I thought this story at the Old Louisville Journal was interesting: "Fire Destroys History"

With 45 of these properties at risk due to neglect, what can be done to ensure that these properties are transferred into the loving hands of those who would gentrify them? In historic districts like this, it would seem to me that property rights should become more like property privileges — you either keep your building to the community standard, or you have to sell it to somebody who will keep it up.

What do you think?

Steve Magruder — LouHI Administrator and web programmer


Please become a fan of Louisville History & Issues on Facebook

I like your idea of property privileges.

I swear, if I were independely wealthy, I'd buy every property in need and fix it up properly.

I hate to say it but is sounds as if Old Louisville needs to be setup as a historic preservation district. I have friends that live in the Old Highlands area and they can barley change their landscaping with out having to get it approved. What is the side effect of this? A beautiful neighborhood.

So much of Old Louisville, Smoketown and even my neighborhood Germantown suffers from what is called urban blight. Properity is not kept up. Slum lords run rampant. Why do people think that just because they are not as economically as well off as the next person, they have the right to be a complete slob.

There are so many beautiful buildings in Old Louisville and everytime one burns, that is one less for future generations to enjoy. They dont even come close to building houses like they did 100+ years ago. I can't imagine getting rid of my 107 year old beauty.

As far as I know, Old Louisville is indeed a historic preservation district. I do believe there are restrictions on what property owners can do with their property, but they may not be the same as in the Old Highlands. Does anyone know more about this?

I looked into building an authentic craftsman — - with quartersawn oak flooring (like I currently have), a clawfoot tub, yadda yadda — - it was going to cost a flippin' fortune just for supplies for a four bedroom house. There's a reason it was called "Craftsman." It's because houses at that time (and before) were built by true craftsmen.

Like I mentioned before, I had family at the turn of the 20th century that were stone cutters. Can you imagine the work that must've gone into those fascades?

How is it that that artisan work is not appreciated??

I don't believe its unappreciated, but rather to the earlier part of your post, its very expensive to rehabilitate (and sometimes maintain) such properties. Add in the neighborhood rules / deed restrictions / historic ordinances, and it will drive away some (many?) perspective buyers.

Those homes were built to last, but mortar does work loose, drains clog, lead water lines need replacement, electric systems need to be updated, asbestos abated, etc. As an example, I remember a commercial that the brick industry put out a few years bragging that a brick home's masonry work would be maintenance free for 100 years. Well that 100 years is up on many of these buildings, and masons are much more expensive today than the early 20th century.

There is a difficult balance between owner rights and preservation. There are valid arguments on both sides of the preservation issue, and I don't claim to have a solution.

As a side note, Old Louisville is a preservation district:

http://www.louisvilleky.gov/Pl...ission.htm

The National Historic Registry shows that Old Louisville is a preservation district registered in 1975, with a boundary increase in 1985.

Here's their rough outline of the area on a map (with other historic sites in the area): http://www.metromapper.org/bm....5bc176efa7

The abandoned house that burned down on Brook Street is right across from some really nice condominiums. I don't understand a house in such an area being abandoned. Could you not rent it out for $100 a month?? You don't make money but sitting on such a property

The question is, who DOES own the property? Many of these are truly essentially abandoned, the owners die and none of the heirs take possession, or it ends up in bankruptcy, etc. It may not be worth trying to rent it out, with liability, etc., it might be cheaper to just ignore it, or at best, cut the grass and pay the taxes.

Chiming in a little late here, but since someone bumped this up thought I'd put in my two cents worth:

Old Louisville is the third largest preservation district in the US, and was briefly — if I remember correctly — was the largest in the US for a while.

A group of us had lunch at Buck's (between 4th and 5th on Ormsby) last Thursday and since it was such a beautiful day, my wife and I took the scenic route in dropping some friends off afterwards. Driving down 3rd Street towards UofL, my wife asked our friends if they'd ever consider living there. Without skipping a beat the couple emphatically replied 'NO' due to the crime. I was going to go into my argument about crime being a perceived rather than actual issue down there, but kept my mouth shut.

Now this couple are not what I'd consider having a suburbanites mentality with regards to urban crime, as the husband and I grew up together in the Highlands (Cherokee Triangle specifically) before the true regentrification began in the late 70's early 80's, and grew up with some kids that were pretty much degenerates — not a few of which ended up in jail/prison. We weren't exactly angels ourselves.

So if these guys are turned off by living down there, I know 95% of the people in the 'Ville feel the same way. Old Louisville has made tremendous strides in gentrifying, but needs to get some new development (like the condo's going in at 4th and Ormsby mentioned in another posting), and more retail and commercial services to really get the hanger's on that refuse to improve their properties to consider selling.

If I still lived in Louisville, I'd probably be a homeowner in OL