standpoint, these facts seem very advantageous to the growth and sustainability of the community; however, several question have been raised as to exactly why and how crime rates are being lowered, and if these motives are truly justifiable.


    Justifiability is an interesting and disputed topic in reference to the Over-the-Rhine gentrification issue.  When dealing with the causes and effects of crime in the area, who in their right mind would argue that a decrease in crime rates (by almost any means, really) is unjustifiable?  Yet, one of the underlying concerns of Cincinnati residents is that the gentrification taking place is not solely an effort to bring safety and wealth to the area, but also a maneuver to eliminate “unwealth”.  What exactly does this mean, though?  In the 1850’s, Over-the-Rhine consisted of about a 60% German American population.  After the suburban exodus of the mid-20th century, a population shift occurred, and presently 80% of the Over-the-Rhine population consists of African American residents. And with 75% of Over-the-Rhine’s inhabitants living below the poverty level, the term “unwealth” in this case most directly affects African Americans (OTR Foundation).  So therefore, the crime and poverty associated with Over-the-Rhine is commonly perceived as a race issue – and a problem the city may be attempting to subtly eliminate.  Ultimately, a blatant discriminatory gentrification effort would never fly in a city as diverse as Cincinnati, as the Queen City played host to the annual NAACP Convention in 2008 (Dutton 1).  In fact, many believe the city is merely promoting its apparent diversity-friendly policies on select terms, while in reality city officials are employing means of displacing lower-class minorities from the area.  Thomas A. Dutton, Director of the Center for Community Engagement at Miami University of Ohio and contributing author to The Black Scholar, attributes this mindset to a “selective amnesia” among Cincinnati residents that has skewed perceptions of crime in the city:
So if this is the case, the thought of changing the social atmosphere of Over-the-Rhine through gentrification efforts no longer seems as glamorous.  Essentially, it is conjectured that lower-class minorities “are not so much the victims of the new urban colonialism as they are targets for removal” (Dutton 3).  However, city authorities view these matters in a tremendously different light.  Some skeptics may consider their efforts to regain once-vacant commercial and residential space as a form of “domestic imperialism” (Dutton 4), yet the City of Cincinnati’s impetus is self-described as a way to increase the opportunity of private development to promote economic expansion and mixing (Economic Development 67).  Because of these opposing viewpoints, the city does not want to appear as though it is removing African American citizens as it would a rodent problem, nor does it want to openly blame the black population for Over-the-Rhine’s extensive crime troubles.


     Near the top of Cincinnati’s list of concerns, right alongside crime, is the looming anxiety over economic peril.  This financial factor can be associated with several facets of urban life that gentrification ultimately affects.  Two central issues that have been defining the progress of struggling neighborhoods such as Over-the-Rhine are permanent residency and appreciating property values.  Obviously, with a stable residency and elevated property values, Over-the-Rhine can attract higher-income inhabitants and a strong commercial base.  Due to its ideal location between downtown Cincinnati and the University-Medical Complex, market-savvy businesses have been licking their chops at the opportunity to establish themselves and expand in the Over-the-Rhine area; but until now, they have been discouraged by its unattractive social predicaments.  Hence the Gateway Project, which has effectively reintroduced the historical significance of buildings and businesses such as Music Hall, the Ensemble Theatre, the Pendleton Arts Center, and Findlay Market.  As the Broken Window Theory suggests, and similarly to a domino effect, businesses and middle-class residents were quick to follow the revitalization efforts, and soon four of the five major commercial lot vacancies in Over-the-Rhine were sold (Economic Development 65).  To further add to the success of the city’s plan, property values are on the rise.  Construction of new condominiums and townhouses in once-vacant sectors of the neighborhood are indicative of developers’ newfound willingness to take a risk in Over-the-Rhine.  As Larry Harris, senior planner for the City of Cincinnati explains, “What we’re seeing is a remaking of some city neighborhoods spurred by new residential housing developments marketed to higher-income buyers [which is] changing the mix of housing and people we have in those neighborhoods” (McKinney 1).  However, there is once again much speculation as to the true corollaries of such “successes”.
    What many fail to realize is that the City of Cincinnati is indeed concerned with the well-being of its low-income population (given it may not always be for the most philanthropic of reasons).  If the city was to purposefully remove these people from their homes by means of the Gateway Project or other endeavors, where would they go?  It is not as if all the poor of Cincinnati would magically hop on a train and be removed from the area, thus satisfying the city’s assumed desire for gentrification.  In fact, the majority of these people, due to their lack of means, would be forced to take to the streets of Cincinnati.  One could argue that the City of Cincinnati would not want such an anti-didactic resolution on its conscious, and therefore it would not knowingly commit such an offense toward its lower-class citizens.  It is more reasonable to assume, however, that the city is merely concerned about the existing homelessness and street apprehensions in areas like Over-the-Rhine.  Over 6,000 homeless people and recently-released sex offenders pass through the Over-the-Rhine transitional housing units and shelters annually – a number almost exceeding the neighborhood’s permanent population (OTR Foundation).  Up until recently, this concentrated “black hole” of social services has stunted commercial development, expended a massive amount of public funds, and shied potential business-owners away from the area (OTRCH).  Therefore, why would a commercially-dependent city like Cincinnati even consider putting more people on its streets when the economic drawbacks of such an action would be incredible?


    Whether one advocates, opposes, or denies the existence of gentrification in Over-the-Rhine, there is no debate about the presence of income as one of the city’s key policy-making factors.  Elevated crime levels, widespread poverty, and lack of commercial expansion all play detrimental roles to the city’s piggy-bank.  Thus, Cincinnati leaders would be on a very short leash when attempting to employ beneficial programs for their citizens.  This scenario is advantageous to no party involved, and ultimately profits the city as a whole in no way whatsoever.  However, through Cincinnati’s advocacy of the Gateway Project, several income-related factors can be introduced, many of which were relayed earlier.  In a quick summation, this may be because:
Crime distorts the city’s population mix in favor of low-income agents, who have less to lose from crime.  A decrease in crime reduces this distortion, causing gentrification by increasing the number of high-income agents in the city.  Gentrification is self-reinforcing because the displacing of low-income agents decreases the crime rate, decreases the consumer prices paid by high-income agents, and increases the prices paid by low-income agents. (O’Sullivan 85)
    All in all, premised by several viewpoints and varying angles of the issue, it can be concluded that the presence of gentrification in Over-the-Rhine is not an intended practice by the City of Cincinnati.  Endeavors to reduce crime rates, increase permanent residency, and boost economic involvement in the area all are meant to benefit the city as a whole and all the residents living therein.  Any gentrification taking place in Over-the-Rhine is occurring as an offshoot of these factors, and should not be attributed to suggested selfish implications on behalf of city leaders.  Should any lower-class displacement occur, efforts are being employed to reverse the effects through public housing initiatives executed by the OTRCH.  In fact, revitalization plans such as the Gateway Project have successfully provided better living environments and have placed Over-the-Rhine back on the map as an economic contributor to the City of Cincinnati.  In an area where poverty and crime once dominated the streets, shops and condominiums are now being introduced.  In a neighborhood where children were once afraid to play outside, festivals and events are being held.  Ultimately, with the help of the city, Over-the-Rhine is emerging from the shadows of ill-fortune and distress, and is now well on its way to regaining its heritage as a historical and flourishing member of the Cincinnati community.

Go Back



City of Cincinnati Police Department.  Calls for Police Service and Part 1 Crimes: January thru
December 2008.  Cincinnati: 2009.  Print.
“City should aid Over-the-Rhine plan”.  Editorial.  Cincinnati Enquirer 26 Mar. 2006: 2J.  Print.
Dutton, Thomas A.  “Colony Over-the-Rhine”.  The Black Scholar 37:3 (2007).  Web.
Economic Development.  The City of Cincinnati, Ohio, 2009.  Web.  27 May 2009.
The Gateway Quarter.  OTR/Gateway Merchants Group, Cincinnati, n.d.  Web.  10 May 2009.
Kelling, George L. & Catherine M. Coles.  Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and
    Reducing Crime in our Communities.  New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1996.  Web.
McKinney, Jeff.  “Poorer neighborhoods getting upscale influx”.  Cincinnati Enquirer 2 Nov.
    2006: 1A.  Print.
O’Sullivan, Arthur.  “Gentrification and crime”.  Journal of Urban Economics 57 (2004): 73-85.
    Print.
Over-the-Rhine Community Housing.  Community; Programs and Projects.  OTRCH,
Cincinnati, 2009.  Web.  10 May 2009.
Over-the-Rhine Foundation.  Improved Social Services: Advocating for an Improved Social
    Service Delivery System.  OTR Foundation, Cincinnati, 2009.  Web.  27 May 2009.
“When ‘campus’ is Over-the-Rhine”.  Editorial.  Cincinnati Enquirer 1 Dec. 2008: 4C.  Print.

Sign up for e-newsletter:

 

801 Plum Street, Room 16 · Cincinnati, OH 45202 · 513.352.4380 · Fax: 513.352.4389 · KeepCincinnatiBeautiful.org