I went to school with a bunch of Joseph's. They're about as stereotypical old money Cincinnati as you get. I really don't think they give a S**t about historic preservation or principles of good urbanism. Some nice folks among them, but they're very much an aloof Indian Hill family.

 

I've wondered if Indian Hills profoundly anti urban structure helps hold Cincinnati back in terms of urbanism?  Going through the North Shore of Chicagoland gave me that thought as its the same intense concentration of wealth, but you can A) Actually see the mansions and B) a popular commuter line runs through those towns, many of which have attractive walkable downtowns...

I went to school with a bunch of Joseph's. They're about as stereotypical old money Cincinnati as you get. I really don't think they give a S**t about historic preservation or principles of good urbanism. Some nice folks among them, but they're very much an aloof Indian Hill family.

 

I've wondered if Indian Hills profoundly anti urban structure helps hold Cincinnati back in terms of urbanism?  Going through the North Shore of Chicagoland gave me that thought as its the same intense concentration of wealth, but you can A) Actually see the mansions and B) a popular commuter line runs through those towns, many of which have attractive walkable downtowns...

 

I heard a guy on a skateboarding podcast once remark about how much people spend in America to simply not have to deal with other people. 

 

 

 

 

 

I went to school with a bunch of Joseph's. They're about as stereotypical old money Cincinnati as you get. I really don't think they give a S**t about historic preservation or principles of good urbanism. Some nice folks among them, but they're very much an aloof Indian Hill family.

 

I've wondered if Indian Hills profoundly anti urban structure helps hold Cincinnati back in terms of urbanism?  Going through the North Shore of Chicagoland gave me that thought as its the same intense concentration of wealth, but you can A) Actually see the mansions and B) a popular commuter line runs through those towns, many of which have attractive walkable downtowns...

 

While the North Shore still trends Republican it's much more "purple" than Cincinnati's suburbs.  Nevertheless, I don't think the walkable downtowns of those suburbs and their commuter rail access really help as much with urban "mindshare" as one would like. 

Still I've chatted with a republican up here who mentioned how he felt the government ruined amtrak.  Puzzling statement, but one that at least acknowledges that purpose of trains and that they are a viable form of transportation - very different than what I'd hear in Cincy.

 

When the elite of the region ride trains to work (which many of them do) and live in actual towns I do feel it makes a difference in the leadership of the city in embracing urbanist ideas...  Not to say they aren't gung ho progressives but it might be part of why even a purple politician like Rahm is gung ho on transit, where as a purple (maybe more light pink that purple) politician like Cranley is not.

 

I dunno though its just me speculating.

So the interested parties and advisors say that all the uses of this building are not "economically feasible". After reading through the HRB docs about the other development on Main, it was obvious that the building can't be used. What's so wrong with Dennison?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IDK, I think I could say bye-bye if this replaces it ...

 

A parking lot will replace it. They out that rendering out to trick people.

The rendering isn't going to happen though.  They've been pushing this idea since they wrecked down a whole bunch of buildings on the block thirty years ago.  Plus, we probably couldn't lure a Fortune 500 company out of the blue without giving away the farm in subsidies, and it would probably be a struggling company making a desperate move at that point. (Recall Chiquita moved to Charlotte but then pulled the Irish tax merger just a few years later, they're no longer HQ'ed there.)

 

That and the fact they don't need to wreck down the Dennison to make this happen. There is no reason to cross an alley and cut into a row of historic buildings to add a pittance of square footage when they can build as tall as they like.

^^ What's funny about that rendering is that the a building that looks exactly like that (from that vantage point) could be built without removing the Dennison. If you mirrored and flipped the setback in the foreground on the back of the site, everything from the Dennison to the corner of 8th Street would be where that rather useless courtyard is.

This lot really isn't as big as it seems because it's not a standard 400x400 block.  It's a 400x200 block, and the main part of the parking lot is about 260x200 with a 140x65-foot panhandle.  It's like a chunky upside-down Oklahoma.  The problem is that they really couldn't get a very big parking garage going if they want two entrances (i.e. one on 7th and one on 8th) because the ramps themselves would take up a lot of space in the garage. 

 

I think what they're really going for here is not a project that will have street retail around it and underground parking but rather a tower in the panhandle space + the Dennison and then a big ugly square multi-deck garage in the 260x200 section of the block.  And after they get the Dennison they're coming for the Ohio Book Store.   

Cranley's creepy goon squad. 

Preservationists blast notion that office tower will replace former Dennison Hotel

Apr 13, 2016, 6:48am EDT Updated Apr 13, 2016, 7:17am EDT

Chris Wetterich

Staff reporter and columnist

Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Preservationists on Tuesday criticized statements from the Joseph family that it plans to build an office tower that could accommodate a Fortune 500 company after it demolishes the former Dennison Hotel at 716 Main St.

 

The Columbia Development Group, the Josephs' development company, showed the Courier a rendering on Monday of an office building concept for the block bordered by Seventh and Eighth streets and Main and Sycamore streets.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/04/13/preservationists-blast-notion-that-office-tower.html

IDK, I think I could say bye-bye if this replaces it ...

 

 

Personally, I am not a fan of the Denison and would not shed a tear if it were torn down.

 

That being said, the proposed office complex is a complete joke.

 

1) you will not get a Fortune 500 to locate there, they all want to be near the river or with a river view. (otherwise there would be more towers along central parkway by now)

2) If you were going to get a large prominent company to locate there and want it as a signature building, why not go taller. you don't have to tear down the Dennison to do that either.

3) What other large businesses are located in that area? None. It is 2 blocks north of the Chiquita Center, it is 3 blocks east of the old URS center (which I would hardly call a HQ building). It is convenient to 71 North but that is it.

I didn't see this view the first time I looked at the CBC article.

This lot really isn't as big as it seems because it's not a standard 400x400 block.  It's a 400x200 block, and the main part of the parking lot is about 260x200 with a 140x65-foot panhandle.  It's like a chunky upside-down Oklahoma.  The problem is that they really couldn't get a very big parking garage going if they want two entrances (i.e. one on 7th and one on 8th) because the ramps themselves would take up a lot of space in the garage. 

 

I think what they're really going for here is not a project that will have street retail around it and underground parking but rather a tower in the panhandle space + the Dennison and then a big ugly square multi-deck garage in the 260x200 section of the block.  And after they get the Dennison they're coming for the Ohio Book Store. 

 

It's smaller than a 400x400 block... true. But it's also much larger than plenty of parcels that have garages and/or towers built on them. They really can't make the "unfeasible" argument when literally within 1 block there's the 7th & Broadway garage with apartments above, the 8th & Sycamore garage with condos above, and the proposed 8th & Main garages with condos above. All of those projects are on smaller footprints than what the Joseph family has available.

 

I'm losing my bearings here. Isn't that the 8th & Sycamore Development where the "Proposed Hotel and Parking Garage" is in the pic joshknut[/member] posted above? I mean, how outdated is that rendering that they are trying to put forward as a "plan"?

 

And is it just me or is there a streetcar in both renderings crossing the 7th at Main in both renderings?

 

One down side to all of this is if we can stop it then that's tens of millions of dollars of development that we could otherwise attribute to the streetcar. Don't tell The Crancelator that...his hair-plugged head would explode.

Correct me if I am wrong but these renderings are just being recycled from the early phases of the GE Global Ops project, right?

Correct me if I am wrong but these renderings are just being recycled from the early phases of the GE Global Ops project, right?

 

Yes. 

But But But the Joseph Group spent SO much money and time, hiring a firm to come up with that stylized rendering of a rendering of the GE Global Operations project!

Tons of interesting details in this HCB staff report on the Dennison, including interior photos starting around page 238: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/april-18-2016-staff-report-materials-for-item-6/

 

If the HCB ignores the staff recommendation to deny permit for demolition, then we will know the Board means nothing because this report is truly convincing and exhaustive in demonstrating why the Dennison can and should be saved.

 

 

Some interesting points from the report:

 

The Applicant argues that there is no economically viable use that can be made in the building. In their analysis they only considered use of the entire building as a boutique hotel, apartment/retail, office/retail and condominiums. The applicants did not provide any analysis for use of part of the building. Partial use of the building is a means to offset costs to own and maintain the building. Lacking this review, Applicant cannot make an informed statement that all economically viable use of the property would be deprived as a full analysis concerning partial use of the building has not been submitted.

 

...

 

It is unclear from the record if the applicant had any intention of reusing the building and therefore leads staff to conclude that the purpose of buying the property was for demolition. As stated above in the excerpt from “Assessing Economic Hardship Claims under Historic Preservation Ordinances” buying a building subject to a historic preservation ordinance and demolition review and expecting to be able to demolish it as well as redevelop it not a reasonable investment backed expectation.

 

...

 

The Applicant also did not submit any evidence that they have attempted to achieve any level of economic return. It is a truism that vacant and empty buildings have a carrying cost, but an empty building does not prove or disprove a potential level of economic return.

 

...

 

In the Attachment A Beck 2/23/16 Report, claims are made by the Consultant that the market will not grow to support higher rents and in particular claims that “one impediment to significant investment and new construction in the Main Street Historic District is due to the district’s designation as a historic district.” (Page 10) Staff believes that there is substantial empirical evidence to contradict the  Impediment” claim.

 

...

 

The Beck 4/1/16 Supplement states that the use of tax credits were not considered because the feasibility is exclusively the domain of economics. Staff contends that this is not an acceptable reason to not consider historic tax credits and other available incentives. Considering all incentives possible is an accepted and expected part of market analysis and development analysis for projects.

 

...

 

1. The Owner has not attempted to sell or lease the property and therefore cannot claim an economic hardship as they have not proven that the property could not be sold or utilized to another buyer or tenant for a viable use.

2. The current Owner, in their own words have stated they bought the property with the intention of major redevelopment, which is assumed would require a demolition of the building. This intention is contrary to the law governing the property, which is therefore not a reasonable-investment backed expectation.

3. The building, as stated by the Owner’s structural engineering report is capable of sustaining the existing residential use in the building code, including hotel, resulting in minimization of building code requirements for structural updates.

4. The pro forma for apartments that the Applicant provided when incorporating the use of federal historic tax credits, is a project that is economically feasible and viable.

5. When comparing the different cost estimates provided for evaluation, it was demonstrated that the pro formas using TAMZ Construction and Restoration cost estimates for apartments economically feasible and viable, even without the use of any historic tax credits.

"In the Attachment A Beck 2/23/16 Report, claims are made by the Consultant that the market will not grow to support higher rents", meanwhile in The Banks thread people are arguing over how high rents have gotten downtown and this site is directly on the streetcar line where rents and property values are going up as we speak. There are so many holes in this it's not even funny.

Its incredible the level of sloppiness they show in their application, it might as well be swiss cheese.  Its shows how arrogant they are.  I'm hoping that this is at least the beginning of the end of this kind of flawed analysis leading to demos in Cincinnati - if not the Dennison then at least this is the beginning of people to call for leadership that cares more about these kinds of things...

Its incredible the level of sloppiness they show in their application, it might as well be swiss cheese.  Its shows how arrogant they are.  I'm hoping that this is at least the beginning of the end of this kind of flawed analysis leading to demos in Cincinnati - if not the Dennison then at least this is the beginning of people to call for leadership that cares more about these kinds of things...

 

It is not sloppiness, as much as an agenda-based analysis.

Does anyone know why 3CDC or Model Group pass on the property?

I wish the owner was straight up, and was like, "Hey, yeah, I don't really want to spend money and time rehabbing the building. I really just want a quick return on profit and want to have a new lot for parking. So I can make more money."

 

Like, literally be straight up with your intentions. Stop putting up renderings of bs concept towers that you know won't happen for at least another 10-15 years. You want to make money. Easy, and fast. It's understandable your a business man. Not a historic preservationist.

 

Just own it. Be a man about your true intentions.

Yes I believe the owners of the Chiquita Center (whatever it is called now) do not own the land it stands on.  This is a very common situation in New York City, Boston, etc., where alternately churches (or other non-profit institutions) or old money families collect revenue from the land upon which large developments have been built. 

 

Tearing down the Dennison gives any new property much more frontage on Main.  It totally changes what can be built on that corner. 

 

In the early 1980's, Columbia Real Estate entered a transaction with Prudential Real Estate (yes, that Prudential) to develop Columbia Tower at 5th and Sycamore. Columbia was not the developer. Rather retained title to the land and leased the development rights to Prudential. Chiquita relocated from NYC after American Financial bought it and moved into the Columbia Tower along with some tenants who worked with P&G -- the Deloitte accounting firm comes to mind. Pru sold the building, and it may have sold a couple of times. The most recent owner defaulted, and Columbia ended up with the building because they controlled the land.

Yes I believe the owners of the Chiquita Center (whatever it is called now) do not own the land it stands on.  This is a very common situation in New York City, Boston, etc., where alternately churches (or other non-profit institutions) or old money families collect revenue from the land upon which large developments have been built. 

 

Tearing down the Dennison gives any new property much more frontage on Main.  It totally changes what can be built on that corner. 

 

In the early 1980's, Columbia Real Estate entered a transaction with Prudential Real Estate (yes, that Prudential) to develop Columbia Tower at 5th and Sycamore. Columbia was not the developer. Rather retained title to the land and leased the development rights to Prudential. Chiquita relocated from NYC after American Financial bought it and moved into the Columbia Tower along with some tenants who worked with P&G -- the Deloitte accounting firm comes to mind. Pru sold the building, and it may have sold a couple of times. The most recent owner defaulted, and Columbia ended up with the building because they controlled the land.

 

So did they have to buy it or was there some stipulation that turned over the building to the landowner automatically in the event of a bankruptcy or foreclosure?  It seems like over the 100+ year life of a skyscraper, one owner will eventually default, and if such a condition is possible, the family of the landowner will eventually get the property. 

 

I imagine they worked a deal out with the lender of the defaulting borrower to gain total control of the property. Land leases under large buildings have been a source of great inter-generational wealth accumulation in NYC.

Hey look, there's room for everybody on the site! (sorry I got bored)

I imagine they worked a deal out with the lender of the defaulting borrower to gain total control of the property. Land leases under large buildings have been a source of great inter-generational wealth accumulation in NYC.

 

What's kind of amazing about all this is that the Joseph boys already have more money than they could ever spend.  A lot of families in that situation start giving away things, for example the Sawyers gave the City of Cincinnati the incredibly valuable land that is now Sawyer Point.  But the Josephs need more money, for some reason. 

 

News about Monday's hearing at City Hall:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/04/15/vote-dennison-demolition-hold---now/83092426/

 

 

The hearing was rescheduled and will be held on Thursday, May 26 at 1:00PM in council chambers.

I like old buildings as much as you. But if this isn't going to be turned into affordable housing, Tear it Down

 

That was a quote from the Facebook group on the Dennison...  I'm a little concerned that bringing some of the more unhinged elements of the homeless coalition who would be happy if Buddy Grey's "vision" were brought to life particularly since the next hearing is in another month.  Any thoughts?

 

None of those people are going to show up at a HCB meeting. My fear is that they are essentially going to court some company to claim they are in the running, but not be honest about it. Then they'll say, look at this tentative deal we agreed to! As soon as the building is gone, not another word will come from them about a new building there.

My fear is that they are essentially going to court some company to claim they are in the running, but not be honest about it. Then they'll say, look at this tentative deal we agreed to! As soon as the building is gone, not another word will come from them about a new building there.

 

1. How would they find a Fortune 500 stature company in such short notice? (they themselves set the bar that high)

 

2. What company would want to step into the middle of this PR s**t show?

^Good points... but I also share ryanlammi[/member]'s concerns that this just feels like the Joseph family is buying itself an extra month to grease the wheels. They only need to convince a few of the members of the HCB board. There is so little transparency to how the HCB Board is managed that it sure seems like it'd be easy enough for the Joseph Family to figure out a few sweet deals to entice some HCB members to support demolition.

Joseph sibling sues over control of auto group

 

A Union, Kentucky, woman has sued her oldest sibling, Joseph Auto Group CEO Ron Joseph, claiming he has been working for many years to consolidate ownership of the family's automobile dealerships and real estate holdings at the expense of his six siblings.

 

In a lawsuit filed last Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, Marie Joseph, 64, accuses Ron Joseph of breaching his duty to minority shareholders. She is demanding compensatory and punitive damages and the opportunity to review financial reports.

 

"Ron Joseph was placed in a fiduciary position where he owed a high level of trust to his siblings, and part of that trust was to run the business that they all owned, not just him," said Marie Joseph's attorney Kevin Murphy, who leads his own Lakeside Park-based law practice. "He violated that trust by taking corporate opportunities that were supposed to go to the business and took them for himself and his family to the detriment of Marie."

 

Cont

3CDC didn't sell Dennison for a loss

Steve Leeper, Steve Smith and Neil Tilow 11:51 a.m. EDT April 20, 2016

 

3CDC purchased the Dennison Hotel in 2010 in partnership with Talbert House and The Model Group, with the intention of developing 63 permanent supportive housing units for homeless veterans to be operated by Talbert House. As with other affordable housing projects undertaken by 3CDC, The Model Group and Talbert House, a professional team was engaged and expenses incurred to determine the feasibility, design and scope, while at the same time attempting to secure the necessary financing required to make such a project affordable for veterans in need. Despite best efforts over several years and written support for the project from the Downtown Residents Council and other neighboring and community organizations, the development team was not able to secure the necessary funding. These efforts were negatively impacted by opposition to the development plan.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/letters/2016/04/20/3cdc-model-group-talbert-sell-dennison-hotel-loss/83273224/

Oops. You mean everything I read on Facebook was a lie? Shocker!

3CDC purchased the building for $1.28 Million, then sold it for $744k. The letter from 3CDC doesn't explain how they didn't lose money on that transaction.

3CDC purchased the building for $1.28 Million, then sold it for $744k. The letter from 3CDC doesn't explain how they didn't lose money on that transaction.

 

Clearly there was compensation beyond what the auditor's office recorded.

 

I am sympathetic to those who do not want to see the building demolished, but attacking 3CDC or the past development group is useless and annoying.

Clearly? From what evidence? 3CDC saying it to be so? I'm willing to accept it, but I'd at least like an explanation for it aside from just: trust us, we made our money back.

None of these entities are public, so we are not entitled to a explanation.

I'm not suggesting there is any legal requirement for 3CDC to divulge more info, but to just say "clearly there was compensation beyond what the auditor's office recorded" is a big assumption.

 

In fairness, though, 3CDC does receive a lot of public money, and scrutiny of a business deal which implies the company forfeited $500k deserves an explanation so we know our public funds are going to an entity that isn't throwing it away for politics or business connections.

None of these entities are public, so we are not entitled to a explanation.

 

I like most of what 3CDC is doing, but they are using public money as Ryan noted and this whole deal seems questionable at best.  Also selling to guys like the Josephs doesn't seem to align with their mission statement given their track record with property in that section of downtown.  This is pretty much a call to an investigative journalism piece (or even damage control for one that might be coming soon).  It doesn't hurt to ask questions when things don't seem quiet right and the first responce given is we did not because.

So what do you think really happened?  The Josephs weren't willing to pay the initial asking price but 3CDC was?  Then the Josephs got some political crony to get 3CDC to sell it to them at a price they WERE willing to pay?  I can believe that since it's likely the Josephs' intention from the start was to demolish it they would resist paying $1.2 million for it.

I give up.

I give up.

 

Look. I would be happy to be proven otherwise. But just them writing a letter saying they didn't lose money isn't quite enough. If 3CDC did something against their best interests or improper, I would like to know. So far, no questions have been answered. They didn't explain the cost difference from their purchase to their sale.

 

I don't see why this is such an obvious thing to you that you're willing to just accept them for their word when there were clearly things happening behind the scenes (Joesphs lobbying 3CDC to kill the project for fear of hurting their property values) that weren't brought to light until recently.

I think 3CDC absolutely should be held to a higher standard of transparency that a purely private developer. They receive so many public benefits that they have a responsibility to demonstrate how they are serving the public interest. The public has a right to know the financing is put together for these projects and how the profits are managed, to know whose interests are being represented. 3CDC typically states sources of funding for their projects, so the fact that they're being so cagey about this suggests that they are trying to hide something.