Even if the demolition is denied, I would expect Columbia to appeal this as far as possible.

If the demolition isn't denied I would expect preservationists to appeal as far as possible. In the meantime Joseph Auto is going to be getting A LOT of negative publicity. They were presented with a face and money saving way out. A win/win. And they rejected it. They will pay. The greedy, historic building destroying Joseph family will pay. They will continue to feel pain as long as this goes on. And by association so will Mayor Cranley. Keep it up oligarchs, keep it up.

#BoycottJosephAuto

 

If you are considering a new or used vehicle do not buy from these:

 

Columbia Accura

The Audi Connection

Joseph Buick

Camargo Cadillac

Capital Cadillac

Joseph Cadillac

Columbia Chevrolet

Joseph Chevrolet

Joseph GMC

Columbia Hyundai

Joseph Airport Hyundai

Infiniti of Cincinnati

Joseph Porsche

Joseph Airport Scion

Joseph Scion of Cincinnati

Joseph Subaru

Joseph Airport Toyota

Joseph Toyota of Cincinnati

Joseph Volkswagen

Joseph Fiat of Cincinnati

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

<a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisSeelbach/status/732236599577186304">Chris Seelbach tweeted</a> that he just met with <a href="https://www.nationalchurchresidences.org/">National Church Residences</a>, a developer that specializes in senior housing. They are interested in purchasing and redeveloping the Dennison. I think it'd be great for the CBD and/or OTR to get more senior housing options that allow for car-free lifestyles. Having good assisted care options in the CBD will make it more attractive for baby boomers to move into the urban basin now, while they still can drive, knowing that in the future, when they can't drive and need assistance, they will be able to stay in the same area.

 

Looking through the National Church Residences' list of properties (they have a LOT), most of their projects are suburban, but I did notice one of their recent projects was a renovation of a historic Imperial Hotel in downtown Atlanta (<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@33.764118,-84.385915,3a,90y,95.14h,107.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWQ6rdF0PWwANX2JJGNDdhw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1">streetview</a>). And, judging from <a href="http://atlanta.curbed.com/2014/3/6/10135638/centuryold-imperial-hotel-reborn-as-downtown-commons">this Curbed article on the project</a>, it looks like they did a really nice job of retaining the historic details of the building.

 

I think there'd be a delightful irony if the Dennison became affordable senior housing, in that the Josephs and Fran Barrett seem so hellbent on preventing supportive housing near their properties.

5/26 historical packet is online, Warning it's a large file:

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well... seems like an additional month didn't help Barrett and the Joseph's make their case any stronger. The HCB recommendation (page 23) to deny a permit for demolition is, if anything, more even more convincing now:

It is staff’s analysis of the documentation that has been provided by the Applicant as well as evidence and documentation provided by opponents to the request for demolition, that the Applicant has not provided credible evidence that they cannot reuse the building nor can a reasonable economic return be gained from the use of all or part of the building proposed for demolition at 716-718 Main Street. Staff bases their analysis on the following points of evidence.

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. There is credible evidence that the owners and their agent have been contacted by interested parties in purchasing the property, and there are 9 signed statements of Economic Viability which also states that the signatory would “seriously consider purchasing the property for redevelopment.”

3. The current Owner, in their own words has 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.

4. The building, as stated by the Owner’s structural engineering report as well as two different letters provided by the Preservation Organizations’ agents, is capable of sustaining the existing residential use in the building code, including hotel, resulting in minimization of building code requirements for structural updates.

5. 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.

6. 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.

 

Interesting detail regarding the alley right of ways (page 25):

-The site and all historic properties to the north are separated by a public right-of-way from the Owner’s other property holdings. Consolidation of this parcel with the Owner’s four other parcels cannot occur unless all alley right-of-ways are vacated by approval of City Council. Currently the Owner maintains a lease with the City that shall renew for five years in 2017.

-Public water and sewer mains serving all the historic properties on the block are located within the alley and not along Main Street. Consolidation of parcels could not occur until all needed to service the remaining historic buildings were relocated.

 

I laughed out loud at the Buzzfeed-style "articles" submitted by Barrett, presumably written with no sense of irony by himself or a staff member (pages 260-263):

“Eight Reasons Why the Dennison Hotel Building Presents a More Compelling Case for Demolition that at Building at 719-721 Main Street Which was Approved for Demolition by the Historic Conservation Board on March 21, 2016.”

“Seven Myths Raised by Various Opponents to the Demolition of the Dennison Hotel Building that need to be Debunked.”

3. The current Owner, in their own words has 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.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,22949.175.html#ixzz49UjXeMOh

 

To me is the strongest of the points. Simply put, they've let the cat out of the bag and what they want to do is unlawful.

3. The current Owner, in their own words has 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.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,22949.175.html#ixzz49UjXeMOh

 

To me is the strongest of the points. Simply put, they've let the cat out of the bag and what they want to do is unlawful.

 

  ^ Yeah, there's nothing like affirming your intent to violate the law in writing. Columbia REI has been poorly advised on this whole thing.

 

An interesting proposal from a Hamilton County task force for sewer rates - charging a new fee for parking lots and other “impervious surfaces”. Maybe this would make surface lots less appealing for DT. I'm sure there would be heavy blowback from businesses and the commissioners will cave.

 

A parking lot fee on sewer bills?

 

"...The task force said the fee for impervious surfaces could make rates fairer by charging more to homes and businesses that allow large amounts of stormwater to flow from those surfaces into the sewer system. The suggested fee would be $3.22 for every 2,000 square feet of impervious surface..."

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/23/parking-lot-fee-sewer-bills/84774162/

^how often would that fee be assessed? Monthly or annually?

^"...suggested fee would be $3.22 for every 2,000 square feet

...They also suggested switching to monthly bills

...Hamilton County’s rates are the highest in Ohio, but it is the only one of the state’s most populous county’s not to have a financial assistance program

...lots of delinquent accounts; 16,500"

This seems so trivial...a parking lot that's 50,000 square feet would only be paying $80.50 extra each payment period. That's not going to make a big difference at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that doesn't even come close to being proportional to the additional sewer and treatment capacity/maintenance added by paving over that much area with impervious pavement.

Also, remember that building roofs are impervious surfaces as well.  It could be penalizing improvements as much as parking wastelands.

^how often would that fee be assessed? Monthly or annually?

 

I imagine quarterly (when water bills are issued)

That's a good point actually. Does the phrase, "impervious surface" relate only to the ground plane or is literally anything? Not that it would make a huge difference though. My entire complex would only see a $30/cycle increase which, when spread across 42 units, is only $0.71/unit. If done monthly that would still only be an increase of $8.52/unit annually which, if that means the sewer is run more properly, I'd be very much in support of.

Do parking lots pay anything into the sewer system now?  If not then this makes sense, because they're still adding load to the system.  If there's a building, then there's already sewer fees based on the water bill, and a multi-story building doesn't add impervious surface beyond a single-story building or a parking lot.  That's one of the points often missed when environmentalists decry all the pavement and buildings in cities; a five-story building generates only 1/5 as much runoff as five single-story buildings.  Plus since a parking lot is an entirely supplementary use, in that parking doesn't exist unto itself, it's always there to support some other use at another location, then it's also displacing those other uses and causing a net increase in runoff per capita. 

 

I suspect the low rate is a way to get the thing passed in the first place.  Rate increases can come later.  Either way it's a good recognition of the fact that empty lots in a city still have costs associated with them, and it's unfair to make everyone pay for those services. 

Lots of talk of a "pocket park" to replace the Dennison by the Josephs in the new packet. That's a terrible idea. As Jane Jacobs pointed out, parks take on the activity level of the streets around them. I hate to say it but from Sunday though Wednesday evenings upper downtown is mostly dead from Seventh Street north to Central Parkway.  There are however a lot of itinerant junkies walking around, and I fear a pocket park in this area would become a place to shoot up. What the area needs instead is residents (eyes and feet on the street) in a revamped Dennsion.

Lots of talk of a "pocket park" to replace the Dennison by the Josephs in the new packet. That's a terrible idea. As Jane Jacobs pointed out, parks take on the activity level of the streets around them. I hate to say it but from Sunday though Wednesday evenings upper downtown is mostly dead from Seventh Street north to Central Parkway.  There are however a lot of itinerant junkies walking around, and I fear a pocket park in this area would become a place to shoot up. What the area needs instead is residents (eyes and feet on the street) in a revamped Dennsion.

 

Especially since it wold be a long, deep park. You could never see what's going on at the east end of it from Main Street.

Lots of talk of a "pocket park" to replace the Dennison by the Josephs in the new packet. That's a terrible idea. As Jane Jacobs pointed out, parks take on the activity level of the streets around them. I hate to say it but from Sunday though Wednesday evenings upper downtown is mostly dead from Seventh Street north to Central Parkway.  There are however a lot of itinerant junkies walking around, and I fear a pocket park in this area would become a place to shoot up. What the area needs instead is residents (eyes and feet on the street) in a revamped Dennsion.

 

How ridiculous -- Tear down a building, right in the heart of our Central Business District, and replace it with a park. It's like they're trying to pander to the Save the Dennison crowd by throwing out ideas that they think might appeal to them. "They like parklets, right?! Let's tell them we want to put a parklet there! Oh, and they read Buzzfeed, so let's make a Buzzfeed-style listicle about why it should be demolished!"

Lots of talk of a "pocket park" to replace the Dennison by the Josephs in the new packet. That's a terrible idea. As Jane Jacobs pointed out, parks take on the activity level of the streets around them. I hate to say it but from Sunday though Wednesday evenings upper downtown is mostly dead from Seventh Street north to Central Parkway.  There are however a lot of itinerant junkies walking around, and I fear a pocket park in this area would become a place to shoot up. What the area needs instead is residents (eyes and feet on the street) in a revamped Dennsion.

 

These people actually do a better job than the opposition at clowning themselves. A pocket-park? They must've just picked up the latest field guide for crappy land use in a CBD. Wanna see a pocket park in action go here:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/5th+St,+Cincinnati,+OH+45215/@39.100646,-84.5167169,3a,60y,169.69h,82.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sajE--o4mSGhfmdj0r_CM6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x8840528243e557a3:0x31c983b3efbc9568!8m2!3d39.2226806!4d-84.4366712

 

or here:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1014871,-84.5101518,3a,75y,171.95h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO9HIFbfTBIWmYozmgS0BMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Spectacular!

 

Tearing down Dennison damages 'rebirth' story

Jim Grawe 3:39 p.m. EDT May 23, 2016

Jim Grawe is a resident of Covedale and co-author of East Price Hill’s Incline District Story.

 

Seemingly, when someone wants to demolish their so-called “landmark” building, the preservation community always cries foul. Now, The Dennison Hotel serves as a new line-in-the-sand battleground. Why?

 

For perspective we need to ask: Why do so many of our neighborhoods experience a birth-to-death life cycle? What vital signs are necessary for a neighborhood to resuscitate itself and be deemed “reborn”? Why are so many moving back to “invest” in our urban cores and first-ring suburbs?

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/05/23/tearing-down-dennison-damages-rebirth-story/84785122/

Here are my two favorite pocket parks:

 

https://goo.gl/maps/tNMJBPeR5dE2 (7th & College next to Macy's HQ)

 

https://goo.gl/maps/FDXHdNj5mqx (4th Street next to Dixie Terminal)

Google Street View showed up at the right moment, because it never looks that good in person.  It usually smells like a giant ashtray.

Old school Cincinnati loves its parks more than its urban built form.  While parks are important and Cincy has a good system, priorities are completely out of wack.

 

Look at the BS up in Walnut Hills :/.

Assuming they don't get approval to demolish I don't know why the Joseph's wouldn't just sell the building.  With all the press it's gotten lately I'm sure they'd be able to offload it easily and likely make some money doing it too.  If they ever actually decide to do something with their parking lots they have plenty of land already for a business or residential tower(s). 

Old school Cincinnati loves its parks more than its urban built form. 

 

I think that's pretty common across all of America.  There's this notion that the cure to bad urbanism is "green."  Just "green it up" add "open space" or "green space" and that will fix everything because density and buildings are bad.   

Old school Cincinnati loves its parks more than its urban built form. 

 

I think that's pretty common across all of America.  There's this notion that the cure to bad urbanism is "green."  Just "green it up" add "open space" or "green space" and that will fix everything because density and buildings are bad.   

 

No doubt it is a common thing, however, most cities in America aren't as urban as Cincinnati is.  The ones that are for the most part seem to take more pride in that urbanity (and those are generally only a handful of places).

Old school Cincinnati loves its parks more than its urban built form.  While parks are important and Cincy has a good system, priorities are completely out of wack.

 

Look at the BS up in Walnut Hills :/.

 

Totally different situation. Walnut Hills put in some temporary parks because buildings had already been demolished. I have no problem with sprucing up vacant space and activating it until development occurs. And I know the WHRF people would love to build new buildings as soon as the market allows for that to happen.

 

In the Dennison's case, the owners are just trying to find any excuse to demolish the building. We all know that if it's demolished, it's going to turn in to a parking lot for the foreseeable future. But the owners claimed, "it'll be a Fortune 500 company HQ!" Then the city said, "that's not possible, because there's a city-owned alley between the Dennison and your other parking lot." So then the owners came back and said... "pocket park!"

It has started....

 

Anyone can give play by play updates? Possible live stream/periscope on whats going on?

It is livestreaming, though I'm having issues with the feed constantly buffering:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/citicable/livestream/

 

A few reporters are there tweeting:

https://twitter.com/ChrisCinciBiz

https://twitter.com/BowdeyaTweh

IDK what browser you're using, but usually Chrome doesn't work for CitiCable and I have to use Internet Explorer.

It has started....

 

Anyone can give play by play updates? Possible live stream/periscope on whats going on?

 

Your best bet it to follow the journalists who are posting on Twitter. But the gist of it so far is that the Joseph Group's witnesses are telling a sob story about how much work the building needs and how much it'll cost to make all the repairs. But they also admit that they never looked into any of the tax credits that are available that make redevelopment projects like this possible. They cited that it would cost about $170 per square foot to rehab and convert the building to condos, which is interesting because there are condos selling for over $300 per square foot in the urban core right now. They also keep claiming that the streetcar is not going to have any positive impact on The Dennison, despite the fact that developer Rick Greiwe is using the streetcar as a major selling point for the condos he's building directly across the street.

The pro-demolition side made their case today for four hours but due to running out of time, the HCB voted to adjourn and come back at a later date. Next time the Save the Dennison side will make their case and the vote will be taken.

Seems like the Josephs' team's effort to apparently run out the clock so that the HC Board would get bored before any opponents even had the chance to testify hours later hasn't worked out quite as planned:  the hearing will be continued until a mutually-convenient time agreed upon by all parties. 

 

What stood out so far to me, although I missed a lot of the testimony, was the mendacity of Lance Brown, appraiser/consultant employed by the Josephs, to determine if there was a viable use for the building.  The lack of expertise of someone held out as a sort of expert was mind boggling.  For instance, (and anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken) this guy seemed either clueless or willfully ignorant of the usual financial tools available for downtown real estate developers to employ; reasonable property values and rates of return, etc., etc.  SMH...

The biggest head scratcher for me was:

 

Opposition Lawyer: Have you ever provided a feasibility study for someone that included historic tax credits?

"expert": I don't recall.

Opposition Lawyer: Have you ever provided a feasibility study for someone that included New Mark Tax Credits?

"expert": I don't recall.

Opposition Lawyer: Have you ever provided a feasibility study for someone that included funds that weren't privately financed?

"expert": I don't recall.

 

Really? You do these for a living and can't recall? I'm sure if a potential customer came up to him and said "what is your experience with various tax credits and soft funding?" he would be quick to respond with a list of project he successfully worked on.

^ "I don't recall" in this context is a blatant way to say "yes, but I don't want to admit it."

 

It would be interesting for someone on the "Save the Dennison" side to look into whether he has done any studies including those items, since they now have plenty of time to prepare counterpoints to everything that was said today.

I feel like the biggest smoking gun is the fact you have an out of town developer (I believe the pitsburgh developer?) who wants to purchase the dennison and rehab it.

 

I feel like if you present that notion to the HCB then I don't understand why the Joseph's should have any iota of a right to demolish it. If the building is in stable condition, and have a developer ready and willing to bring it up to standards and do something with the building, then why the heck are we even having this debate in the very first place of whether the Dennison should be demolished.

The Joseph Family are real shysters.  Fitting for a car dealer family. 

 

A small parking lot at 830 Main sold for $1.1M last year.  They know exactly what was viable to them, an expansion of their parking lot empire. A price like that makes the Dennison a bargain by comparison.   

 

I suggest hitting their car dealer pages on Facebook and Yelp with bad reviews- questioning the ethics of the owning family. 

 

I almost bought a car from Joseph VW and ended up not going through with it because they were so terrible to deal with, so glad I cancelled my order.

I feel like the biggest smoking gun is the fact you have an out of town developer (I believe the pitsburgh developer?) who wants to purchase the dennison and rehab it.

 

I feel like if you present that notion to the HCB then I don't understand why the Joseph's should have any iota of a right to demolish it. If the building is in stable condition, and have a developer ready and willing to bring it up to standards and do something with the building, then why the heck are we even having this debate in the very first place of whether the Dennison should be demolished.

 

They admitted they did not entertain offers from the most recent developers that expressed interest because when the Joseph group googled the companies they saw they were relatively new companies that wouldn't have the capacity to do the project. Because, you know, trust everything you find on the internet.

Uh, publishing false reviews that do not pertain to their business at all is against the TOS of both Facebook and Yelp. As a moderator of Yelp, if I see those - I'll have it removed. That's not how these review sites work.

 

I actually have had great success with Joseph, when I bought my Subaru down in Kentucky 6 years back. I received $3,000 more out of my old SUV than another Subaru dealer at King's Mill and I received a very good deal and APR. The service was always great and the loaners were awesome (they have a Cadillac dealer adjacent to the Subaru dealer, so I often had CTS or XTS loaners for some reason).

Lots of talk of a "pocket park" to replace the Dennison by the Josephs in the new packet. That's a terrible idea. As Jane Jacobs pointed out, parks take on the activity level of the streets around them. I hate to say it but from Sunday though Wednesday evenings upper downtown is mostly dead from Seventh Street north to Central Parkway.  There are however a lot of itinerant junkies walking around, and I fear a pocket park in this area would become a place to shoot up. What the area needs instead is residents (eyes and feet on the street) in a revamped Dennsion.

 

These people actually do a better job than the opposition at clowning themselves. A pocket-park? They must've just picked up the latest field guide for crappy land use in a CBD. Wanna see a pocket park in action go here:

 

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...  pocket parks can be a very welcome addition for dog owners in a downtown area, provided that they provide some green space, which the 4 linked above obviously do not.  It doesn't have to be a lot; just enough for the dogs to relieve themselves someplace other than the sidewalk.  Our downtown is not particularly dog friendly (the businesses or the built environment), which makes it a bit harder to live in or walk through, so we should keep that in mind whenever opportunities to add some green space throughout downtown present themselves.  The Dennison, however, is not one of those opportunities, as it clearly should be preserved.  Has a date been set for the next session of the hearing yet?

Has a date been set for the next session of the hearing yet?

 

Just heard that the continuation of the Dennison hearing is scheduled for 10:00 AM on 6/16/16 in City Council Chambers. 

I was talking with someone today about the Dennison and mentioned that the building is taller than it originally was when built and he asked how I had found that out and recalled a brief discussion somewhere (not sure where) over a postcard that depicted the building when it was still an iron works.

 

 

versus this:

 

 

You can see that the building was originally two stories shorter than it is now. The original parapet wall is still there and is now just a decorative band on the facade which is interesting.

 

Does anyone have any more information regarding this addition? Who was it designed by and when did it happen?

^I had no idea, and now I like The Dennison even more!  Also, I love that a streetcar is featured in that picture and that our new streetcar will soon be running past The Dennison again (God willing).

I think it looked before they added floors. More in scale with the rest of the street.

Agreed. But I like the history that this type of addition evokes.

Board has voted to deny the COA for demolition. 3-2 vote to deny COA.

Did the full board vote today?  Who were the nay (in favor of demolition) voters?

Wow.  We were very lucky. 

Voss and Kulkarni voted in favor of demolition. Only 5 members were present. One had to recuse him/herself and another had an obligation on the day the hearing was held (outside of normal hours) I believe.

 

Applicants have indicated they will appeal (of course).

 

The reasoning given was that the applicants failed to seriously try to sell the building and failed to prove that a denial was an economic hardship because they didn't consider any soft sources of funding (like historic tax credits) in their economic analysis.

 

I personally wish the opposition would have brought up more testimony about how the applicant wasn't trying to sell the building. That's the biggest thing to me. If others wanted to redevelop the building, they would include some soft sources of funding in their analyses and may be able to make the building work. Chances are the applicant could have made a profit on the building if the pursued selling it before spending tons on legal fees.

Isn't Shree Kulkarni the suburban developer Cranley appointed. IDK about Tim Voss.