Razing the Roots

Here in DotLoop's home city of Cincinnati, we're having a bit of our own housing crisis. Last week, it was announced that the Gamble House, so named because it was owned by the co-founder of Proctor & Gamble, is about to be razed, because it's cheaper to get rid of it than spend money on repairs and restoration. The house is a local landmark, with gorgeous 19th-Century architecture. As the old adage says, "they don't make 'em like that anymore." But it is in disrepair and is in desperate need of a doctor for Gamble.

But is it really cheaper to raze it than to restore it? Yes and no.

In the short-run, it probably is cheaper to raze than restore. It's the easy and convenient way to do things. In the long-run, though, it will cost more to raze the property than to restore it, and not just financially.

Keeping and restoring an old home as opposed to just destroying it also benefits the community, many of whom have fond memories of it from their childhood. It also helps preserve a piece of history for the city, allowing us to have a benchmark to show where what we once were so that we can see how far we've come (or haven't, so that we can adjust our sails).

Luckily, the community here can see this and are trying to prevent the house from becoming just another empty lot. They see the value of this house beyond the cost of new shingles and elbow grease. I hope that their efforts pay off.

As I've touched upon before, a building - whether it be a home or a commercial property - is more than just an ATM, it's a part of a community. Place matters and buildings most certainly affect how we feel about a place. That's the beauty of architecture.

The owners have every right to raze the house if they want to, but I hope they reconsider. Costs other than financial are at stake. Restoring and re-purposing the Gamble House is one gamble that will pay off for the entire community.

Photo courtesy of cincinnati.com.