Demo is well underway and they've got most of the top floor of the southern building down. I haven't noticed any demolition yet on the northern building. Does anybody know for certain if the northern building is going be saved, or is the whole thing coming down? 

 

 

When I walked by earlier the north building was still untouched so maybe there is hope but I kind of doubt it, I think it's just that the initial crew is trying to take car of the problem areas first. 

 

Its obviously good that no one was hurt, but I can't help thinking that if someone had been hurt this property owner would get severely and deservedly punished for letting their building fall apart. It's the same argument for attempted murder being punished the same as murder because bad aim shouldn't be rewarded but still, I feel like this owner should be at least financially punished, if not criminally for  A) letting their building get so bad that it partially collapsed and could have easily hurt people on the sidewalk or streetcar platform had it happened on a busy time of night and B) letting a contributing building in a national historic district fall apart like it has. It's infuriating that neglect would ever be rewarded but ultimately the owner is going to get what they want which is that the building they own and are supposed to be stewards of, is being torn down. 

As a side note, when I was talking around the neighborhood on New Years Day 2020, I saw a man painting over the Davis Furniture sign on the south side of the building with black paint. When I stopped to take a few pictures he got very defensive and asked what I was doing. I told him that it was an iconic sign and just wanted to take a few pictures before it's completely painted over. He replied something like, "Well, the whole building's going to be gone soon." So it was clear 2 1/2 years ago that the building was getting more and more unstable and it was only a matter of time before it collapsed, and he owner did nothing as collapsing is exactly what he wanted.

 

1 hour ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

Not to go off topic but why can’t we seem to get someone to built something like this in OTR. I know their would be a fight due to the height but even a shorter building would look nice and feel like it would mostly fit into the neighborhood. Imo columbus’ new builds are much more attractive than the ones going up in Cincinnati. 
https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/06/13/long-street-project-follow-up.html

 

The 1100 block of Main Street would be the perfect location for a project of this scale. You couldn't really argue that it's "too tall" for this location given that it's right next to some other tall historic buildings like the Alms & Doepke building, the Emery Building, the American Building, and right across from the new 1010 on the Rhine tower. The only question is whether the Davis building's owner and the Salvation Army would ever sell to a developer.

How is it legal to own a building but not maintain it? By all logic this owner should get severely fined…and if someone got injured face prison time. This seems like an extremely basic law…maintain your property or face penalties/jail time.

19 hours ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

Not to go off topic but why can’t we seem to get someone to built something like this in OTR. I know their would be a fight due to the height but even a shorter building would look nice and feel like it would mostly fit into the neighborhood. Imo columbus’ new builds are much more attractive than the ones going up in Cincinnati. 
https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/06/13/long-street-project-follow-up.html

I don't have a good reason why, but in general it does seem that Columbus gets higher quality out of its new builds compared to Cincinnati. The rents are comparable and according to RentCafe Cincinnati actually has higher average rents so it's not like we're comparing Cincinnati to Chicago in terms of price per sqft. Maybe our local developers just don't want to try new things or simply are more interested in profit margin than creating something quality? Maybe Cincinnati's architecture firms are stuck in their set ways of apartment design because it fits their company standards and reduces risk vs trying new things.

 

Does Columbus have different requirements in their zoning such as form based codes or design review boards that we should be trying to emulate? I don't think the OTR historic guidelines are helping the way they should to require quality design and at least when it comes to determining building height are more of a hindrance than a help to new development. 

On 6/7/2022 at 3:50 PM, CBustoCincy said:

Sorry for the long, probably unorganized post that's going to follow.

 

I strongly disagree, living in the area (two blocks away from The Hub and the crosswalk in question) I can count the number of times a day that I almost get hit by a car either on 12th or Main. I've also made eye contact with drivers as they speed up to avoid waiting 30 seconds. Two weeks ago a car hit a building two doors down from me as they drunkenly speed down 12th (a residential street) to get to I-71. Myself and many of my neighbors refuse to walk our dogs to the bathroom after a certain time because on any nice day you can stand and watch car after car blow through all stop signs and red lights headed to the highway.

 

I've also been in direct communication with the city about the issues, including being escalated to the mayor's office, between this and the attention The Hub has received it's hard to imagine change not coming. Something has to give because it's truly getting out of hand.

 

I would love to see the city invest in as many deterrents as possible to slow traffic and make it harder for people to drive. As far as the busses, I'd be supportive of moving bus routes to Sycamore, a block away since it is already a two-way road, and closing a section of Main permanently. 

 

To be completely honest, my life will be much easier knowing that I can walk through a cross walk to go to Kroger without having to worry about getting hit by a car.

 

I'm not actually sure where in this response you disagreed with me. I too have almost been hit by a car many times on Main Street, both biking and walking. I too would like to see more improvements to make it safer. I too also often make eye contact with drivers (and yell at them) when they speed up. Did my post make it seem like I was advocating for the status quo? Because I'm certainly not doing that. 

5 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

I don't have a good reason why, but in general it does seem that Columbus gets higher quality out of its new builds compared to Cincinnati. The rents are comparable and according to RentCafe Cincinnati actually has higher average rents so it's not like we're comparing Cincinnati to Chicago in terms of price per sqft. Maybe our local developers just don't want to try new things or simply are more interested in profit margin than creating something quality? Maybe Cincinnati's architecture firms are stuck in their set ways of apartment design because it fits their company standards and reduces risk vs trying new things.

 

Does Columbus have different requirements in their zoning such as form based codes or design review boards that we should be trying to emulate? I don't think the OTR historic guidelines are helping the way they should to require quality design and at least when it comes to determining building height are more of a hindrance than a help to new development. 

 

Cbus has less restrictive zoning. You can build taller and denser in a lot of the city. Less red tape means the developer can spend more on the structure itself. This is why they are eating our lunch in terms of new building quality and housing production.

22 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Cbus has less restrictive zoning. You can build taller and denser in a lot of the city. Less red tape means the developer can spend more on the structure itself. This is why they are eating our lunch in terms of new building quality and housing production.

I also assume that the amount of construction also acts as an incentive for developers to add notable architecture as a way to stand out from the crowd and compete for future tenants.

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Cbus has less restrictive zoning. You can build taller and denser in a lot of the city. Less red tape means the developer can spend more on the structure itself. This is why they are eating our lunch in terms of new building quality and housing production.

 

1 hour ago, Dev said:

I also assume that the amount of construction also acts as an incentive for developers to add notable architecture as a way to stand out from the crowd and compete for future tenants.

 

Both are correct.  I'd also add it seems Columbus has more in-town developers in general versus Cincinnati, and due to that, there is increased in-house competition.  For example, Kaufmann wants to outdo Schottenstein wants to outdo Continental wants to outdo Wood Company wants to outdo NRI wants to outdo Moody Nolan wants to outdo Pizzuti wants to out do...you get it.

8 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

 

 

Both are correct.  I'd also add it seems Columbus has more in-town developers in general versus Cincinnati, and due to that, there is increased in-house competition.  For example, Kaufmann wants to outdo Schottenstein wants to outdo Continental wants to outdo Wood Company wants to outdo NRI wants to outdo Moody Nolan wants to outdo Pizzuti wants to out do...you get it.

Maybe we should try to lure some them to develop in Cincy. I mean they don’t really need to be outstanding to beat most of our developers. 

Proposed 10 unit apartment building going before the HCB at 214 Mulberry st. 
 

It's not looking good for the other Davis Furniture building either... this block is going to look really empty and horrible, especially as an entrance to OTR from the CBD on the streetcar route. 

Pretty excited for this to be a parking lot for the next 20 years. 

46 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

this block is going to look really empty and horrible, especially as an entrance to OTR from the CBD on the streetcar route. 

 

Every time I would post a picture that included the Davis Furniture building on social media, I would get comments from people (such as people that went to UC and saw OTR years ago but have since moved to other cities) saying things like "OMG that building is still there?" and "they haven't done anything about that building yet?"

 

So I'm not sure if having a parking lot at that location is any worse perception-wise than having a crumbling building there.

 

Most of us on this forum are pro-historic preservation and see the potential of a building like this, and don't want parking craters in the city, but I think most of the general population don't really understand the bigger story of what was going on with this building and saw it as a blight and an embarrassment.

I get what your saying in terms of being a visual blight. When I moved back to Cincinnati in 2013 there was a dead pigeon in the window of Davis Furniture, when the building is being torn down in 2022... the dead pigeon (what's left of it) is still in the front window. So yeah I get what you are saying I just wish there was a better mechanism for the city through local code enforcement or the national historic district so that we didn't end up in this mess and the building would have been taken away from the owner who obviously doesn't give a sh*t.

 

28 minutes ago, taestell said:

"OMG that building is still there?" and "they haven't done anything about that building yet?

I'm guilty of it too, but who do people think the 'they' is in that sentence. The city? the owner? 3cdc? Whoever people think 'they' are, at the end of the day it's on the property owner either maintaining an inhabited building, improving a dilapidated/deteriorating building or selling it to an owner willing to do those improvements. The city needs to do a better job of actually enforcing building code and property maintenance code compliance so that no buildings are allowed to lay in a fallow state and are at the very least stabilized by someone like SSRG until redevelopment can follow through. We are currently seeing this play out with the steeple fight but the issue is rampant throughout OTR and the other historic districts of the city. 

Edited June 16, 20222 yr by ucgrady

Maybe I’m wrong but is it not much more financially fruitful to build on the lot and get duel income from ground floor commercial rent and upper floor residential rent? Why is a parking lot a good strategy money to make money? It seems like an extremely slow burn of a way to make income…especially for someone who is trying to become wealthy through real estate.

22 minutes ago, Troeros2 said:

Maybe I’m wrong but is it not much more financially fruitful to build on the lot and get duel income from ground floor commercial rent and upper floor residential rent? Why is a parking lot a good strategy money to make money? It seems like an extremely slow burn of a way to make income…especially for someone who is trying to become wealthy through real estate.

My guess is if you already own the property, the cost of a remodel vs. demolition and parking lot is substantial. So while income may not be as high, the costs are less (not to mention lower taxes).

I hope they do not reward the owners intentional negligence by approving a parking lot. 

5 hours ago, ucgrady said:

I'm guilty of it too, but who do people think the 'they' is in that sentence. The city? the owner? 3cdc?

 

Exactly, the average person has no idea how the process works. In the case 3CDC did try to sell the building but the owner wouldn't sell. The city denied the demolition of the historic building which is just about the only thing they could do; they can't force the owner to sell. I have seen people suggest that the city should have kept fining the owner until the repairs were made (or more likely until he gave up and sold the building), but I'm not sure whet actual powers the city has to do so... maybe @JYPor others know the answer to that.

3 hours ago, Troeros2 said:

Why is a parking lot a good strategy money to make money? It seems like an extremely slow burn of a way to make income…especially for someone who is trying to become wealthy through real estate.

 

It's a good strategy to make money because the owner can invest a very small amount up front and immediately start having steady income. It's a prime location and that lot will be full every day. It would also allow him to eventually sell the site as a "blank slate" which is very valuable since the buyer won't have to deal with any historic preservation fights.

Looks to me like a demo permit was issued 4/21/22. 

 

https://cagis.hamilton-co.org/opal/apd.aspx?entcode=cinc&ezstdadrtag=1119||MAIN|ST|GJ1514831737|||CINC|CINC|00750004017101119M|007500040171|007500040171|CINCINNATI&APD=2021P08377

Edited June 17, 20222 yr by 1400 Sycamore
Typo

Better question is how it’s legal for someone to neglect property - especially if it could harm pedestrians. There is a law for practically everything - how is this not a thing?

7 hours ago, Troeros2 said:

Better question is how it’s legal for someone to neglect property - especially if it could harm pedestrians. There is a law for practically everything - how is this not a thing?

City has vacant building rules. VBML license, annual inspection for water, critter etc., fire and police access safety.

13 hours ago, Troeros2 said:

Maybe I’m wrong but is it not much more financially fruitful to build on the lot and get duel income from ground floor commercial rent and upper floor residential rent? Why is a parking lot a good strategy money to make money? It seems like an extremely slow burn of a way to make income…especially for someone who is trying to become wealthy through real estate.

Parking lots are very profitable if managed right. They have very low operating costs and throws off strong cash. Heck a former Ohio Senator made many millions for his family by owning parking lots. Just a few blocks from Davis furniture, there is another company that owns and manages parking lots in town. 

this one actually may be a benefit to the area. The building had been sitting there for a long time due to historical rules. Now you have a much larger contiguous space that can be redeveloped and will appeal to developers who are looking for something on a larger scale.

9 hours ago, taestell said:

 

. I have seen people suggest that the city should have kept fining the owner until the repairs were made (or more likely until he gave up and sold the building), but I'm not sure whet actual powers the city has to do so... maybe @JYPor others know the answer to that.

The city would be limited in their ability to do this. Certainly, they have the ability to find a negligent owner for failure to maintain a safe property, but the owner has a certain level of dominion over the property. Given the historic part thst places burdens on  the owner regarding renovations or demolition, a plan by the city to impose excessive or significant fines to essentially “bully” an owner into selling would likely run afoul with the Constitution and the city would likely create a lot of issues for themselves by pursuing that path

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The city would be limited in their ability to do this. Certainly, they have the ability to find a negligent owner for failure to maintain a safe property, but the owner has a certain level of dominion over the property. Given the historic part thst places burdens on  the owner regarding renovations or demolition, a plan by the city to impose excessive or significant fines to essentially “bully” an owner into selling would likely run afoul with the Constitution and the city would likely create a lot of issues for themselves by pursuing that path

I would agree that there are limits to the City's power in this. The City's HCB denied the demolition of these buildings in 2014 and that decision was appealed up the chain for years. Regulations and programs like VBML are intended to ensure that abandoned and deteriorating buildings do not impact the public right-of-way (streets and sidewalks). Preservation ordinances, zoning, etc all rely on the general health, safety and welfare as justifications for local police powers when it comes to enforcing these types of regulations. They have teeth but are also layered under process, rights to appeal, etc. Sometimes these processes take too long.

 

The long and short of it is that Stough wanted a parking lot here and was never interested in selling or restoring these buildings. They could afford to devote resources to that effort to drag out any action while the buildings were allowed to deteriorate, exposed to the elements.

 

In 2014, it would have been easy for these buildings to be saved. Heck, it may have still been possible today for at least the north building, but they wanted what they wanted and they wanted to win. I've seen 3CDC, Model, Urban Sites, etc rehab buildings in worse shape than Davis but it didn't matter. 

 

Someone once told me that anyone is willing to sell at the right price. That's not true. For some people, satisfying their ego is worth more than all the money in the world.

3 minutes ago, JYP said:

I would agree that there are limits to the City's power in this. The City's HCB denied the demolition of these buildings in 2014 and that decision was appealed up the chain for years. Regulations and programs like VBML are intended to ensure that abandoned and deteriorating buildings do not impact the public right-of-way (streets and sidewalks). Preservation ordinances, zoning, etc all rely on the general health, safety and welfare as justifications for local police powers when it comes to enforcing these types of regulations. They have teeth but are also layered under process, rights to appeal, etc. Sometimes these processes take too long.

 

The long and short of it is that Stough wanted a parking lot here and was never interested in selling or restoring these buildings. They could afford to devote resources to that effort to drag out any action while the buildings were allowed to deteriorate, exposed to the elements.

 

In 2014, it would have been easy for these buildings to be saved. Heck, it may have still been possible today for at least the north building, but they wanted what they wanted and they wanted to win. I've seen 3CDC, Model, Urban Sites, etc rehab buildings in worse shape than Davis but it didn't matter. 

 

Someone once told me that anyone is willing to sell at the right price. That's not true. For some people, satisfying their ego is worth more than all the money in the world.

The biggest thing is that cities cannot structure fines or penalties in a way that would essentially force a sale or constitute a taking of property. it would be like telling the property owner that if you will not sell at our price, we will just fine you to death and diminish the value of the property through fines and assessments until you are bled dry and have to sell at our price. That would be an illegal taking. 

Eminent Domain is a thing though.  The government has no problem forcing someone to sell their property when they need to build more roads.   

The laws are what we make them to be.  We could make a law that if you own historic property in a Historic district, the city can Eminent Domain it away from you if you are unwilling/unable to maintain it.

Thanks to the Rookwood Commons case, cities lost their authority to use eminent domain to take properties in "deteriorating areas" or for pure economic development purposes.

While they are in different states, the Old Elks Temple in Tacoma, Washington (court opinion issued in 2004); the Hoyt-Potter House in Rochester, New York (court opinion issued in 1988); and St. Joseph’s Church in Albany, New York (court opinion issued in 2004) were all acquired using eminent domain as a form of historic preservation. That is different than acquiring them for the purpose of demolition for a private development like Norwood, because in these cases they are being acquired to protect them due to their historic value. While these are older cases that predate Norwood and Kelo, with strict definitions of blight and contribution that come with the OTR national historic district I think the case could still be made. (not a lawyer)

I am struck by the lack of sentiment for a time when freedom was the dominant principle that guided these types of analyses.

 

The current City Council might opt for some urban friendly dense buildings, but the next one might rather have something a whole lot less to your liking. That is the problem with bureaucracies. Times change.

 

 

Both are now coming down.

The fact that the city has activated the Bus Bridge tells me that Main Street's going to be closed for awhile...

 

 

Stough Group better be paying for all of this and reimbursing the city for the streetcar since they neglected the building for a decade and let it collapse. We shouldn't be paying a dime.

From Saturday

Sad that the incredible recent streetcar numbers will now have an * for June 2022 and possibly July as well.

On 12/16/2015 at 9:20 AM, jwulsin said:

Ophthalmic Hospital, Over-the-Rhine

Project cost - $7,366,150

Tax credit - $732,950

Address - 208-214 W. 12th St.

Developer - Cincinnati Center City Development Corp.

Details: The former Ophthalmic Hospital and Free Dispensary served as a medical facility for nearly 90 years, but is now vacant. The buildings are planned for renovations to house a 20-room boutique hotel with a bar and restaurant on the first floor.

 

These will now become affordable apartments.

I just noticed the 3CDC banner on 12th street this morning and was going to look up what was going on with it. I'm glad it's moving forward after long delay, but I do still hope 3CDC has plans for hotel rooms elsewhere in OTR as I think it's something really lacking in the neighborhood to give it those extra 24/7 users. 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/06/22/model-group-findlay-market-oh-historic-tax-credit.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_6&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s
 

Model group wins tax credits. This will help with renovation of three buildings in Findlay Market as well as a new construction at 1829 Logan which I believe will be a 4 story structure. 

There is a huge need for hotel rooms in OTR and this would have been a great location for it, near the stadium and Music Hall. Now I really hope the other hotel proposal just north of here moves forward.

How many hotel rooms do you think Otr can sufficiently support all together? 

Even just 50 - 100 rooms would need to be spread out over multiple locations with how small the buildings are.  I think the area could easily support multiple boutique hotels.  Someone just needs to start building them and then we'll be able to see how demand is. 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

There is a huge need for hotel rooms in OTR and this would have been a great location for it, near the stadium and Music Hall. Now I really hope the other hotel proposal just north of here moves forward.

Based off the rumor tree at least 200+ room property just north of TQL Stadium in the Lindner development is happening. Shame the hotel on Central that Luminaut was working on has hit so many bumps. With the Davis Furniture building coming down there is perfect spot for a hotel, in OTR, on the streetcar route, near the casino and CBD. 

28 minutes ago, savadams13 said:

With the Davis Furniture building coming down there is perfect spot for a hotel, in OTR, on the streetcar route, near the casino and CBD. 

 

I've thought that for years the Davis Building would've been a great hotel/location.

36 minutes ago, savadams13 said:

With the Davis Furniture building coming down there is perfect spot for a hotel, in OTR, on the streetcar route, near the casino and CBD. 

Completely agree, though the casino will probably still build their own hotel eventually. I know OTR isn't the French Quarter or Charleston/Savannah or Greenwich Village or Boston's North End etc... but if we want OTR to be talked about in the same breath as those historic districts (which architecturally it deserves to be) we need to add hotels to the periphery of the neighborhood. None of those neighborhoods have big hotels right in the middle, but Central and Liberty could support a few medium sized hotels on the edges just like the French Quarter has bigger hotels along Canal which separates it from their CBD. 

 

Edited June 23, 20222 yr by ucgrady

1 hour ago, Troeros2 said:

How many hotel rooms do you think Otr can sufficiently support all together? 

 

I think the very small Symphony Hotel is the only one in OTR now, unless I'm missing something. Right now there are tons of rentals listed on AirBNB and Vrbo, which shows there is demand:

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

Completely agree, though the casino will probably still build their own hotel eventually. I know OTR isn't the French Quarter or Charleston/Savannah or Greenwich Village or Boston's North End etc... but if we want OTR to be talked about in the same breath as those historic districts (which architecturally it deserves to be) we need to add hotels to the periphery of the neighborhood. None of those neighborhoods have big hotels right in the middle, but Central and Liberty could support a few medium sized hotels on the edges just like the French Quarter has bigger hotels along Canal which separates it from their CBD. 

 

Casino hotel is happening no matter what, but this would be that hotel where people don't want to stay on the casino property but like the attractiveness of being walking distance if they want to gamble or see a show. 

1 minute ago, taestell said:

 

I think the very small Symphony Hotel is the only one in OTR now, unless I'm missing something. Right now there are tons of rentals listed on AirBNB and Vrbo, which shows there is demand:

 

 

 

 

I need to dig it up, its about five years old now, but we did a study where the OTR area could easily absorb 400-500 keys in the area, thinking you could do smaller brand  boutique properties at about 100-150 rooms per property and they all wouldn't be right next to each other. 

Also remember that the old SCPA was set to become a 140-room hotel before that plan fell through and it became apartments instead. I think a hotel of around that size could fit on the Davis Furniture lot, and there would still be enough demand for another hotel near the stadium and/or Findlay Market.