History of Over the Rhine OTR

Over the Rhine (OTR) is a neighborhood in Cincinnati, Ohio, located in the northern edge of the downtown core. It was initially populated by German immigrants after the failed German Revolution of 1849 (Woodward, 2016). By 1850, the population in OTR reached 43,000 (Dyson & Varady, 2019). This period characterized OTR as one of the most dense neighborhoods in the United States (Woodward, 2016). As a primarily German-American settlement, the area became a hub with German-speaking churches, schools, markets, and a newspaper (Woodward, 2016). Most buildings were built between 1860 and 1900 with dense, mixed-use developments of excellent quality (OTR Guidelines Part 1, 2019). The Italianate style is the predominant architectural style in OTR (OTR Guidelines Part 1, 2019). Other nineteenth-century styles, including Federal, Greek Revival, Second Empire, Queen Anne, and Renaissance Revival, add to the urban form (OTR Guidelines Part 1, 2019). Today, OTRs main attraction is its heritage architecture.

There were five new railways and an electric streetcar system by the 1880s (Woodward, 2016). This allowed for the decentralization of the working class (Woodward, 2016).  Breweries were a major part of the OTR economy, in 1893, there were 36 breweries producing 1.5 million barrels of beer a year (OTR History, 2017). In 1900, the OTR population reached its peak at 45,000 (Dyson & Varady, 2019). Anti-German sentiments brought by WW I drove Germans out of the city and into the suburbs (Woodward, 2016). Teaching German was banned during WWI and German books were pulled from library shelves (Woodward, 2016). German-Americans changed the spelling of their names to appear less German (Woodward, 2016). Furthermore, the 1919 prohibition drove most breweries out of business, contributing further to the population decline in OTR (Woodward, 2016). 

Around this same time, southern African Americans began to populate the West End neighborhood adjacent to OTR (Jackson, 2021). After the great depression, poor Appalachians of Irish and Scottish descent moved to OTR after lost employment due to the mechanization of coal mining (Miller & Tucker, 1998). In the 1950s, thousands of African Americans from the neighboring West End were displaced for the construction of the I-75 highway (Jackson, 2021). This pushed many of those displaced to move to OTR.

Buddy Gray, is known for his advocacy in OTR. He worked to protect low-income housing and provide shelter for the homeless from the 1970s until his death in 1996 (High, 2020). After years of disinvestment, by 1980 a vast majority of housing in OTR was section 8 subsidized housing (Woodward, 2016). This caused an influx of non-residents to purchase properties in OTR, giving rise to absentee landlords and substandard housing conditions (Addie, 2007).  Gray mobilized the OTR People’s Movement, a collective of non-profit organizations advocating on behalf of marginalized and disenfranchised people (Addie, 2007). He bought many abandoned properties in OTR, creating homeless shelters and addiction treatment facilities (High, 2020). Because of Gray’s campaigning, the city and development both stayed out of OTR. 

By 1990 the OTR population was down to 9500 (Addie, 2007). In 2000, the introduction of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) vouchers caused people to leave OTR for more desirable neighborhoods rather than live in subsidized housing (High, 2020). This also resulted in the largest provider of subsidized housing to file for bankruptcy (Woodward, 2016). The population dropped to 7500 by 2000 (Addie, 2007). The final straw before significant change in OTR was the fatal police shooting of Timothy Thomas, a 19-year-old black man, after a chase for the non-violent crime of 14 traffic violations (Woodward, 2016). Following this event, what started as peaceful protests turned into a major riot (Woodward, 2016). With crime at an all-time high, the city announced a new plan.

Context of the Plan

The Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan was implemented when the civil unrest of 2001 named OTR as the “ most dangerous neighborhood in the United States” (Woodard, 2016). The changes to the community occurred rapidly, with all aspects being meticulously planned and implemented by a “single, corporate-funded and decidedly non-governmental entity,” 3CDC (Woodard, 2016). 3CDC, Cincinnati Center City Development Corp is a “non-profit, real estate development and finance organization focused on… revitalizing Cincinnati’s urban core” (3CDC, n.d.). In 2002, Cincinnati began to scope out possible redevelopment opportunities for the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood, which the city had been largely neglecting due to lack of funding and was a major site for crime and violence. However, this location had economic potential since it was close to the Central Business district and held historical significance to the city. As a result, the city decided to deploy a participatory consensus-building project to create a comprehensive plan.Though the plan was advertised as a public-private partnership, the plan was primarily designed and funded by 3CDC for inherently selfish reasons. Being profit-driven, the private company began purchasing thousands of parcels that would later be developed in accordance with the plan they created (Woodard, 2016). The plan was to be implemented over several phases, going block by block to revitalize buildings before selling them to private companies (Woodard, 2016).

The OTR Comprehensive Plan  was centered entirely around the gentrification of the neighborhood to generate economic benefits. With gentrification came the inability of current residents to afford housing in their neighborhood. Though the Comprehensive Plan includes affordable housing,  (City of Cincinnati, 2002) the plan does not define the parameters around types of units nor has the city done an assessment on whether the Plan’s Mixed-Income Housing Model goals were met (McTague & Jakubwski, 2013) Furthermore, in order to qualify for affordable housing, occupants still needed to meet the minimum income threshold, which many did not (McTague & Jakubwski, 2013). Therefore, further limiting access for many low income residents. Additionally, the affordable housing model phased out affordable housing incrementally 10 years and 20 years following the plan implementation (City of Cincinnati, 2002, p. 7). Between 2002 and 2015, Over-the-Rhine saw a “73% drop in affordable housing” (Starr, 2021). Lacking adequate affordable housing forced residents to move from the neighborhood and relocate to other parts of the city. Many of these residents had deep roots in OTR, and yet again the Black community was largely forced out of their neighborhood. Prior to 1996 OTR was predominantly Black, however, by 2014 the community was nearly two-thirds White (Starr, 2021).

3CDC was not only changing a neighborhood, but additionally destroying any sense of place that the few remaining residents had. The “first move was to shut down corner liquor stores by becoming their landlords” (Woodard, 2016).  While 3CDC was praised because crime had been reduced by 36 percent, there was no consideration of the social impacts that this had on the community or on Cincinnati at large (Woodard, 2016). 3CDC had not considered, likely through their lack of public engagement, the significance these spaces had. These spaces had been used as informal gathering spaces that residents had been able to engage in and interact with their surrounding community. Instead, 3CDC transitioned these spaces to “high-end bars and restaurants' which attracted no neighborhood families and are built around tourism for the historical urban form of OTR (Woodard, 2016). Additionally, the sense of place developed over time by existing residents was stripped away as new development brought with it an increase in short-term rentals (Starr, 2021). The existing residents of Over-the-Rhine became isolated and displaced within their own neighborhood, destroying any sense of place that may not have been understood by those who did not live in the community. 

Participatory Frameworks 

Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation

The first theoretical framework we will use to analyze the participatory approach of the OTC Comprehensive Plan is Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation to determine the "extent of citizens' power in determining the plan or program" (Arnstein, 2019, p.1). 

The OTR Comprehensive Plan was implemented by the city to involve a diverse array of stakeholders.The city planning department helped form a planning and steering committee (PSC) composed of 27 members of community group representatives and citizens (McTague & Jakubowski, 2013). This group created and chaired the four issue committees on housing, economic development, transportation, and quality of life (McTague & Jakubowski, 2013).  These issue committees were charged with developing planning recommendations (McTague & Jakubowski, 2013). It is important to note that participation in these committees was open to everyone and that the city had provided input from issue-specific experts to help identify target issues and develop goals and strategies. In the end, the work completed by the issue committee "represented the basis for the recommendations made in the comprehensible plan" (McTague & Jakubowski, 2013, p.185). 

Despite the city allowing for anyone to participate in the issue committees, they did not monitor who was participating. No work was done to ensure representatives from the current population were consulted. Furthermore, even for those who did participate and whose input was reflected in the plan, the city did not provide adequate information on the redevelopment occurring in the area or whether the plan's targets were being met. Based on this information, the public participation used in the Over-The-Rhine Comprehensive Plan aligns with the "placation" rung of Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 2019). This is because, in this case, the city placed a wide variety of citizens in positions that gave them a degree of influence, as highlighted by the organization of the planning and steering committee (PSC) and the four-issue committees. However, ultimately, these "committee" recommendations and strategies were easily pushed aside by the city's development agenda, which was not held accountable.

Fung’s Democracy Cube 

Another theoretical Framework we will use to analyze Cincinnati's public participation project is Fung’s democracy cube (Fung, 2006). Fung criticizes Arnstein's ladder as being too simplistic such that participation should not only be assessed based on how much influence the public has on the project; rather, participation should also be analyzed based on its means within the project. 

Fung highlights three dimensions that make up the democracy cube. The first dimension he highlights is "participation selection" (Fung, 2006, p. 68). In this case, the participants who aided the development of the Over the Rhine Comprehensive Plan can be categorized as "lay stakeholders" or "unpaid citizens who have a deep interest in some public concern" and thus are willing to commit time and energy to the project (Fung, 2006, p.68). This category of participation is depicted because participants in this process were largely made up of the residents of the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood who feared the effects of redevelopment on housing and whether gentrification would push them out of the neighborhood. As a result, the members of the issue committees included residents who would usually not get involved in politics, community groups, and business owners.

The second dimension of Fung's democracy cube is "communication and decision," which identifies how participants deliberate during participation (Fung, 2006, p.68). In this case, the committees engaged in what Fung describes as a "deliberation and negotiation" model (Fung, 2006, p.69). This model was demonstrated by participants engaging with expert-provided knowledge and then deploying deliberative mechanisms to facilitate agreements on policy recommendations, which were then compiled in the Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan. 

The final dimension of Fung's democracy cube is "authority and power," which measures the impact of public participation (Fung, 2006, p.69). It is noteworthy that the Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan lays out steps to establish a monitoring system to provide an annual count of housing units. Moreover, the plan also highlighted that the city should develop a board to advance the objectives of this plan, which should include residents and the development community who aided in the formation of the plan (McTague & Jakubowski, 2013). Therefore, participants of this planning process expected a "converging partnership in which they join with officials to make plans and policies or to develop strategies for public action" (Fung, 2006, p.69). However, in reality, the public participation used to develop the Comprehensive Plan was viewed as a method of "advice and consultation," therefore, officials preserved their authority and power (Fung, 2006, p.69). 

In Fung's article, he uses this cube to "explore the kinds of participatory mechanisms suited to assessing problems in contemporary governance" (Fung, 2006, p.70). The first problem that can arise is "legitimacy"  (Fung, 2006, p.70).  This occurs when citizens do not believe they have a good reason to obey a public policy or action (Fung, 2006). Regarding the initial discussions of the OTR redevelopment plan, residents of the neighborhood began protesting against the city as they felt completely isolated from the design-making process (McTague & Jakubowski, 2013). Therefore, it can be argued that the city deployed this extensive participation process to create legitimacy in the redevelopment project. However, by not giving participants any real say in the actual development process, the city could push through its agenda without interference from the public. 

Strengths

The main strength of this project is the fact that it employed proficient stakeholder engagement. As mentioned, a committee of 27 individuals was formed in order to represent the community (McTague & Jakubowski, 2013) and ensure that recommendations that were in the best interest of the community were being made. The committee was made up of residents, institution members, business members, as well as other stakeholders (City of Cincinnati, 2002). In having such a wide range of stakeholders, the committee was representative of various individuals and balanced competing interests.

This committee was created in cooperation with local community organizations, including the “Coalition, the Community Councils, and the Residents Table”, which made it an appropriate and representative group for the neighborhood (City of Cincinnati, 2002, p.20). The committee was responsible for “monitoring the planning process, being involved in the issue committees, and engaging volunteers and community input” (City of Cincinnati, 2002, p.20). To achieve these tasks, the committee organized working meetings, sponsored several community public meetings, and hosted several visioning charrettes (City of Cincinnati, 2002). These events cultivated an inclusive and collaborative process. The committee was inclusive since it was open to all residents and received support from the local government who provided experts to help identify key issues and develop strategies to address these issues (City of Cincinnati, 2002). This is a strength of the plan, showcasing how inclusive and collaborative the process was.

As part of the public engagement for this project, there was a community visioning process in which more than 200 community stakeholders attended (City of Cincinnati, 2002). This process allowed residents to be part of the physical design of the redevelopment (City of Cincinnati, 2002). In particular, stakeholders would communicate their vision with urban designers who would sketch out these ideas to add to the final report (City of Cincinnati, 2002). In allowing stakeholders to work with urban designers, this process was made more accessible as it helped those without a design background to articulate their vision. The community visioning process always took place on weekends which again made the process accessible and convenient for lay stakeholders, as most people typically do not have work on the weekends (City of Cincinnati, 2002). This ensured that many people were able to show up and not have to worry about taking time off of work.

Overall, this process was beneficial in that it ensured that marginalized residents who are typically excluded – whether advertently or inadvertently – from community engagement had ample opportunity to be involved and voice their concerns. Thus, public engagement in this project was proficient in ensuring an equitable process.

The implementation of the project is another strength as it occurred relatively quickly due to the fact that it was done by a private corporation (Woodard, 2016). In particular, there were no constraints of bureaucracy since the government was not implementing the project (Woodard, 2016). When the project was completed, it was deemed successful as select businesses were thriving (Woodard, 2016). For instance, certain restaurants – including a gourmet hot dog restaurant – always had a long line up out the door during lunch hour (Woodard, 2016). Many of the breweries that were forced to shut down years ago have been revived and are thriving as well (Woodard, 2016).

Office rents are also competitive as many want to conduct business in the area because of the close proximity to the downtown core and the desirable historic ambience of the renewed infrastructure (Woodard, 2016). There are now also a wide variety of amenities available in the neighborhood, including water jets, a performance stage, and a dog park (Woodard, 2016).

The redevelopment has also been beneficial because it has resulted in the purchase and rescuing of 131 historic buildings (Woodard, 2016). Furthermore, the redevelopment has resulted in 48 new buildings and the rehabilitation of parks as well (Woodard, 2016). Since the redevelopment, there has also been a significant increase in safety, with a crime reduction rate of 30% (Woodard, 2016). This reduction was attributed to increased lighting and security cameras being installed, liquor stores being closed, and the development of vacant lots (Woodard, 2016). Due to the success of this project, Over-the-Rhine has been deemed an attraction for out-of-towners which has benefited the local economy (Woodard, 2016).

Weaknesses

Although good public engagement for the Over-the-Rhine project occurred, it did not allow citizens to monitor the implementation of the plan (McTague & Jakubowski, 2013). This is problematic in that the lack of transparency made it difficult to gauge whether stakeholder input was actually being utilized (McTague & Jakubowski, 2013). This issue is related to the fact that the project was implemented by a private corporation, 3CDC. Because it was implemented by a non-governmental entity, there was an overall lack of transparency, accountability, community-oriented goals, and regulations. Ultimately, the final project did not incorporate the feedback acquired through the various public engagements that had occurred. This was a huge disappointment for residents who had invested significant time and effort into this project with no compensation.

Many have contended that the redevelopment of Over-the-Rhine has led to inequity and gentrification (Starr, 2021). In particular, since the redevelopment, there has been a 73% decline in affordable housing with rental prices ranging from $1,400 to $2,800 USD (Starr, 2021). Local residents have expressed that these rental prices are not feasible (Starr, 2021). Many of the new developments are also seeking tax abatement (Starr, 2021). This means that residents are contributing to development through tax dollars, even though many cannot afford to reside within these new developments (Starr, 2021). This has been a major point of tension for residents (Starr, 2021).

​​In addition, developers appear to be prioritizing short-term rentals, such as Airbnb over long-term rentals (Starr, 2021). This is because short-term rentals are more profitable than long-term ones (Starr, 2021). This means that those who can afford the spiked rental prices, they may be restricted in how long they are allowed to rent a property (Starr, 2021). Prioritization of short-term rentals translates to fewer housing opportunities for local residents (Starr, 2021). Furthermore, this prioritization of short-term rentals diminishes the sense of community within a neighborhood (Starr, 2021). Specifically, residents have expressed that with short-term rentals, many of them do not even know who their neighbors are (Starr, 2021). This lack of community has negative implications for quality of life (Starr, 2021).

The redevelopment has also resulted in local shops that had been there for many years shutting down, and the lost jobs causing employment shortages as well (Starr, 2021). In particular, many local shops have contended that they have not been able to compete with the influx of newer and bigger shops (Starr, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic only worsened job opportunities, particularly for people of color (Starr, 2021). For example, one small business owner has stated that her shop has suffered a 25% decline as a result of the pandemic (Starr, 2021). Many other small businesses are in similar predicaments or have been forced to shut down altogether (Starr, 2021). Those who have been negatively affected by the redevelopment are predominantly black marginalized communities who have voiced that they would like to be included and involved in future developments in order to ensure increased equity and representation (Starr, 2021).

What Can be Learned

“Ideally, a participatory plan offered an equitable and informed process in which all of the diverse participants and their disparate views would work toward forming a consensus on the needs of the neighborhood. Theoretically, this process would account for everyone’s interests because everyone had the opportunity to participate and everyone had the opportunity to form the consensus, which includes the ability to resist consensus until satisfied.” (McTague & Jakubwski, 2013, p.184)

Understanding and rectifying shortfalls of plans is a vital skill that all planners must consider. Over-The-Rhine provides a unique opportunity to apply the lessons learned in a hope to avoid future instances of plan outcomes that are not monitored. If anything, the Over-The-Rhine Comprehensive Plan has provided evidence that it is vital to understand the demographic and neighborhood that planners are working in. Furthermore, a crucial aspect of the participatory planning process is to understand who and why certain individuals can or cannot attend public engagement events.Considering and understanding these aspects can help to identify for whom the plan is created for. Failing to adequately address these aspects will result in plans that do not “ultimately reflect the input and interests of the participants.” (McTague & Jakubwski, 2013, p. 190) 

This case study is a lesson for planners to recognize that the participants do not comprehensively include all demographics of the population of interest. Considering what the implications of actions may have on these individuals should be a priority of all planning agencies seeking to revitalize a neighborhood. In addition, Over-The-Rhine is able to showcase how consensus-building planning includes the opportunity for individuals to resist, and address alternative solutions in order for a consensus to be reached (McTague & Jakubwski, 2013). OTR provides a glimpse into what a consensus-building participatory planning process can do for a community, such as providing a space for marginalized communities to address their concerns, actively participate in meetings, have access to plans that they may not have been able to address otherwise, and ultimately recognizing that community members care about and want to be part of the planning process (McTague & Jakubwski, 2013). 

Another one of the biggest takeaways from Over-The-Rhine is the importance of consistency. Consistency in the participatory planning process can include specific measurable goals, monitoring the implementation of said goals, and establishing trust between the different stakeholders (McTague & Jakubwski, 2013). Trust and consistency go hand-in-hand. The repercussions of a lack of consistency can be seen in Over-The-Rhine Comprehensive Plan when there was little to no monitoring of (re)development and the plan was virtually forgotten, despite the amount of time and effort put into the participatory process(McTague & Jakubwski, 2013). While it is evident that the Over-The-Rhine Comprehensive Plan had good intentions, such as creating a consensus based plan and including the community, it lacked consistency and follow through. The monitoring of the plan and its evolution fell short, leaving the plan obsolete and forgotten in the outcome of what OTR has become today (McTague & Jakubwski, 2013). 

References

Addie, J.P. (2008). The Rhetoric and Reality of Urban Policy in the Neoliberal City: Implications for Social Struggle in Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 40(11), 2674-2692. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4045

Arnstein, S. (2019) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 85:1, 24-3.

City of Cincinnati. (2002). Over-The-Rhine Comprehensive Plan. Cincinnati.

Dyson, R., & Varady, D.P. (2018). Using Housing Vouchers to Create Stable Mixed-Income Gentrifying Neighborhoods: A Case Study of Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati, OH, Journal of Community Practice, 26:3, 257-282, DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2018.1475315

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66-75.

Jackson, E. R. (2021). OTR Cincinnati and the recurring history of racial tensions and economic divide. The Voice of Black Cincinnati. https://thevoiceofblackcincinnati.com/otr-cincinnati-african-americans/

McTague, C., & Jakubwski, S. (2013). Marching to the beat of a silent drum: Wasted consensus-building and failed neighborhood participatory planning. Applied Geography, 44, 182-191.

Miller, Z., & Tucker, B. (1998). Changing Plans for America's Inner Cities: Cincinnati's Over-the-Rhine and Twentieth-Century Urbanism. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. https://networks.h-net.org/node/22277/reviews/22519/von-hoffman-miller-and-tucker-changing-plans-americas-inner-cities

Over-the-Rhine Foundation. (n.d.). OTR History. Retrieved from Over-the-Rhine Foundation: https://www.otrfoundation.org/OTR_History.htm

OTR Community Council. (2019). OTR Guidelines Part 1. Retrieved from OTR Community Council: https://otrcommunitycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/OTR_Guidelines_Part_1.pdf

Starr, S. (2021). Over-The-Rhine: Is this a model for urban renewal or a warning sign? Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56048812

Woodard, C. (2016). How Cincinnati Salvaged the Nation’s Most Dangerous Neighborhood. Retrieved from Politico Magazine: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/what-works-cincinnati-ohio-over-the-rhine-crime-neighborhood-turnaround-city-urban-revitalization-213969/

3CDC. (n.d.). Building Life in our City's Centre. Retrieved from 3CDC: https://www.3cdc.org/