EXCLUSIVE: 3CDC will convert Over-the-Rhine apartments back to condos

Feb 26, 2015, 11:06am EST

Tom Demeropolis Senior Staff Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

In an effort to keep up with demand for new condominiums in Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. is converting one of its earlier redevelopment projects back to condos.

 

The Belmain Building, located at 1202 Main St., has been home to 16 one-bedroom apartments since 2011.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/02/26/exclusive-3cdc-will-convert-over-the-rhine.html

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but looks like a way scaled down version of the 15th and race project was presented at the HCB meeting recently as part of a preliminary design review. It shows a project with less units, no parking structure and a surface parking lot in the middle of the block.

 

I know people complained about the first 15th and race proposal but I wonder if this part of OTR could use some structured parking, especially when north of liberty starts to get more developed. I believe they scaled this back because they didn't get some tax credits as they expected, but I wonder if it would be better to wait and build at a larger scale later. (i know a lot of people on here didn't like the scale of the last proposal).

 

Link to the packet, the 15th and race proposal is towards the bottom:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/feb-23-2015-packet/

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but looks like a way scaled down version of the 15th and race project was presented at the HCB meeting recently as part of a preliminary design review. It shows a project with less units, no parking structure and a surface parking lot in the middle of the block.

 

I know people complained about the first 15th and race proposal but I wonder if this part of OTR could use some structured parking, especially when north of liberty starts to get more developed. I believe they scaled this back because they didn't get some tax credits as they expected, but I wonder if it would be better to wait and build at a larger scale later. (i know a lot of people on here didn't like the scale of the last proposal).

 

Link to the packet, the 15th and race proposal is towards the bottom:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/feb-23-2015-packet/

 

I'd have thought some parking structure is in order.  There are the 6 abandoned historic buildings waiting to be renovated to the north of this planned new development as well as 1 to the south and 2 huge ones sitting across Race Street.  And Washington Park garage does get full fairly often on weekends and some evenings. 

 

In general I'd be in favor of some concentrated parking structures (the one at Fifteenth and Race could be smaller than the one previously presented however) if it preserves greenspace and courtyards from becoming a hundred mini surface lots.

 

I like how this proposal preserves the rear of the two historic buildings on the block however.

I'm kind of disappointed both by the number of units and the insistence on the trend of condos instead of apartments or a mix of the two. The 15th and Race site should be able to accommodate a lot more than 17 units, and I fear that with the move away from apartments, OTR might not retain its edge and creativity that the presence of younger and more economically diverse people bring.

 

I did find it encouraging that, from the looks of the planning docs, we are getting a micro-brewery on Court Street.  Also UO's own jjakucyk[/member] has a very exciting looking project up on Mulberry, and I think it really looks fantastic! Kudos!

http://www.cbws.com/property/details/260203/MLS-1437521/1325-Republic-St-Cincinnati-City-Downtown-Area-OH-45202.aspx?SearchID=8600976&RowNum=10&StateID=41&RegionID=0&IsRegularPS=True&IsSold=False

 

These look like they could be inoffensive despite having what will undoubtedly be awful cornices as is typical of new construction in OTR, but the bay windows seem like they'll make up for it. The small gate leading to the parking is also nicely minimal and not oversized like most curb cuts for parking.

 

What is the architectural rationale for not extending the bay window down to include the first floor window? It looks incomplete to me, and the primary colors of the doors also just seem weird. I don't think I'd pay $600,000 for one of these...

Not as bad as their new construction on Walnut. Not as good as their Quan Hapa building or the one across the street. Still leaves a lot to be desired...

Link to the packet, the 15th and race proposal is towards the bottom:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/feb-23-2015-packet/

 

Also in the packet... was a request to demolish 1727 Logan St, which the Planning Commission denied because the developer didn't provide any plans for the future development. 3CDC issued a letter of support for the demolition, but it didn't persuade the Planning Commission. I'm glad to see the City pushing back against demolitions of non-contributing structures if no good proposal is in place for a replacement.

 

 

Link to the packet, the 15th and race proposal is towards the bottom:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/feb-23-2015-packet/

 

Also in the packet... was a request to demolish 1727 Logan St, which the Planning Commission denied because the developer didn't provide any plans for the future development. 3CDC issued a letter of support for the demolition, but it didn't persuade the Planning Commission. I'm glad to see the City pushing back against demolitions of non-contributing structures if no good proposal is in place for a replacement.

 

While i agree it should not be a demolish first, ask questions later approach... i am pretty sure this is the building they are referencing.. https://goo.gl/maps/FyfRX

 

Which makes for a poor entrance to Findlay market from Central.

Link to the packet, the 15th and race proposal is towards the bottom:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/feb-23-2015-packet/

 

Also in the packet... was a request to demolish 1727 Logan St, which the Planning Commission denied because the developer didn't provide any plans for the future development. 3CDC issued a letter of support for the demolition, but it didn't persuade the Planning Commission. I'm glad to see the City pushing back against demolitions of non-contributing structures if no good proposal is in place for a replacement.

 

While i agree it should not be a demolish first, ask questions later approach... i am pretty sure this is the building they are referencing.. https://goo.gl/maps/FyfRX

 

Which makes for a poor entrance to Findlay market from Central.

 

That is the building in question... but I still think it's better than a surface parking lot at the corner, until the developer can come up with a firm plan for what will replace it. I'm afraid that if it were turned into surface parking, it would stay that way for a very long time.

My computer is refusing to load the HCB packet beyond a handful of random pages throughout. Could someone pull out the 15th and Race project from it? Has the renovation of the existing structures on Race been removed from the project? Because that would make sense with the reduction in number of units since that is where most of them were to be located.

This phase of the project is just for new construction and consists of 17 residential units 3 commercial/retail spaces.

 

Here's a download link for the packet (24mb): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/224802/HCB%202.23.15%20Packet.pdf

 

 

 

I'm not an architect, so I'm not sure I can articulate what exactly is wrong... but something just feels off about the windows. Maybe it's the lack of lintels or the single mullion... I don't know. It just looks unfinished to me.

 

And the rear facade will be profiled metal, which also looks/feels wrong to me.

That looks pretty good.  Once the trees mature it will look better, and then the other buildings are refurbished it will blend into the neighborhood.

 

I wonder if anyone can tell me, since I don't know, but why wouldn't they go for four stories instead of 3?  That could add about 8 or 9 more units and would the cost on the margin per unit be a little less since they are going vertical?  That is what I don't know for certain.

 

Also, hear you on apartment projects.  I bet projects like Grammers Place will add a lot of those.  It seems anything directly or in between the streetcar line will be reserved for people with higher incomes than young professionals.  Just my opinion though.

Why must all modern cornices be blank? Would it really be more than a few thousand dollars (with cost divided over 17 units) for more elaborate, even old-timey cornices? I don't care if it's mimic-y, it really feels like something's missing from these modern structures. 

Their application claims there is a base, middle, and top, but there is no top. It just ends... There should be a clear cap on the top of the building that extrudes from the front of the facade. Not just a change in brick pattern or something. It's lazy and cheap.

It suffers from a handful of things.

 

1) Its height. 3 stories? What a waste of space. These should be 4 or 5 stories.

 

2) The horizontality of the base is still wrong. It needs more prominent division of space to give it a massing that acts as a series of vertically oriented boxes.

 

3) Those windows. They're not correct. I do applaud the use of a more modern window and not going for faux-old, but they really should be double hungs with a modern mutton pattern.

 

4) The protruding boxes, though common in concept, almost always turn out cheaply detailed and it concerns me. I'll hold off on judgment though.

 

5) The base is too solid. It needs more transparency. The spacing of the storefront windows shouldn't be so wide.

 

6) The color of that brick. I'm hoping it's just the rendering, but brown brick makes me cringe. Rarely ever does it look good, even in historic instances throughout OTR. It's just not a flattering color and causes any nuance in the facade treatment to be lost and muddled in the large swath of boring color choice.

 

7) Speaking of color, for the love of god do something here. It's so bland. OTR is colorful. This needs something.

 

8) The backside is whatever. Eventually it'll be hidden so I'm not overly concerned with it.

 

9) I know this is almost assuredly a result of the incredibly overbearing historic board, but this isn't an 1800s italianate row building. The cornice isn't going to be elaborate (nor should it be). So requiring a little bump that represents some bygone era of architecture is silly. The way the buliding meets the sky should be handled differently.

 

10) Speaking of this, the fact that the highest point of the building are the four protruding boxes bugs me. These should be fully enveloped in the overall facade of the building, not sticking out above it unless they're handled in a more interesting way where they meet the sky.

 

I'm done ranting.

 

Oh I like the orange doors that are on the front. So yeah there's that.

 

I also like that this whole site will happen in phases. Less megablockish. They'll likely utilize multiples architects, developers, etc. over the course of time which will help it fit in significantly better than if it was done all at once.

^They probably don't think they can go any higher and add units with the amount of parking they have. 

 

Try saving to your hard drive and opening from there to read the whole thing easily.

Looking at the plans, I don't think they include elevators, which would also explain why it's limited to 3 floors. The parking constraints probably also made them reluctant to build higher, which is a shame since they're just 1 block from the Washington Park garage... and there are plenty of condos in that area that are being sold today without parking included.

 

I like the layout of the interiors which seem like they make efficient use of the space. It looks like the residential layouts are symmetrical across the north-south axis, with 8 units per floor (for 16 total). Then there's one ADA compliant ground-floor level unit at the northern-most edge of the project.

I did. My computer at work is just not having it. I'll look further when I get home and can open it on my computer.

 

Wouldn't there be no requirement for parking at all since it's on the streetcar line? Or did that never officially happen? I can't remember.

 

If Westfalen II can have 33 units with no parking and have absolutely no trouble selling I think these could easily as well. Another floor would REALLY help the massing and add the density the streetcar line deserves.

I think all parking requirements were eliminated in OTR and the CBD in the waning days of the Mallory administration but I'm not sure. Also 3CDC may have their own parking plan.

 

I don't know why it's not taller.  Could be to avoid an elevator as jwulsin mentioned.  Myabe they didn't want to go higher than the historic building on the corner.  Maybe they wanted to match the density of the Pleasant St. neighborhood one block to the south.  Maybe they are planning something taller up near Liberty St.  I know there is a master plan for the Pleasant St. corridor from the Park to the Market, and this looks a lot more like that than the previous design. 

 

http://www.schickeldesign.com/documents/otrch_vision_study_final_booklet.pdf

 

I really hope Schikel's presence in the neighborhood is kept to a minimum. Great intentions, great people working there, terrible work. They just don't have the manpower to create good architecture. That masterplan they created is scary bad. The Pleasant Street stuff they did is one step away from being good (I really like the Japanese garden style courtyard design) but the detailing is just so generic which is a resultant of the fact that something like four people work there. They just can't put the time and resources into higher levels of detailing.

 

Not being able to see the plans the elevator thing didn't come into my head. But I'm pretty sure it's above 4 floors you need an elevator, not if you have four floors. I could just walk ten feet away and grab our office's code book to find out...

 

I really want to photoshop this with some changes to see how it could be improved. Maybe I'll do that later tonight.

^ As soon as you go higher than 3 stories you are required to fire sprinkle, which can be a high cost.

This is true. That can be a huge cost. For a building this size likely into the 6 digit range.

As soon as one developer builds a large-scale project without attached parking and is able to sell/lease all of the units, other developers will understand that you don't have to build so much parking in the urban core. But no developer wants to be the first to "risk it" although I feel like demand is high enough for that type of product already.

I think you meant *without

 

Maybe the historic rehab portion of this project will be that test. I imagine you can fit many more units in those buildings and they don't appear to have parking spots according to this plan. Perhaps this will wait until the streetcar is up and running. Not that the streetcar is the be all and end all of going car free, but it might facilitate a shift in attitude.

 

Also you could take a "car lite" approach and keep a car at a cheaper garage in the CBD somewhere and ride the streetcar to it when you needed it.

So do these storefronts pay rent to the HOA?  Is the person with the ground-floor unit able to convert that space into a storefront?

^More than likely the answer to the second question is no. Not for zoning reasons, but it's likely going to be within the HOA documents you agree to.

 

As for the rent...that's a good question. My building has a handful of storefronts and I don't know where their rent goes. I'd imagine they'd go to the HOA once turnover from the developer happens which is this coming Tuesday.

3CDC is responsible for the businesses and collects their rent. I believe 3CDC owns the space.  I have an inquiry in to determine if they pay into the HOA (but it might be completely separate.)

I know that in Trideca, for example, 3CDC owns the storefront unit (and collects rent), and 3CDC is responsible for paying their share of HOA dues for that unit (as the owner).

So do these storefronts pay rent to the HOA?  Is the person with the ground-floor unit able to convert that space into a storefront?

 

More interestingly, the person with that street-level unit could run an after-hours bar, if they also happened to pay off the person who lives directly above! 

 

In my building, the first-floor retail tenant owns their unit and pays into the HOA.

This is kind of a random question but I think pertains to 3CDC.  How many of the upper floors of buildings on Main Street in OTR are occupied with residences / commercial tenants or maybe better, are vacant?  I ask since 3CDC is converting some apartments to Condos, so they must mostly be filled on Main Street already, right?

I think the vast majority of Main Street's buildings are mostly/fully occupied. Urban Sites has a huge presence on Main Street which has limited 3CDC's interventions there but it seems like for the most part the buildings are occupied. There are a handful that clearly aren't for a variety of reasons but most are.

This is kind of a random question but I think pertains to 3CDC.  How many of the upper floors of buildings on Main Street in OTR are occupied with residences / commercial tenants or maybe better, are vacant?  I ask since 3CDC is converting some apartments to Condos, so they must mostly be filled on Main Street already, right?

 

I'm not 100% sure but I don't think the upper floors of Japp's / The Drinkery are occupied by either residential or office.

 

The Hanke Exchange buildings are still searching for some upper floor office tenants I think.

 

The New York Dry Cleaners building (1214 Main St) is completely unoccupied, though construction has been ongoing in the commercial space for quite some time with what is rumored to be a convenience store.

 

Both 1200 and 1208 Main St are currently unoccupied but Urban Sites recently won tax credits and will be starting construction soon to build out apartments in the upper floors and commercial on the first floor.

 

The old Circle A market building (1304) is also completely unoccupied and has orders from the city to bring it up to code. This is the same owner as the New York Dry Cleaner building, Fady Issac.

 

The upper floors of the H&A market (1329) are unoccupied.

 

1426, 1428 and 1430 (The Northern Row) are unoccupied but are currently being converted into single family homes and should hit the market this quarter.

 

I believe everything else either has residential or office space.

1214's owner has no plans to do anything with the upper floors of his building at this time. The owners of the Macaron Bar are acquaintances of mine and they've spoken with him several times. It's going to be a small grocery store/convenient store for sure but as of now the rest of the building will still remain vacant.

So basically there is still a lot of room to add more residences.  That is a good thing!

 

I assume then the reason why 3CDC is converting the apartments on Main Street to condos is because supply is so tight they want to get something on the market ASAP.

They have relied on a steady flow of income from selling condos over the course of their existence but now there are only 5 (?) left on the market and not that many coming online this coming year so I'd assume it's in order to bolster their expenses while larger projects happen such as Mercer Commons Phase III, 15th and Vine, 15th and Race, etc.

^That's a good explanation.  Sorry to be nit-picky but do you mean increase revenues (cash flow) and reduce expenses (liabilities)?  Then they would get that building off their books, they can fire the property management firm (if they are using one there, not sure if 3CDC does property management?), and have the cash on hand. 

 

On that side though, they may end up making more on some apartment projects over the long term, say after 10-15 years, but they would have the cash on hand right away after selling to put more back on the market.

 

I was wondering this to myself, but since Macy's, Kroger, P&G, etc. put a large amount into 3CDC's fund originally (not sure exactly how much), do you think GE Operations will be interested in dropping some cash off to 3CDC so that 3CDC can accelerate some more projects to help with recruiting purposes at their new facility on the Banks?

I'd imagine they want to reduce their monthly overhead and also get large of chunks of money coming in while they are working towards larger, more important projects.

 

This is all speculation obviously. It might just be because someone went, "hey remember how hard it was to sell these the first time we tried? I bet we could sell them for way more now" and they all agreed and that's now what's happening.

It might just be because someone went, "hey remember how hard it was to sell these the first time we tried? I bet we could sell them for way more now" and they all agreed and that's now what's happening.

 

I imagined this exact conversation when I saw the announcement.

3CDC would prefer to be in the business of selling condos and leasing retail spaces. I don't think they ever really desired to be in the business of managing apartments.

 

There is still a ton of potential on Main Street... the entire length of Main Street in the CBD and OTR. Way too many vacant storefronts and unoccupied upper floors. Even in OTR, Main Street feels like it has very little street life except for the areas around 12th & Main and 14th & Main.

I go up Main Street everyday on my way home from work and feel this is going to be where most of the ROI for the streetcar will be. So many parking lots and large, underutilized buildings in the CBD on Main Street. And then you get up to Central Parkway and there are all those lots between Main and Walnut on both sides of Central.

 

It seems to me that on Main Street in OTR it is the most put together street as far as having the buildings in tact.  There needs to be a catalytic type development on Central and Main on the NW Corner and the SW Corner to get it jump started a little faster (SW Corner of Main and 12th as well).  I bet things are moving forward there.

 

Kind of a chicken or egg thing, what comes first, new construction or rehabilitation.  I think it will be a mix of both, and hopefully the new construction looks nice when it gets put in.

Main Street is definitely the most intact street in OTR. There are very few vacant parcels along its length. Neighboring Sycamore is by far the worst though. There are very few buildings left in OTR along Sycamore. There are so many opportunities around 12th and Sycamore that the streetcar would capture that would also help tie Pendleton to OTR. A win win.

Intact is one word.  One of my big peeves, although it pales to people mixing loose and lose. 

Intact is one word.  One of my big peeves, although it pales to people mixing loose and lose. 

 

My biggest one is when people mix up every day and everyday. But that's neither here nor their.

1207 Elm, next to the church-to-be-event space across from Washington Park just sold to Mark Greene Construction LLC for $316,500. 3 story building. Probably for residential conversion?

The next big OTR development isn't condos and isn't a 3CDC project

Mar 2, 2015, 4:58pm EST Updated: Mar 2, 2015, 5:37pm EST

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter and columnist- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

The founders of Funky's Catering and branding and marketing firm AGAR are teaming up to bring a large events center called The Transept focused on weddings, corporate retreats and galas to a former Over-the-Rhine church.

 

 

Josh Heuser of AGAR and Michael Forgus of Funky's Catering hope the $4.7 million renovation of the 13,170 square foot former Bethlehem Temple Apostolic Church at 1205 Elm St. will be complete by Labor Day. The church is across the street from Washington Park and sits along the streetcar line. Forgus and Heuser are bankrolling the project through $1.2 million in historic tax credits, along with financing from Bank of America Merrill Lynch. The Hamilton County Development Company's business lending section put in $1.6 million. Twenty-six jobs are expected to be developed.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/03/02/exclusive-the-next-big-otr-development-isnt.html

Business partners, co-owners of the building, and over $4 million in debt. What could possibly go wrong?

Business partners, co-owners of the building, and over $4 million in debt. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Ha, I was thinking the same thing.  I wish these guys nothing but the best, but 3CDC dominates the neighborhood's large projects for a reason. 

 

I was wondering what bank was crazy enough to loan them the money.  Then I remembered that Bank of America was also the lender for Kenwood Towne Place. 

 

Seriously, I really hope it works out for these guys and the finished product is amazing.  But this just seems like financial a nightmare.