The Contested Redevelopment of Cincinnati’s Over-the-Rhine Neighborhood

Over the past half-century, the Over-the-Rhine district of Cincinnati has been the focus of several waves of planning and urban design, culminating in a radical transformation of the neighborhood within the past 20 years. The neighborhood’s redevelopment has been highlighted both nationally and internationally as a success story, with the American Planning Association designating Over-the-Rhine (OTR) in 2017 as one of the nation’s “great neighborhoods.” And yet the revitalization process has also been criticized for inducing gentrification, failing to provide equitable development and affordable housing, and further marginalizing lower-income residents.

Community leadership, participation, and influence in key phases of redevelopment planning are the focus of this case study, which highlights the complexity of the engagement, planning, design, and implementation processes, involving players with different interests, philosophies, and levels of power, and evolving over time. Several factors present in urban regenerations elsewhere in the United States combine uniquely in OTR. These include proximity to downtown and the economic interests of several Fortune 500 companies based there; high-quality historic buildings in a dense urban fabric; a perception of high rates of violence and crime that stigmatized OTR and its residents; and a complex network of community organizations, local interest groups, and individual activists with diverse goals and perspectives, ranging from the most radical to those who aligned with influential civic leaders.

This case study raises important questions that many other cities are grappling with. What rights do longtime residents of a community have? Must low-income neighborhoods choose between subpar environmental quality that is affordable or a redevelopment process that serves interests outside their own? Who does a distinctive neighborhood like Over-the-Rhine belong to—current residents, current and past residents, residents of the entire city? How should we define a community and who should represent or mediate its diverse viewpoints and interests—government, community organizations, specially chartered development corporations established to get things done quickly? What is the role of the city in community engagement? Is it a mediator among the different parties, or an opinionated agent articulating a specific vision of the public good? What is the balance between civic improvement, development, evolution of resident groups, and the defense of community identity and preservation of a community in place? As the state cedes its responsibilities for planning, improvement strategies, a social safety net, and public and affordable housing, what engagement strategies can produce a more equitable distribution of services and public goods?