Untitled

Queen City Heritage

In the mid-twentieth centurythe city developed plans to con-struct an interstate highwaythrough the Lytle Park area.

Fall 1986

Preserving a "SpecialPlace:" The LytlePark Neighborhood,1948-1976

Lytle Park Neighborhood

Jana C. Morford

LYTLE PARK—place for reveries and dreams of bygone years.There is a charm about this Park and the surrounding districtpossessed by no other part of the City. To say that it is appealing is tosay little. It is overwhelming with its quaint beauty and therealization that within the boundaries of these few squares so muchhas transpired. On all sides the streets, buildings and monumentsrecall the hopes, the efforts and the accomplishments of pioneer andmodern life in Cincinnati and all that has happened between.1

For many years the Lytle Park area has been animportant part of Cincinnati. The site of events: such as theconstruction of Ft. Washington, associated with Cincinnati'spioneering days as an outpost on the urban frontier; in thenineteenth century, the location of the homes of some of thecity's leading families; became identified as a distinctiveneighborhood between 1900 and 1930 as the result ofcareful planning by the Taft family.2 Similarly, the Lytle Parkneighborhood that stands today was planned, this throughthe efforts of public and private organizations. But the emo-tional attachment of Cincinnatians to the neighborhoodafter 1930 did not surface until it was threatened. Thenpeople talked seriously and nostalgically about their feelingstoward the Lytle Park neighborhood and the urgency of itspreservation. The most recent threat, real and imagined, tothe neighborhood occurred in the mid-twentieth centurywhen the city developed plans to construct an interstatehighway through the area.

At the outset it is useful to make a distinctionbetween Lytle Park and its neighborhood. In 1943 LytlePark was a one and a quarter acre plot bordered by Lawrence,Fourth, Lytle, and Third streets with shade trees, benches, abandstand, playing field, and a children's swimming pool. AWorld War I memorial plaque remembering the UnitedStates Marines from Hamilton County had been placed inthe park in 1921. A statue of Abraham Lincoln stood at thewestern entrance of the park. Around this park were thebuildings and institutions which, with the park, constitutedthe neighborhood. In describing this "oasis" of "old, well-preserved brick houses, most of them housing literary, wom-

en's and other clubs," within the city, the 1943 WPA guideto Cincinnati emphasized its location "at the eastern end ofFourth Street, only a few minutes walk from the congested,almost treeless downtown," and characterized it as "a quietlittle area centered about small Lytle Park."

The club houses referred to in the guide werethe Cincinnati Art Club at 518 East Third, the Woman'sCity Club at 528 East Fourth, the Cincinnati CatholicWomen's Association at 5 18 East Fourth, the Literary Clubat 5 00 East Fourth, the Cincinnati Business Women's Clubat 42 5 East Fourth, and the University Club at the south-east corner of Broadway and East Fourth Street. In addition,the neighborhood included the Taft Museum located at 316Pike, the Guilford School on the southwest corner of Fourthand Ludlow, and four apartment buildings, the Anna LouiseInn bounded by Lytle, Third, and Pike streets; the Phelps,the Lincoln, and the Lytle apartments on East Fourth be-tween Lawrence and Pike streets.3

The first threat to the Lytle Park neighbor-hood occurred in 1930 when the City Planning Commis-sion proposed to rezone the area from residential to busi-ness. Fervent protests from the residents thwarted the proposal.In the aftermath, the Cincinnati Post reported that the CityPlanning Commission, "moved by sentiment," decided againstthe zone change in order to preserve old landmarks in the

Jana C. Morford received aMaster of Arts in history fromthe University of Cincinnati andis presently doing photo re-search on manufacturingindustries in Ohio.

A one and a quarter acre plotbordered by Lawrence, Fourth,Lytle, and Third streets, LytlePark had a children's play-ground, swimming pool, shadetrees, benches, and abandstand.

Lytle Park neighborhood "where Cincinnati's history wasmade."4 The Cincinnati Enquirer stated, with some surprise,that "the people's plea for preservation of the character ofthe district, strangely enough, ignored the question of mon-ey, or property values. They spoke of traditions and gentleliving. Commerce stood face to face with homemaking."5

Beginning in the latter part of the 194.0's, theLytle Park neighborhood faced a different kind of threat.This time peril came from an expressway tunnel slated to bebuilt through the area. At first concerned citizens reacted asothers had in the 193 o's. They wanted Lytle Park to remainjust as it had been. Yet as the the debate continued reactionsmoderated, which resulted in a plan to keep much of thecharacter of the neighborhood while allowing a controlledchange to occur.

In the 1940's, the federal government approvedthe construction of an Interregional System of Highways toconnect all United States cities with a population of morethan 100,000. As noted in Cincinnati's 1948 MetropolitanPlan, one intraurban goal of this interregional highway planwas for the "eventual achievement of safe, uninterrupted

Queen City Heritage

flow of traffic, free from crossings."6 Within the metropoli-tan area, traffic would be "routed to drain off heavy trafficmovements from existing overloaded thoroughfares" andease congestion on downtown streets.7 In Cincinnati, thisscheme involved the construction of the Millcreek Express-way (I-75, Cincinnati to Dayton,) the Northwest Express-way (I-74, Cincinnati to Indianapolis), and the NortheastExpressway (I-71, Cincinnati to Columbus).8 The 1948 Planfor Cincinnati laid out the route of the Northeast Express-way through Lytle Park. In order to facilitate this construc-tion, the planners of 1948 wanted to tunnel under LytlePark and continue the expressway in an open ditch throughFourth and Fifth streets.9

In addition to its concern with transportationthrough and around the city, the Plan of 1948 looked athistoric sites. The 1948 Plan considered Lytle Park as part ofCincinnati's Riverfront area. The Riverfront RedevelopmentPlan called for the development of a historic area aroundLytle Park, turning the Guilford School into the NaturalHistory Museum, opening another museum on the southside of Lytle Park for replicas and documents commemorat-

In 1921 a World War Imemorial plaque honoring theUnited States Marines fromHamilton County had beenplaced in the park.

Fall 1986 Lytle Park Neighborhood

ing the site of Ft. Washington, and expanding Lytle Park.10

This particular plan summarized the history of Cincinnati11

and encouraged placing "proper emphasis on the historicside of the community [that] not only has sentimental andpatriotic values, but contributes to its progress and businessgrowth."12 Examples of historic memorials in Boston andPhiladelphia were given because they had been of "inestima-ble commercial value" to those cities. The planners thoughtthat "suitable memorials erected [in Cincinnati] would bringthousands of visitors" to the city and "provide a setting forrecurring gatherings and celebrations, which would attractthrongs from outside."13 The plan also advocated the build-ing of apartments in the area so residents could enjoy the"facilities of downtown as well as those provided by theredevelopment area."14 The Master Plan: Report on Progressmade assurances that "there is no thought, of course, oftearing down what has been built up over the years, merelyfor the sake of change.15

In 1950 the Cincinnati Park Board purchasedproperty adjacent to Lytle Park so that the park could beextended to facilitate the tunnel angle necessary for theexpressway. The owners of this property between Lytle andPike streets were the daughters of Charles P. Taft I, Jane TaftIngalls and Louise Taft Semple. Max J. Palm, Jr., Park Boardpresident, stated that the acquisition of this property caused

no housing problem since the majority of the buildings hadbeen vacant for years.16 According to the agent for the Taftdaughters, Harry Linch, "The sale was put to them on a civicbasis and on that basis they agreed."17 But he thought theproperty could have sold on the open market for $ 345,000,considerably more than the $15 0,000 that the Park Boardhad paid. The acquisition of the property had long been agoal of the Park Board and city planners. "Not only does itenlarge the park area in one of the most congested areas inthe city, but it preserves an attractive approach to the TaftMuseum."18 Thus^ the tunnel would run under the presentpark and also under the newly acquired area directly east ofthe park, across from the Taft Museum on Pike Street.

Between 1950 and 1958, plans for the con-struction of the Northeast Expressway continued. Cincin-natians voted in 19 5 o to pay the city's share of the interstateconstruction, $16,000,000. In 1953, Ohio voters approved$ 5 00 million for a ten year major thoroughfare constructionprogram, including the new expressways.19 Most everyoneseemed to agree on the necessity for these expressways. InJune 1957, Leonard Bauer, Cincinnati expressway engineer,said plans for the Northeast Expressway had been sent to thestate, which would then forward the plans to Washingtonfor approval. He anticipated a wait of two to three years forstate and federal government confirmation of the plans.20

Northeast Expressway Planscalled for the destruction of theCatholic Women's Club build-ings at 516 and 518 EastFourth Street.

Later in the year, City Manager Harrell asked the countycommissioners to arrange a meeting of political subdivisionsinvolved in the Northeast Expressway to consider rights ofway agreements, publication of construction plans, and appor-tionment of the local share of the project cost.21 All plans forthe expressway appeared to be going smoothly until thelatter part of 19 5 8 when the first protests were heard andwhich continued for years and as time progressed becamemore complex.22

The storm began brewing when Harrell alertedthree women's clubs, the Woman's City Club at 5 2 8 EastFourth Street, the Catholic Women's Club at 518 EastFourth Street (both in the Lytle Park neighborhood), andthe Cincinnati Woman's Club at 634 Oak Street in WalnutHills, that their club buildings were in the way of the express-way tunnel and the expressway and would have to bedemolished. The demolition of the two Fourth Street build-ings was necessary to make way for an open ditch betweenFourth and Fifth streets leading to the tunnel that would beconstructed under Lytle Park. Harrell assured the womenthat it would be two to four years before the city would takethe property. His plans were for the city to buy the propertyand then lease the buildings to the clubs until time fordemolition. Immediately these three clubs, claiming theirbuildings had been "landmarks for many years," opposedsuch action.23 Also, Charles P. Taft II, who became one ofthe most outspoken advocates for saving these buildings,began his involvement in the issue. He urged that ways beexplored for keeping the "high grade" buildings in the LytlePark area as they were. He thought it a "shame to eliminatesuch a scarce and high caliber residential area at the edge ofthe downtown district. The city instead should be devisingways and means of developing more of these in order tobring people back to the city."24

The buildings in question along East FourthStreet were situated between the twelve story Phelps apart-ment building and the eight story Pugh office building onthe corner of Fourth and Pike. Actually six sites were indanger of being destroyed including Crofford's Pure OilService Station at 457 East Fifth Street, Harbine Chatfield,Inc., interior decorators (a three story, eight-year-old build-ing at 409 Pike Street), and the Rudd Insurance office,approximately 12 5 years old at 5 3 o East Fourth on thecorner of Fourth and Pike the former home of WilliamMcAlpin, Cincinnati department store magnate.25 But thebuildings over which the controversy arose were the Lytleand Lincoln apartment buildings and the buildings ownedby the Cincinnati Catholic Women's Association (CCWA)

Queen City Heritage

and the Woman's City Club (WCC).The CCWA owned two structures at 5 16 and

518 East Fourth probably built in the 1820's and linked byan addition constructed about 1928. Both buildings hadbeen extensively remodeled. Mike Mullen, eighth ward coun-cilman during the early twentieth century, had lived in 5 16.The Lytle Apartments, 520 East Fourth, were privatelyowned. This four story apartment building was thought tohave been constructed in 18 80 with a rear addition added in191 o when the front building was remodeled. The LincolnApartments, built in 1911, also four stories, occupied thesite of 5 24-5 26 East Fourth. The WCC, 528 East Fourth, athree story building, dated from 1830 was built by WilliamThomas, a prominent Cincinnati builder. In 18 5 2, a Cincin-nati clothier and tailor, John B. Brummer, lived there.26

In answer to the controversy raised by thewomen's clubs and Charles P. Taft II, expressway engineerBauer insisted that the buildings must be taken down for thetunnel that was planned to go under Lytle Park. To thesuggestion raised by Taft of replacing these buildings withothers, Bauer stated that it would be illegal to do so. Any-way, he continued, if it were legal, it would be difficultbecause a slab over the expressway would have to beconstructed of sufficient strength to support buildings andthe tunnel would have to be deeper than planned, both ofwhich would add considerable cost to the project.27

Bauer's comments did not lessen the opposi-tion to the destruction of the East Fourth Street buildings.Lytle Park was lauded as an "oasis unique in the city" and thebuildings praised as "a group of gracious town houses of thepast."28 Taft argued that destroying these buildings would"eliminate the very type of scarce downtown residential areathat the city should be laboring to keep."29 A local newspa-per editorial lamenting the proposed plans said they wouldmar the appearance of the downtown park which was a "realcivic asset..., rich in historical associations and architecturalappeal. This is one of the most charming spots downtown. Itwould be a shame to spoil it, especially at a time when weneed to be bringing people back into the core of the city."30

By November 1958, Taft seemed to have ac-cepted the fact that the buildings on East Fourth would bedestroyed. He then promised a "helluva fight" to establishlegal right to construct high class apartment buildings overthe expressway. Councilwoman Dorothy Dolbey, who alsoadvocated the preservation of Lytle Park, agreed with Taft,commenting that it was a "crime to knock out classy residen-tial buildings" without taking steps to maintain the area.31

All of this talk about the historical signifi-

cance of buildings and the historic character of neighbor-hoods stirred the City Planning Commission (CPC) intoaction. In November 1958, Dean Ernest Pickering, chair-man of the CPC, appointed an advisory committee on his-toric buildings and areas. This committee had the job of"relating" historic buildings, sites, and areas to city planningand then making recommendations for preservation anddevelopment for the city.32

In December 1958, Charles Taft, intent onhaving buildings over the expressway, went to Washingtonto meet with Joseph Guandolo of the U.S. Bureau of PublicRoads. Taft returned to Cincinnati bearing the news thatthere was no flat rule against tunneling under Lytle Park orthe buildings in the vicinity. This could still be done andmeet interstate system standards. He reported that Guandolosaid "there are many places, including mountains, wheretunneling is necessary. Each project must be examined on itsown merits."33

Concerned groups also began to issue pleas todiscuss the proposals for Lytle Park. The Literary Club,located at the corner of East Fourth and Lawrence streets,petitioned the city council for a hearing on the proposeddemolition in Lytle Park. The club saw the set of buildingson East Fourth between Lawrence and Pike streets as a"thing of beauty that should not be ruthlessly destroyed."34

The membership of the Literary Club further adopted aresolution stating that if the expressway had to go throughand destroy buildings, then the "architecture and atmo-sphere of Lytle Park should be preserved and... if possiblethe buildings should be restored."35 Similarly, the CincinnatiContemporary Arts Center sent a letter to city council askingfor a public hearing on the Lytle Park issue. The letter saidthat the center was "vitally interested in the progress of ourcity, but we are equally interested in the physical appearanceand design of our environment."36

Next an alliance of residents of the Lytle Park

Cincinnatians considered LytlePark a green oasis in the down-town area of the city, "a restfulspot away from the rush ofnearby streets."

neighborhood, the Lytle Park North Association, formed inDecember 1958, entered the fray. The association, made upof the Literary Club, the Phelps, the CCWA, and the WCC,issued a statement describing its concern: "We of Lytle Park,who love its quiet, old-world charm, should...join handsnow to protect its future development."37 This group likenedits formation to a similar one in New York, the WashingtonSquare and Gramercy Park Association formed to "safeguardthe atmosphere and tradition of their historic areas."38 An-other group took the same approach. Noting that the LytlePark situation resembled the one in New York City whenan expressway threatened to cut straight across WashingtonSquare and thus endangered its whole character, the UnitedCitizens Committee to Preserve Lytle Park, composed ofconcerned Cincinnatians and headed by William Earls, in-vited Robert Moses to come to Cincinnati to speak on theissue in New York City.39 Moses, chairman of the Tri-BoroughBridge Authority and of the NYC Park Commission, wasscheduled to appear in Cincinnati on December 11 to com-pare the Lytle Park proposal with the tunneling that had

Queen City Heritage

taken place under some Greenwich Village buildings. Hewas unable to come, however, supposedly snowbound inNew York. The meeting went on without him.40

Apparently this public meeting, called by Taftand the United Citizens Committee to Preserve Lytle Park,with approximately 200 in attendance, was an emotionalaffair. The meeting was held December 11, at the Taft Muse-um with the purpose of discussing the tunneling situationand the possibility of saving the buildings on East Fourth.The groups that called the meeting emphasized their feel-ings about the Lytle Park area. Charles Taft saw the area as aplace of "permanent [and] continuing value and beauty"possessing a "chaste elegance and decorous pride."

The WCC termed the demolition a "sacrilege,"and the CCWA backed the WCC by calling the proposal"nothing short of a crime." William A. Rudd, owner of theinsurance company at the corner of East Fourth and Pike,depicted this area as the "only real part of Cincinnati thathas not been altered."

This sentiment was echoed by architect Charles

The Lincoln and Lytle apart-ments on Fourth Street be-tween Lawrence and Pikestreets were also on the demo-lition list.

Fall 1986 Lytle Park Neighborhood

F. Cellarius, who called Lytle Park "one of the few re-maining parts of Cincinnati that retains the atmosphere ofa generation past." Richard G. Arms, director of the His-torical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, pointed out thatLytle Park was indicative of "something of our community'shistoric heritage. Usefulness and the intangible atmosphereof a shrine combine in this spot. I think it worth preserving."City planners joined in with support for Lytle Park. LadislasSergoe observed that Cincinnati was getting ready to spenda lot of money to save its downtown and that "calls for alot more than building expressways and garages." ErnestPickering of the City Planning Commission said that "ifyou destroy the things that give character to a city, youmake it a dull place in which to live."41 William Earls calledLytle Park a "place where people love to come... [and].. .oneof the few places we have left that give charm to Cincinnati."42

The meeting discussed some possible alterna-tives in regard to the East Fourth Street buildings. The citycould take the property, re-sell it after the completion of theexpressway, and then require the new owners to maintain

the buildings in their present condition. Conceivably then,the present owners could sell the buildings to the city andthen buy them back later after the expressway tunnel con-struction was completed. Another alternative discussed wasfor the property owners to give easements to the city for thetunnel to go through their basements. In turn, the ownerswould retain air rights over the tunnel with the provision forrestoration and compensation for the eight feet of basementtaken and the shoring up of the building during construc-tion and for grillwork sufficient to support the buildings.John Garber, preservation officer for the Cincinnati chapterof the AIA, suggested that the city buy the buildings andmove them to another site in Lytle Park, thereby rearrangingthe whole area. Someone else suggested squeezing the express-way around Eggleston Avenue and by-passing Lytle Parkaltogether.43 It was quickly pointed out that moving theexpressway was impossible because it would conflict withthe approach to the proposed Cincinnati-Newport bridge.The meeting finally adjourned with a vote to ask the city torestudy plans for the expressway tunnel.44

Located at 528 East FourthStreet, the Woman's City Clubbuilding had been built about1830 by William Thomas.

William Rudd, owner of RuddInsurance, 530 East Fourth—the corner of East Fourth andPike streets—said that this areawas the only "real part ofCincinnati that has not beenaltered"

The Enquirer reported that the meeting "lookedlike a very uneven match with City Highways EngineerLeonard Bauer alone facing about 150 indignant citizens."The story stressed the need for haste in the decision makingprocess, stating that "delay could endanger the whole North-east Expressway project. When funds are limited anddemands are great, state governments tend to support proj-ects which are ready to move." The feeling expressed by theEnquirerwas to preserve the "charming neighborhood..., if afeasible and not too costly substitute plan can be workedout."45

At this point the buildings in question wereinspected by Charles Messer and Harry Bailie of FrankMesser Construction and John Garber, a local architect. In aletter to Charles Taft, Garber reported their findings. Theydetermined that the cost to tunnel under the buildingswould exceed the present market value of the buildings.There would be added complications also in shoring up theexisting buildings during the construction of the tunnel andthen in providing a permanent base for them to rest upon.Garber indicated that the central dilemma was in trying to"preserve the integrity of our major urban spaces" and at thesame time provide for movement of traffic on the scale ofthose expressway projects slated for Cincinnati. However,he pointed out that such traffic devices were inevitable,while sympathizing with the desire to preserve this area bysaying that "in destroying Lytle Park with an expresswayconnection, we have destroyed the best remaining residen-tial urban square of the old city." He suggested a solution toTaft of trying to recreate a residential and office grouping in

Queen City Heritage

the Lytle Park area which could "possibly establish oncemore the virtues which Cincinnatians have for so manygenerations found in the existing square." Garber talked ofzoning the area to maintain it as a "charming place in whichto work and live," as a place allowing new construction tore-enclose this urban space and allow it to continue to focuson the Taft Museum.46

The Cincinnati Post and Times Star tried toexplain the dilemma facing decision makers in Cincinnatiregarding the Lytle Park issue by pointing out that thecontention did not concern the park itself, but the "fuss isabout a half dozen buildings, on the northern side of thepark, marked for demolition." According to the paper, thequestion was whether or not the buildings were worthsaving from an "aesthetic and from an economic stand-point?" Pointing out that the additional money it wouldtake to save the building would come from Cincinnati taxes,the paper asked what "assurances can the city get if it shouldchoose to retain the present buildings that they can be keptintact for a fixed period of years?"47 The conflict of preserv-ing the past while preparing for the future was obvious:The lovely "islands" like Lytle Park add charm and a value of

gracious living to the city. Few of us would lightly accept theirdestruction. But we are faced with a hard decision whenever the citymust tear down what presently exists in order to reach the goal ofrebuilding for a better community.48

On January 5, 1959, the Enquirer called for amoratorium on the Lytle Park dispute while the project"clears necessary hurdles at Columbus." Citizens were encour-aged to present a "solid front for the expressway and thenwork out the details" as satisfactorily as possible, later.49 Thatsame paper carried the thoughts of Enquirer columnist MildredMiller, who quoted that month's issue of Reader's Digest.The magazine stated that twenty-five percent of the UnitedStates' finest historic sites and monuments had been destroyedsince 1941 to make way for shopping centers, skyscrapers,and superhighways. Miller further elaborated on the articlewhich predicted that in the next few years "41,000 new milesof highway will charge through some last surviving wilder-ness areas, through major cities, along historic old road-ways." The Digest introduced three criteria to help in deter-mining what was worth saving: Was it of substantial historicalor cultural importance to the community? Was it accessibleto the public and in presentable condition? Could it bereasonably maintained? To those questions, Miller emphaticallyreplied that in the case of the Lytle Park buildings the answerwas a definite "yes." She closed her column with a questionfor her readers, "Are we going to stand by and allow our

The Anna Louise Inn for work-ing girls bounded by Lytle,Third, and Pike streets, stoodopposite the park.

Fall 1986

charming downtown retreat to be slashed with a ribbon ofconcrete and watch more than fifty years of traditional beau-ty wiped out in order that ever-hurrying motorists may savea few more minutes?"50

Two days later, on January 7,1959, William T.Earls, chairman of the Citizens Committee to Preserve LytlePark, announced that four of the six property owners on thenorth side of East Fourth Street were prepared to give thecity easements to tunnel under their buildings for the express-way. Earls and John O'Regan, secretary of the committee,"pleaded" with City Manager Harrell to tunnel under thesebuildings, instead of tearing them down and leaving an openditch in their place. The Post reported that HarrelPs com-ment was that he was "open-minded but not to the point ofdelaying the city's present plan."51

The opinion of the planning commission chair-man, Dean Ernest Pickering, was that the "entire Lytle Parkarea [should] be preserved in construction of the North-east Expressway." He challenged the commission to take a"very positive position" in preserving the park from a "three-dimensional viewpoint, with the buildings surrounding thepark constituting the all important third dimension." Heinsisted that an enclosed park was more than just an openarea with trees and shrubs and that buildings at the edges of apark space were important. In reference to the Lytle Parkarea, he saw the planning commission as playing a vital role."If the commission doesn't take initiative in preserving his-toric landmarks, it can't expect other organizations to exhib-it much enthusiasm in this direction."52

Lytle Park Neighborhood 11

The Woman's City Club newsletter for Feb-ruary 1959, carried an article entitled, "The Coziest Park inCincinnati" which discussed the two groups established tooppose the demolition of the East Fourth Street buildings.The article further presented some thoughts of the LytlePark North Association, which advised that, in "view of thehistoric values peculiar to the entire Park, and the uniquesetting it provides for the Taft Museum and its art collection,the remaining building area directly facing on Lytle Park beplaced under...safeguards as to future demolition orrebuilding; so that we may retain in Lytle Park, at the heartof modern Cincinnati, a treasured reminder of our City'shonored past." The safeguards would call for new buildingsto be of the same general height and design as those theyreplaced.53

A breakthrough appeared to come at the endof February as the Enquirer ran an article entitled, "HarrellFavors Restoring of Lytle Park Buildings." Consultants, Hazeletand Erdal, were called in by the city to study the cost oftunneling under the buildings.54 The excitement continuedin March when William J. Murtaugh of the National Trustfor Historic Preservation spoke at a gathering sponsored bythe Cincinnati Catholic Women's Association. In his speech,entitled "Lytle Park—Today and Tomorrow," he urged thecity to save the park. He said the buildings in the Lytle Parkarea had "architectural character and historic significance"and they were of value to the city. "In the heart of the city,easily accessible and in sympathetic hands."55

In April, apparently invigorated by supportfrom the National Trust, fifty women whose club buildingswere threatened by the Northeast Expressway took theirgrievances to city council to plead for the preservation of theclubhouses. Mrs. Thomas Burke of the Cincinnati CatholicWomen's Club demanded an "immediate halt" to the express-way until a satisfactory alternate route was worked out thatwould "bypass important city landmarks." Mrs. Joseph H.Goldkamp assured council that there were 1,000 membersstanding behind those present at council. Mrs. Louis Nippertasserted that the buildings and gardens in question were themost beautiful in Cincinnati. Mrs. William T Buckner, greatgranddaughter of William Henry Harrison, said sheremembered the park "in its pristine glory of the early 18 90'swhen some of the most distinguished citizens of Cincinnatimade their homes there."56

In response to the protest from these womenand others, Dorothy Dolbey introduced a motion calling forthe City Planning Commission and the City Solicitor toprepare "an ordinance setting forth the manner in which the

Members of the Literary Clublocated at the corner of EastFourth and Lawrence streetsthought the buildings shouldnot be "ruthlessly destroyed"and petitioned city council for apublic landing.

Queen City Heritage

Planning Commission obtain facts of demolition involvinghistoric sites, areas, and buildings."57 Through this ordi-nance, the Planning Commission would be required toadvise council on the "propriety of preservation." Shortlythereafter the Planning Commission began to prepare aninventory of historic sites and areas which it finished thenext year.

The year closed with no solution in sight tothe Lytle Park controversy. The Cincinnati Pictorial Enquirerfor December 17, 1959, devoted a special section to LytlePark and the preservation issue. Various pictures of the parkas well as a look, inside and out, at the buildings in questionwere included in this section. Lytle Park was compared toNew York's Gramercy Park as "an island of serenity surroundedby the bustling city." The article stated that Lytle Park wasone of the few points in Cincinnati that retained the atmo-

sphere of past generations and had a "sylvan charm" whichemphasized the significance of the community's heritage.The issue at stake in the Lytle Park controversy was summedup as a case of the "weighing of relative merits of aestheticfactors versus expediency."58

Another newspaper article hailed Lytle Parkas a charming "Quiet Spot," within the city; a "lovely andrefreshing place to visit," its quietness being its "chief attrac-tion." What really made the park, was its setting.

The stately Tafi Museum, with its emerald lawn,graces the end. And along the North side of Fourth Street is apicturesque row of buildings, most of them proud in new coats ofpaint and many of them more than a century old The pace ofmodern living has caught Cincinnati up elsewhere, but in LytlePark it happily seems to have passed the city by.59

The city made the next move. A report on the

A newspaper article statedwhat made the park was itssetting with the stately TaftMuseum with its "emeraldlawn" at the end.

Fall 1986

expressway had been commissioned by city council in Feb-ruary 1959, and was completed in July i960. The prelimi-nary engineering report on the expressway had called for atunnel between Third and Fourth streets with an open cutwith retaining walls from Fourth to Fifth streets.60 The newreport studied the practicality and cost of extending thetunnel northward from Fourth to Fifth Street to avoid theloss of existing buildings in the path. The report gave adescription of the Lytle Park area and the endangered build-ings on East Fourth Street, giving the original dates ofconstruction and additions and changes made to the build-ings. Lytle Park was portrayed as "providing a pleasant parkarea in the Southeast corner of the Cincinnati CBD,... andfurnish[ing] an attractive setting for the Taft Museum."61

Six alternative proposals were listed for theexpressway through Lytle Park, showing the approximatetotal cost and the cost to the city.62 Alternative 1 called for anopen cut between Fourth and Fifth with retaining walls theentire length between the streets. The total cost would be$1,494,000 with a cost to the city of $75,000. Alternative2-A called for tunneling north to the north edge of FifthStreet with a two foot thick concrete slab over the tunnel.Lytle Park would be extended to Fifth on the north. Totalcost would be $2,039,000 with the city paying $620,000.Alternative 2-B was the same as 2-A except the slab would bestrong enough to support a five story building and trees withsix feet of fill dirt. Total cost would run $2,237,000 with acost to the city of $583,000. Alternative 3-A entailed acovered tunnel to the north side of Buchanan Street and anopen cut with retaining walls between Buchanan and Fifth.Cost would be $1,920,000 and the city's cost $501,000.Alternative 3-B required a six foot concrete slab over thetunnel between Fourth and Buchanan and an open tunnel toFifth Street for $2,041,000 with the city paying $622,000.Alternative 4 contained a tunnel between Fourth and Fifthcovered by a slab strong enough to support a ten storybuilding at a cost of $2,367,000 and to the city $598,000.Alternative 5 also involved a tunnel between Fourth andFifth but with a slab to support a fifteen story buildingequaling a cost of $ 1,7 3 0,000 with the city paying $931,000.Alternative 6, by far the most expensive, called for tunnelingunder the existing buildings, except the Rudd Building onthe corner of East Fourth and Pike. The cost would be aprohibitive $2,705,000 with the city's share running$i,286,ooo.63

After reviewing these suggestions, City Man-ager Harrell recommended to Council Plan 4, an under-ground tunnel covered with a concrete slab to support a ten

Lytle Park Neighborhood 13

story building. The cost would be approximately $2,3 67,000,but after the sale of the property there would be a net cost of$598,000.64 The air rights over the slab could be sold for$ 3 5 o,ooo.65 If all went according to plan, he said, the express-way through the Lytle Park area should be under construc-tion within five years.66

Still concerned about the fate of its clubhouse,the Woman's City Club sent letters to every member of citycouncil, which asked the club be sent any new informationon the situation involving Lytle Park. In each letter, theClub reaffirmed its interest in the "preservation of an historicand beautiful area" in the city.67 Furthermore, Mrs. ClarenceL. Doty, president of the Woman's City Club, in an addressbefore council in the summer of 1960, expressed the interestsof her club and emphasized the belief that the "mood ofLytle Park [lent] an important image of dignity, quality, andcharacter to downtown Cincinnati." She felt the area wouldbecome more and more a "cultural and civic asset as well as awelcomed spiritual retreat from the cement and steel auster-ity of many modern structures." She urged careful considera-tion in "rooting out things that need to go" so that the cityitself was not "stripped of its personality and character." Shearticulated her concern for retaining a special place for peo-ple to enjoy.

Lytle Park as it is today gives quality and characterto the city of Cincinnati. The Taft Museum stands majestically atone end facing a vista of park and flowers culminating in thebeautiful Lincoln statue, with related buildings housing civic andcultural groups such as Union Bethel, Anna Louise Inn, TheLiterary Club, the Catholic Women's Club, and the Woman'sCity Club clustered around the edges, all contributing to anindividuality of the neighborhood unit in which the whole city foryears has taken pleasure and pride. There is no other such spot in thecity with these virtues.68

Finally the preservation pressure yielded results.On September 30, i960, the Enquirer announced that theCity Planning Commission had recommended the mostexpensive plan, Alternative 6, that of regular tunnel con-struction between Fourth and Fifth to preserve the club andapartment buildings facing Lytle Park. The paper also notedthe Planning Commission's second and third choices. IfAlternative 6 was legally or economically impossible, thecommission would proceed with the preferences of the citymanager which was for a slab to extend the park northwardand the construction of a ten story apartment building. Ifthat plan likewise proved impractical, the next option wouldbe Alternative 2-A a two foot slab over the tunnel to supportonly an added park.69

Queen City Heritage

Alternate 1 Alternate 2

Alternate 3 Alternate 6

Alternate 4 & 5

Fall 1986 Lytle Park Neighborhood

On September 18, i960, Charles P. Taftsuggested the consideration of a plan to build two apart-ment buildings over the tunnel. A five story apartmentbuilding would be constructed on the north side of Fourthand a ten story one fronting Fifth Street, north of BuchananAlley. Taft's concern was to prevent the "ugly" Pugh Build-ing at Fifth and Pike from being "allowed to dominate thepark vista and have an overwhelming damaging effect on theTaft Museum." In Taft's opinion, the smaller five storybuilding would shield the park from the Pugh Building,while the ten story building would provide park and riverviews from its floors.70

In November the City Planning Commissionpublished a survey whose purpose was to identify and evalu-ate places of historic interest in Cincinnati. "Due to theincreased volume of demolitions resulting from large-scaleexpressway, urban renewal, and other programs, interest inthe preservation of historic places has become greatlyintensified."71 The survey used these qualifications for evalu-ating sites: period representation, harmony, aesthetic quali-ty, uniqueness [to Cincinnati], general historic interest [mean-ing associated with a key figure, important event, or culturaldevelopment]; listed Lytle Park area buildings consideredhistoric in nature. Included as "typifying early nineteenthcentury" buildings were the Taft Museum, the Literary Club,and "possibly the Catholic Women's Association and theWoman's City Club" buildings. The Lytle apartment build-ing was listed as a "late to mid-nineteenth century" building.Early twentieth century buildings were the Lincoln Apart-ments, Rudd Insurance Company, Earls Building, AnnaLouise Inn, Phelps Townhouse, and the Guilford School.Three places, the Taft Museum, the Literary Club, and LytlePark itself appear in the appraisal of individual places ofprimary historic importance.

The Lytle Park area was noted as possessingharmony and historic interest. The area buildings were notconsidered to be unique. As far as period representation, thereport contended that some buildings in the area were indic-ative of a definite period in Cincinnati building, otherswere not. The appraisal found aesthetic quality to be a"matter of opinion."72

At the same time word came from city councilthat some were toying with the thought that saving the"historic atmosphere" of Lytle Park when the expresswaywent through did not mean that the East Fourth Streetbuildings had to be saved. "Aesthetic values" were up against"economic feasibility." Many argued that the old buildingswere not adequate for present use and therefore should be

destroyed. New buildings could be constructed in keepingwith the same architectural lines as the old and thus in"harmony with the present atmosphere."73

To help break the deadlock, city council helda public hearing on January 11, with several hundred peopleassembling. Robert Springer presented his plan to move theFourth Street buildings. The Catholic Women's Club madea proposal to sell the city a subterranean easement throughthe southeast corner of its property, thus providing right-of-way for the expressway tunnel. In return the club reserved itsrights to construct a building in place of its present clubbuildings, both of which would be razed.74 The remainderof the hearing was concerned with the same issues that hadbeen discussed many times before: whether to leave an openditch between Fourth and Fifth, to slab over a tunnel, or totunnel under existing buildings. City Manager Harrell saidthat the outcome lay with council's decision of where the"line of costs crosses the line of historic and aestheticsignificance."75

In March 1961, the City Planning Commis-sion recommended the approval of two historic preserva-tion ordinances. The first ordinance established the "publicpurpose and procedures for preserving any area of publicvalue by reason of historic, architectural interest, or publicinvestment." The second ordinance applied specifically toLytle Park, identifying it as a protection area and suggestingarchitectural standards. It would limit buildings facing thepark to a maximum height of five stories. All buildingswould have to be brick or stone with white trim for doorsand windows. Maximum height for doors would be onestory. Windows could not exceed the dimensions of five feetby eight feet. No show windows, advertising signs, or bill-boards would be permitted and no exposed tanks, antennas,or fans were allowed on roofs. Additionally, the city wasgiven control over other areas similar to Lytle Park whose"unique character merits public concern." Under the ordi-nance all property owners within the area had to conform tothe rules and regulations designed to preserve the area'scharacter. If they refused, the city would be able to buy theproperty itself in order to preserve it.76 Although council didnot pass these ordinances as the City Planning Commissionhad hoped, three years later the same legislations were revived.77

Shortly thereafter, the United States Bureauof Public Roads reported on a federal policy with respect toselling the air rights above the tunnel. Congress amendedthe Federal Aid Highway System Act, Section 104, with theFederal Aid Highway Act of 1961 which allowed for the useof air space over and above an interstate highway as long as it

Six alternative proposals werepresented with each showingthe approximate total cost tothe city.

City Manager Harrell recom-mended Plan 4, an under-ground tunnel covered with aconcrete slab to support a tenstory building.

16

did not interfere with traffic.78 Until national guidelineswere formulated, the bureau agreed to handle Cincinnati'sproblem as a special case in order to speed the interstateconstruction. The bureau, however, felt that the federalgovernment should be entitled to some of the revenuegained from selling the air rights in return for the ninetypercent of the total expressway cost that the federal govern-ment paid.79

Later in April, the Bureau of Public Roadsgranted the request to slab over the expressway and to sell airrights, providing the city paid for the slab. The Enquirerstated that the city could "eventually recover most, if not all,the added expense if it sold the air rights over the slab forconstruction of buildings and also received a tax incomefrom the real estate."80

To keep up the pressure for historic preserva-tion, the Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio (HPSO)sponsored an exhibit in the spring of 1962, entitled "Preser-vation: The Heritage of Progress." The exhibit, at the TaftMuseum from May 20 to June 30, featured pictures anddrawings of preservation activities that had taken place aroundthe world.81 It included a section dealing specifically withurban redevelopment and historic preservation in Cincin-nati. Projects such as riverfront development, Avondale-Corryville redevelopment, Lytle Park "preservation in thepast, plan for the future," and old homes in Cincinnatiwhich "have been carefully renovated and preserved" werecontained in the exhibit.82 The Historical and PhilosophicalSociety's Newsletter described the exhibit:In the manner of Scrooge, you will, now view Cincinnati past,Cincinnati present, and Cincinnati future. It is to be hoped thatthrough this program, Cincinnatians will become aware of theneed for preserving those buildings and areas that have historicsignificance and architectural distinction.83

The timing of this exhibit, purposely or not,coincided with the controversy over preserving buildings inthe Lytle Park neighborhood as well as indicating otherpreservation needs in the city. Another HPSO Newsletterstated that at the exhibit "A special section will relate tohistoric preservation (and demolition!) in Cincinnati."84 TheCincinnati Enquirer suggested preservation in speaking ofthe display as "showing what has been done in Cincinnatiand more important—what still needs to be done before thewrong kind of progress destroys everything in its path."85

Another reporter observed that special emphasis at the exhib-it "is given to the problem in Cincinnati where preservationis much discussed as urban renewal projects including express-ways bring changes to the city.86

Queen City Heritage

In August 1962, Expressway Engineer, JosephBischof (Bauer had died in 1961), sought clarification fromthe Bureau of Public Roads that the federal governmentwould pay ninety percent of the cost of slabbing over LytlePark itself, with the city only paying the full cost to slab overthe adjacent area where structures might be built.87 Soonother problems arose as Cincinnatians learned that federalregulations prevented any lending institution from loaningmoney to a builder with air rights to a surface above anexpressway. Likewise, state regulations forbade the state tosell or lease air space.88 Additionally, some Cincinnati busi-nessmen feared that new apartment buildings in Lytle Parkwould compete with plans for the Riverfront and "othercore area housing," and might interfere with FHA financingfor major downtown housing.89 After meeting with CityManager Harrell, Dennis Durden, executive secretary of theCitizens Development Committee (CDC), wrote to someCincinnati businessmen, members of the CDC, that Harrellwas under pressure from groups and newspapers to preserveLytle Park. According to Durden, Harrell personally feltthat there was no economic or market justification for aLytle Park deck (slab), but saw the main issue as being "civicbeauty and historical preservation." Harrell also expressedconcern that the city's major efforts not be diverted awayfrom the riverfront.90

The Enquirer announced on January 9, 1963,that the city was waiting for federal approval to slab over theexpressway and to sell the air rights over the tunnel, before itbegan to raze the East Fourth Street buildings. The build-ings, "cloaked in history and nostalgia," that were slated fordestruction had an estimated total value of $995,000.91

Finally, confirmation arrived from Washington giving Cin-cinnati ownership of the air rights over the expressway andresponsibility for leasing them on a long-term basis, renew-able forever.92 City Hall had been vexed with the inabilityto interest a developer in the construction over the express-way while the issue of air rights remained unsolved. James C.Farrell, city solicitor, commented that the city might holdthe air rights in reserve until the central business districtand riverfront redevelopment programs were farther along.The year 1965 was designated as a target date for com-pletion of the expressway,93 and later in January 1963, planswere announced for the park area to be enlarged to includethe adjoining playground. Ludlow and Lytle streets wouldclose and become part of the park.94

Nevertheless, the preservationists remained sus-picious. The Woman's City Club newsletter for November-December 196 3, carried an article entitled "Lytle Park Fight

Fall 1986 Lytle Park Neighborhood

to Continue" which called for the support of all club mem-bers to see Lytle Park preserved as a "beauty spot,... one ofthe few remaining downtown." The article told the womenthat although it had long been "understood that the Parkwould be preserved,... unexpected things can happen inCouncil"95

The fears of the women, however, proved tobe unfounded. On April 22, 1964, city council passed Ordi-nance No. 159 which authorized the City Planning Com-mission to create an Architectural Board of Review with thepurpose of delineating areas of historic and architecturalinterest that should be protected. This act, which expandedon the draft of the proposed 1961 ordinance, would enablethe city to control the development of historic areas so their

"historic value" could be preserved. The Review Board wouldhave direct responsibility for specifying architectural controlon a case by case basis rather than using across the boardguidelines as set for by the previous preservation ordinance.Lytle Park was expected to be the first area to come underthe control of the ordinance.96

In May Robert Garvey, Jr., executive directorof the National Trust for Historic Preservation, speaking tothe newly formed Miami Purchase Association, urged thekeeping of Lytle Park as it was.

You can reap the benefits of preserving elements ofthis city. I contend that Lytle Park is not just trees, houses, andvegetation. You have neighborhoods which should be kept... blocksand streets which add character to your city. I know where there arecanyons of glass crying out for a little greenery, a little diversity.97

Shortly thereafter, the area of Lytle Park wasdeclared a "Protection Area" by an ordinance council passed

July 1, 1964. In this ordinance, the City Planning Commis-sion identified the Taft Museum, Earls Building, Anna LouiseInn, Literary Club, and Phelps Townhouse as representativeof the "general scale and character of buildings that shouldprevail around Lytle Park and with which designs for newbuildings, alterations, appurtenances facing Lytle Park andwithin the boundaries of the vicinity... should be compati-ble and in harmony." Guidelines were included for the use ofthe Architectural Board of Review: building height shouldbe appropriate to give Lytle Park the appearance of anenclosed park or square without domination over the TaftMuseum; materials on the exterior of buildings were to beharmonious; doorways and windows facing Lytle Park wereto be scale; garage doors and service doors were to beinconspicuous where openings face the Park; there were tobe no advertising signs or billboards if not compatible withthe area; exterior lighting should be limited in illumination.98

Between 1961 and 1964, interested partiesbrought before council various proposals for slabbing overthe tunnel. Council appeared to favor extension of a coverover the tunnel between Fourth and Fifth streets. The bigconcern, however, was financial. Who would pay for theadditional cost? Finally, in June 1964, the Western-SouthernLife Insurance Company offered to pay for the slab toextend Lytle Park over Fourth and Fifth streets. After creat-ing a park on the slab, it would be turned over to the city as agift.99 Yet another offer was made that same month by aprivate developer to pay for the air rights over the express-

Western-Southern offered topay for a slab to extend LytlePark over Fourth and Fifthstreets which would support afour story building.

The Architectural Board ofReview approved the designand character of the apartmentbuilding—four stories high,contemporary of design, yetcompatible with the otherbuildings.

i8

way. He wanted to build an apartment building, providedthere was no limitation as to height. The tax revenue thatcould be garnered from an apartment building made thisoffer more attractive to the city than Western-Southern'spark plan.100 Immediately upon hearing of the competingproposal, Western-Southern quickly changed its offer tothat of a slab to support a four story building as well as apark. Council readily accepted Western-Southern's offer bya seven to two vote. The Citizens Development Committeeand the Chamber of Commerce supported council's deci-sion. However, Charles Taft and Theodore M. Berry votedagainst the offer on the grounds that council should haveaccepted competitive bids for air rights. It was reported thatChelsea-Moore was interested in making a bid, with plans toerect an eight story building on Fourth Street and a twenty-one story overview apartment building on Fifth. Taft andBerry wanted the city to pay the $600,000 to build a slab tosupport a ten story building and then negotiate air rightswith interested parties. Other council members feared, how-ever, that the city would not be able to recoup its costs undersuch a plan.101

The Board of Directors of the Good Govern-ment League were also displeased with what they termed a"most unfortunate precedent set by Cincinnati's city councilin agreeing to accept payment for air rights over the express-way through Lytle Park without competitive bidding." Theboard found the decision not in the best interests of the city,its tax base, future development, or the beauty of the "lovelylittle park where so much of Cincinnati's early history was

Queen City Heritage

made." The criticism continued that council's action hadbeen made hastily without a public hearing and withoutconsideration of an offer under negotiation with the city.The Good Government League accused council of ignoringresidential development of the park environs, and recom-mendations by distinguished architects for the most pleas-ing and architecturally sound development of Lytle Park.102

At a meeting in August 1965 the ArchitecturalReview Board discussed the design of the park and madesome decisions concerning its future look. It decided todispense with the bandstand because band concerts hadbeen discontinued at the park and were not likely to beresumed. The wall to be constructed at Third Street whichwould provide a boundary for the park and also a shieldfrom the expressway would be thirty feet high. Furtherdiscussion concerned whether or not to have a comfortstation and if so, how to blend it into the park decor. Theboard also discussed the best way to deal with tunnel ventila-tion and the means for baffling the sound of the traffic thatwould be below the park.103

The contract for the expressway project throughLytle Park was awarded on June 27, 1967, and work finallybegan on August 14.104 The Lincoln Statue was removedand placed at the Guilford School,105 and work continuedthroughout 1968 and part of 1969. The final inspection wasconducted on September 10,1969, and only then was Western-Southern allowed to proceed with construction of its fourstory apartment building.106 The Architectural Board ofReview approved the design and character of the building-four stories high, contemporary of design yet "compatiblewith buildings set forth [originally] as criteria," with twenty-five apartments, and a shop and restaurant on the first floor.Part of the plan included open spaces and set backs, withplantings and paving to complement the other buildings in

William T. Earls, chairman ofthe United Citizens Committeeto Preserve Lytle Park, calledLytle Park a "place wherepeople love to come... one ofthe few places we have left thatgive charm to Cincinnati."(Photo by Michael Issacs)

The Phelps Apartment buildingalong with the Taft Museum,Earls Building, Anna LouiseInn, and Literary Club weredeclared as representative ofthe general scale and characterof buildings that should prevail

around Lytle Park. (Photo byMichael Issacs)

the area. A two level covered garage was to be constructedbehind the Fourth Street facade, with plantings to screen itfrom Fifth Street. Today this building is called 550 EastFourth Street Apartments.107

Lytle Park was completely torn apart duringthe tunnel construction. In May 1970, City Manager RichardL. Krabach announced that the Lytle Park restoration wouldcost $400,000 with the city's share being $20,290. LytlePark, which was originally 97,000 square feet, would beincreased to an area of 115,000 square feet108 and would notbe divided in the middle as it was before the expresswayconstruction because Lytle Street would not be replaced.109

The Enquirer was pleased. It announced in March 1971, that"another landmark" was to be returned to the city and thatLytle Park was the "only park or other unit of this type to bebuilt over an interstate road system, giving us another firstfor Cincinnati."110 In August the Enquirer announced thatLytle Park would be "almost like new," but larger and moremodern. The Lincoln Statue was to be returned within fivefeet of its former spot. The World War I memorial would be

returned. Park benches would be added as well as sidewalksin basically the same pattern as before the construction. Newflowers and shrubs were being planted. A new comfortstation was built on the western edge of the park. A plaquegiving "credit to all major figures who were important to theLytle area" would also be placed in the new park.111

The park was completely restored by the endof October 1971. A ceremony, held on November 11,1972,to dedicate the new Lytle Park, was marked by the unveilingof the newly restored Lincoln Statue, the work a donationby Eleftherious Karkadoulias.112 Senator Robert Taft, Jr. wasthe main speaker at the ceremony. The Taft High SchoolBand played. The third grade class of the College Preparatory-School sang, and drama students from Withrow HighSchool read some writings of Abraham Lincoln.113

National recognition for the Lytle Park neigh-borhood followed suit. In 1973 the Taft Museum, consid-ered one of the finest examples of federal architecture inOhio, was added to the National Register of Historic Places.114

In 1974 the Lytle Park area was nominated to the National

The Lincoln statue was relo-cated within five feet of itsoriginal spot. (Photo by MichaelIssacs)

Queen City Heritage

Register by the Miami Purchase Association with the bound-aries of the area similar to that in the protection area recog-nized by the City of Cincinnati.115 In writing to MayorTheodore Berry of the approval given to the nomination bythe state, Judith Kitchen of the Ohio Historic Site Preserva-tion Advisory Board explained what impact national desig-nation would have on Lytle Park. "Its purpose was to helpprotect the sites or buildings in the district from demolitionor harm from any federally funded or licensed program byproviding for a federal-level hearing in the event of suchjeopardy."116 It did not affect property rights in any way. Thenomination was made in connection with a state plan toidentify and document "prehistoric and historic places inOhio which qualify for National Register status under theNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966."117 In April1976 the Lytle Park area was placed on the National Regis-ter of Historic Places.118

This act ended the controversy over the LytlePark area that had begun in the 1950's. The desire on thepart of many Cincinnatians to preserve what they consid-ered a part of their heritage not only yielded a new yethistoric Lytle Park neighborhood but also provided an impe-tus for further preservation work in the city. Lytle Park wasthe first historic district in Cincinnati, and was soon followedby the designation of the Dayton Street Historic District.Although all the old club and apartment buildings on EastFourth Street were not saved, most agreed that much of thecharacter of the neighborhood was retained because of care-ful preservation guidelines.

In the 1970's, Cincinnatians had a beautifulpark in the downtown area. Some of the residential space inthe Lytle Park area had been retained. Additionally, the citywas served by the convenience of the Northeast Expressway.Because of the persistence, time, and effort spent on plan-ning for the area's future combined with a concern for itspast, the Lytle Park neighborhood continues to serve theneeds of Cincinnatians and still be a special place in thehearts of those who remember.

1. George W. Platt, "Lytle Park," The Catholic Women's News, April 19 3 3, p.5. The Cincinnati Historical Society.2. See "From Home to Museum: The Taft House and Its Neighborhood:1900-19 3 2" by Jennifer Davis, seminar paper, Frontiers of Urban Research,Department of History, University of Cincinnati. This paper deals with theTaft family's influence on the development of the Lytle Park area.3. Works Projects Administration—Federal Writers' Project, Cincinnati: AGuide to the Queen City and Its Neighbors. (Cincinnati, 1943), p. 162. Thisguide includes, in its section on tours of the downtown, a tour of the LytlePark area.4. "Landmarks in Lytle Park District to be Preserved," Cincinnati Post,March 7, 1930, p. 29.

5. Eugene Segal, "Tranquil Days in the Lytle Park Area," Enquirer, March 7,1930, N.B. This and other noted articles in this paper were found in anewspaper clipping scrapbook on Lytle Park at The Cincinnati HistoricalSociety. Most articles found in this scrapbook do not give page numbers.Some do not give the name of the paper in which the article appeared.Articles from this scrapbook will be cited as LP Scrapbook.6. The Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan and the Official City Plan of theCity of Cincinnati. City Planning Commission, 1948, p. 8 3.7. Ibid., p. 84.8. Northeast Expressway: Preliminary Design Report, February 1957, p. 9.PAMS. Cincinnati City Hall.9. Downtown Riverfront Redevelopment Plan, City Planning Commission,1946, p. 4.10. Ibid., p. 47.11. The plan mentioned "epoch making events" such as being the cross-roads in the movement of Indian tribes, site of Ft. Washington, capital ofthe Northwest Territory, and the center of the movement of settlers andcommerce on the Ohio River, p. 47.12. Ibid., p. 46.1 3. Ibid., p. 48.14. Ibid., p. 46.15. Master Plan Report on Program and Progress, City Planning Commission,1946, p. 10.16. "$175,000 Lytle Park Project Planned," Cincinnati Times-Star, June 1,1950, p. 1.17. "Park Board Signs Contract of Purchase for $175,000 Site at Fourth andLytle," Enquirer, June 2, 19 5 o, p. 1.18. "Park Board Gets 'Bargain' in Purchase," Post, June 2, 19 5 o, p. 44. Theproperty was jointly owned by the Taft daughters. Palm mentions three orfour buildings on the property, but only two are listed in the Williams CityDirectory. In 1940, both buildings 3 1 5 and 3 17 Pike were vacant. In 1934,3 1 5 was occupied by W.T. Semple and 3 17 by Katherine Moore. In 1945,3 17 was occupied by "Bundles for Britain," but was again vacant in 1947and remained so until destruction which apparently took place in1950-195 1. The building at 3 1 5 was vacant from 1948. At the sametime, Western-Southern Life bought the Woodford Building at the north-west corner of Fourth and Lawrence, placing the company closer to LytlePark.19. Memorandum, Cincinnati Engineering Department, Cincinnati Express-way Program, November 24, 1954. Citizens Development CommitteePapers. (Hereinafter cited as CDC Papers) Box 8, Folder 8, CincinnatiHistorical Society.20. "Northeast Expressway Plans Sent to State," Post, June 21, 195 7, p. 2.21. Gilbert Sands, "Harrell Acts on Northeast Project; Asks Meeting ofMunicipal Officials,"Enquirer, November 16, 1957, p. 5.22. An exhibit of the history of "Cincinnati Architecture from Beginningsin 1791 to the Present" was planned for the spring of 195 7. It was to be a"critical evaluation of building in the Cincinnati area [to] demonstratedifferent historical styles which have been manifest here." The exhibit wasthe dream of John Garber, architect, and Allon T. Schoener who hoped itwould be a "valuable contribution to the community's appreciation of itsarchitectural history." Garber also thought it was a good time to start aprogram of recording old buildings in Cincinnati. The exhibit never mate-rialized because the individuals asked to contribute to its set up could notarrange times to work on the project. Papers of the Contemporary ArtsCenter, 1956 Correspondence File, Department of Archives and RareBooks, University of Cincinnati Libraries.

2 3. "A Few More Years for Women's Clubs," Enquirer, September 4, 1958,p. 3C.24. Gilbert Sands, "Taft Fights Razing of Lytle Property," Enquirer, Septem-ber 5, 1958,p. 8B.2 5. "Moses Here Today For Lytle Park Talk," Enquirer, December 11,1958.

Fall 1986 Lytle Park Neighborhood

: • _ U " . . ' , - ^ ' ; " • > " ' • • • • ' • " - " ' •

— * v ; • • • • • - - - •

LP Scrapbook. The Engineering Report: Northeast Expressway (Cincinnati,July 1960), gives some later dates for these buildings.26. Ibid.27. Gilbert Sands, "Expressway Plans Dim Hopes to Keep Lytle ParkBuildings," Enquirer, September 9, 195 8, p. 6A.28. "Lytle Park, Place of Controversy," Cincinnati newspaper, September 9,1958. This title refers to a sketch by Caroline Williams of endangeredbuildings on East Fourth looking from the front gates at the Taft Museum.Newspaper Clippings, Woman's City Club Records, Box 12, Folder 145,Cincinnati Historical Society. (Hereinafter cited as WCC Clippings.)29. "Turning Under Lytle Park," Cincinnati newspaper, September 10,1958, WCC Clippings.30. Ibid.3 1. "Taft Vows Fight," Enquirer, November 20, 195 8, p. 7.32. Committee consisted of: Philip R. Adams, director of Art Museum;Mrs. Robert S. Alter, civic leader; Charles Hamlin, vice president Sons ofthe American Revolution; Lucien Wulsin, Jr., president of HPSO; CharlesF. Cellarius, architect; Edward J. Schulte, architect; Richard G. Arms,director HPSO; Mrs. J. Sterrett Caldwell, president Daughters of theAmerican Revolution; and Miss Katherine Hanna, director Taft Museum."New Committee," Enquirer, November 27, 1958. WCC Clippings.3 3. "Art Center Asks Public Hearings on Lytle Park," Enquirer, December4, 1958, LP Scrapbook. See also, "Lytle Park Tunnel Legal, Says Taft," Post,December 5, 1958, p. 8.34. "Don't Ruin Beauty, Literary Club Asks,"Enquirer, December 3, 1958,p. 19A.3 5. Ibid.36. Ibid.37. "Residents of Lytle Park Area Move to Form Protective Group,"Enquirer, December 10, 195 8, p. 4.38. Ibid.39. "Moses Here Today for Lytle Park Talk," Enquirer, December 11,1958,p. 6F.40. Harry Mayo, "Save Lytle Park Idea Becomes Drive to Preserve OtherCity Landmarks,"Post, December 12, 1958, p. 16.41. "On Melting Icicles, or. . . The Lytle Park Matter," Enquirer, December11, 1958, p. 6F.42. "Saving Lytle Park May Cost Si.4 Million," Enquirer, December 12,1958, p. 11.4 3. Ibid.44. Ibid. See also Report of December 11, 1958, Meeting at Taft Museum.CDC Papers, Box 1 o, Folder 5, Cincinnati Historical Society.

45. "Lytle Park Problem,"Enquirer, December 13, 1958, p. 4A. 46. LetterJohn Garber to Charles P. Taft, December11, 19 5 8, CDC Papers, Box 1 o, Folder 5, Cincinnati Historical Society.47. "Lytle Park—More Facts," Post, December 18, 195 8, p. 20.48. Ibid.49. Mildred Miller, "Santa Yelper," Enquirer, January 5, 1959^ .4 .5 o. Ibid.5 1. "City Offered Tunnel Rights," Post, January 7, 19 5 9, p. 10.52. Gilbert Sands, "Save Entire Lytle Park Area Planning Chairman Urges,"Enquirer, January 13, 1959,p. 1.53. Mary Weik, "The Coziest Park in Cincinnati," The Woman's City ClubBulletin, WCC Papers, Box 5 o, Cincinnati Historical Society.54. George Amick, "Harrell Favors Restoring of Lytle Park Buildings,"Enquirer, February 25, 1959, p. 1.5 5. "Visitor Urges City to Save Lytle Park," Cincinnati newspaper, March9, 1959, LP Scrapbook.56. George Amick, "Ladies Pounce on Council," Enquirer, April 9,19 5 9, p.10C.

57. Official Minutes of City Council, vol. 782, April 8, 1959, p. 89. Two daysafter the visit to council by the club members, Councilman William CodyKelly introduced a proposal to scrap the plans for the expressway and buildit via Columbia and Torrence parkways. Under Kelly's plan the expresswaywould follow Columbia Parkway, widened to Torrence, then up Torrencewhich would also be widened, and then go under Madison Road, then to anew highway across part of Owl's Nest Park to around Dana and Vistaavenues and then intercept the proposed expressway. Kelly insisted that thisroute would be less expensive and not disturb the Lytle Park area. Express-way engineer Bauer's opinion on this proposal was that it was not practicalfor traffic flow and would not facilitate travel for motorists going toAvondale and Walnut Hills who would continue to use local street systemsand thus would not aid in curbing the traffic congestion. Further, Colum-bia Parkway, already inadequate for the traffic using it, would have to bedouble decked. George Amick, "Kelly Proposes Alternate NE X-Way,"Enquirer, April 11, 19 5 9, p. 6A.58. Mary Gorey, "Lytle Park," Cincinnati Pictorial Enquirer, December 27,1959, P- 6.59. "Quiet Spot," Cincinnati newspaper, July 1959, WCC Clippings, Cin-cinnati Historical Society.60. Engineering Report Northeast Expressway, Cincinnati, Ohio, Hazelet andErdal, Consulting Engineers, July i960, p. 3.61. Ibid., p. 6.62. Ibid.6 3. Ibid.64. "Harrell Asks Lytle Tunnel for Northeast Expressway," Post, July 6,1960, p. 1.

65. "5948,000 Extension of Lytle Park Urged," Enquirer, July 7, i960, p.6D.66. Ibid.67. WCC, Box 12, Folder 144, June 15, i960. Letters sent to CouncilMembers: Vincent H. Beckman; Joseph L. Decourcy, Jr.; Dorothy W.Dolbey; John J. Gilligan; Gordon Rich; Eugene P. Ruehlman; Charles P.Taft II; Mayor Donald Clancy; Vice Mayor Walton Bachrach; City ManagerCharles Harrell; and William T. Earls; chairman of Lytle Park NorthAssociation.68. Mrs. Clarence L. Doty, president, "The Woman's City Club of Cincin-nati," no date, WCC, Box 12, Folder 144.69. "Lytle Park Flavor is Cited: Planners Choose $ 1,286,000 Nun," Enquirer,October 1, 1960, p. 1 3.70. "Taft Suggests New Lytle Park Area Plan," Enquirer, October 18, 1960,p. 19.71. Inventory and Appraisal of Historic Sites, Buildings, and Areas (Cincinnati:City Planning Commission, November 1960), p. 1.

The Cincinnati Woman's Clubat 643 Oak Street, also in theproposed path of the North-east Expressway, wasscheduled for demolition.

Queen City Heritage

72. Ibid., p. 14. In December i960, an article about the Taft Museumappeared in the Enquirer. In that article Katherine Hanna, director of themuseum, was quoted as saying that "Despite encroachments of the businessdistrict on the last stronghold of downtown residences where it is situated,the museum continues, unmolested by time and the dynamic physicalchanges of the city, both past and present." Enquirer, December 27, i960.Newspaper Scrapbook for 1960, Library, Taft Museum.7 3. Ibid.

74. WCC, Box 12, Folder Lytle Park 195 8-60.7 5. "New Plan Proposed for Lytle Park Preservation, Enquirer, January 12,i96i,p.43.

76. Official Minutes of the City Planning Commission, vol. 26, March 10,1961, p. 47. "Planners Approve Lytle Park Ordinance," Post, March 10,i96 i ,p . 1. City Council, through Emergency Ordinance 141,on April 26,1961, authorized the construction of a scale model of the NortheastExpressway at a cost of no more than $6,000. Parkway Patterns and Plasticswas awarded the job of constructing the model. City Engineering PlanBook, Cincinnati City Engineers Office, Cincinnati City Hall. (Hereinaftercited as City Engineering Plan Book.)77. "Historic Sites To Be Preserved," Post, April 27, 1961, p. 3.78. Letter to City Council from City Manager Harrell, November 7,1962,CDC, Box 10, Folder 5.79. "U.S. to Rule on Slab Over Proposed Expressway," Post, February 20,1962, p. 2.

80. "Lytle Park Slab Is Approved But Cincinnatians Must Pay for It,"Enquirer, April 11, 1962, p. 40.81. "Taft Exhibit Shows Value of Reminders of Past," Enquirer, May 19,1962. File on Taft Museum Exhibits, Library, Taft Museum.82. Press Release, "Spring Show Opens At Taft Museum," File on TaftMuseum Exhibits, Library, Taft Museum.83. Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio (Yi1?SO)Newsletter, no. 29,May 1962, Cincinnati Historical Society.84. HPSO Newsletter, no. 18, February 1962, CHS.8 5. Frederick Yeiser, "Taft Museum Exhibit Is Provocative," Enquirer, May27, 1962, p. 8.

86. "Taft Exhibit Shows Value of Reminders of Past," Enquirer, May 19,1962. File on Taft Museum Exhibits, Library, Taft Museum.87. "City Seeks Clarification of Lytle Park Regulations," Enquirer, November6, 1962, LP Scrapbook.88. "Lytle Park Plans Face New Upset," Post, November 6, 1962, p. 4.89. Memorandum Dennis Durden to Fred Lazarus, LeBlond, Fields,November 20, 1962, CDC, Box 1 o, Folder 5.90. Ibid.91. "Lytle Park's Brick and Mortar Neighbors Await a Sad Fate withDignity,"Enquirer, January 9, 1963, p. 6.92. Thomas Talburt, "Lytle Park X-Way Project is Approved," Post, January14, 1964, LP Scrapbook.9 3. "City Sets Late 1965 Target Date for Completion of Northeast X-Way,"Enquirer, January 16, 1963, p. 34.94. "Bigger, Restored Lytle Park Planned," Enquirer, January 26, 1963, p.33-95. Rachel Brown, "Lytle Park Fight to Continue," Woman's City ClubBulletin, November/December 1963, WCC, Box 12, Folder 5 o.96. "Historic Area Control Law Passes Council," Post, April 23, 1964, p.1 oA. See also Official Minutes of City Planning Commission, vol. 29, March 6,1964, p. 39.97. "Keep Lytle Park, Visitor Says," Post, May 24, 1964, LP Scrapbook.

98. City Ordinance No. 284, May 27, 1964, Municipal Reference Library,City Hall, Cincinnati.99. "Insurers Offer to Pay for Lytle Park Slab," Post, June 12, 1964, LPScrapbook.100. "Lytle Park Slab Decision Delayed for More Study," Enquirer, June 16,1964, p. 30.I o 1. Gilbert Sands, "Firm to Defray $ 5 00,000 Cost of X-Way Slab," Enquirer,June 25, 1964, p. 8.102. Iola O. Hessler, Ed., Hamilton County Good Government League Bulletin,July 1964, CDC, Box 11, Folder 6.103. Minutes of Meeting of Architectural Board of Review, August 5, 1965.City Engineering Plan Book. The WCC remained in residence at 5 2 8 EastFourth Street until 1964. The CCWA remained in its building until 1966.The Lincoln and the Lytle, both experiencing vacancies since 1964, werevacated in 1967. (William's City Directory, 1964-1966.)104. In preparation for the tunneling in the Lytle Park area, the TaftMuseum implemented plans to protect its treasures from possible harm dueto vibrations from the heavy equipment. Concerns were that paintingsmight come loose from their frames or vases might fall off of the shelves.Museum director, Katherine Hanna, had been assured by the city engineerthat no dynamite would be used in the tunneling. Miss Hanna told a Postand Times Star reporter that the city said if at any time any of its valuableswere threatened, work would halt. Jan Wiegel, in touch with the Philadel-phia Museum of Art which also had been faced with neighborhood demoli-tion and construction, used sponge rubber behind paintings that werewired to the walls. Vases were filled with sand and set in rubber cups. Thewall paintings were to be closely watched for cracks in the plaster. EleanorBell, "Lytle Park Construction Gives Taft Museum the Shakes," Post, March4, 1967, P- 24.105. Motour, October 1968, LP Scrapbook.106. Letter to William C. Safford, president W & S, from Krusling, CityEngineer, September 16, 1969, City Engineering Plan Book.107. Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural Board of Review, September 1 o,1968, City Engineering Plan Book.108. "Lytle Park To Be Restored," Enquirer, May 7, 1970, LP Scrapbook.109. Chuck Schramm, "Spring Tours of the Parks," Enquirer, March 8,1971, LP Scrapbook.I1 o. Ibid.111. Sheryl Bills, "Lytle Park: Almost Like New," Enquirer, August 19,1971, p. 22.

112. "Lincoln Restoration," Post, September 6, 1972, LP Scrapbook.113. "Senator Taft to Speak at Lytle Park Ceremony," Enquirer, November11, 1972, p. 19-

114. "Buildings Added to Historic List," Post, February 23, 1973, LPScrapbook.115. Letter to Mary Heller, Miami Purchase Association, from HerbertStevens, City Planning Commission, November 7, 1974. In this letterStevens also said he had changed his mind about including the PughBuilding in the protection area. He elaborated: "If we could get rid of thatold monster we would be helping the Lytle Park area—and the Taft Museumespecially." CPC file on Lytle Park, Historic Conservation Office, CincinnatiCity Hall. (Hereinafter cited as CPC file on Lytle Park.)116. Letter Judith Kitchen, Ohio Historic Preservation Office, to Cincin-nati Mayor Theodore Berry, October 29, 1975, CPC file on Lytle Park.117. Letter Thomas H. Smith, Ohio Historic Preservation Office, to TheodoreBerry, CPC file on Lytle Park.118. Ibid.