I can't seem to find their facebook page now, but on it they posted a message thanking everyone for the 20+ years of Christy's and 50+(?) years of Lenhardt's. They said they would not reopen after the holidays. No mention of selling or demolition, but just a notice that they would not reopen.

 

From what I've heard Christy doesn't really care about historic preservation based on some people who rented an apartment from her.

The Google Streetview says it all: "Uptown Commons" which is developer-speak for nothing old shall remain around here because it's been rebranded as "Uptown". I saw the same thing happen in my Ft. Worth, TX neighborhood (the city's oldest) when a developer bought the south end of the neighborhood and rebranded it as "Trinity Uptown" while proceeding to demolish 40+ old homes to build condos and apartments on the freshly vacant lots. A closer investigation would probably reveal that a sale of Christy's/Lendhardts has recently taken place and shortly the demolition folks will move in. I think its horrible to witness the kind of wholesale destruction that is going on in Mt. Auburn right now. Huntington Place was admittedly faded but some of the fine stone and brick homes there were built with the best materials and Old-World workmanship money could buy and deserved a better fate than demolition. If I may use Ft. Worth once more as an example, the area now officially designated as the "Hospital District" (because of a conglomerate of hospitals) was once the location of many distinguished homes belonging to the City's elite in the early 1900's. It was called "Quality Hill" by locals back then. I see "Pill Hill" going down that exact same path with Mt. Auburn largely disappearing in the years to come. New development appears to be so coveted by Cincinnati's city leaders that almost anything is expendable, even entire historic neighborhoods. While I hope this fine brick residence in the Queen Anne style remains and is repurposed, at this juncture that seems very unlikely. As a Cleveland Preservationist friend and I were discussing the other evening, Historic Preservation is no longer as "trendy" as it was in the 1980's with the Great Recession now being used as an excuse to accelerate demolitions in many locations. The State of Ohio's multi-million dollar "Moving Ohio Forward" program with a target goal of demolishing 100,000 structures statewide certainly is not helping the situation. It appears that a lot of folks who make important decisions in the State place little value on Ohio's incomparable riches of historic architecture. At the rate these historic resources are being destroyed, that distinction won't be true much longer.

^ Uptown has been a name for part of the city as long as I have been alive. No rebranding there.

Ok, so is it apart from what is considered Mt. Auburn and what are the "Uptown"boundaries? Just curious...

Uptown consists of the group of neighborhoods around the UC campus: CUF, Clifton, Avondale, Corryville, and Mt. Auburn. 

 

Link: http://www.uptowncincinnati.com/uptown-area

 

I will also note that according to the auditor, the building Chirsty's is/was in still has the same owner it has had since 1997, and the owner appears to live right around the corner so it doesn't seem like they'll be in too big a rush to sell/demo it, hopefully.

Uptown consists of the group of neighborhoods around the UC campus: CUF, Clifton, Avondale, Corryville, and Mt. Auburn.

 

For some reason, I often forget Mt. Auburn is considered part of Uptown. It's kind of weird because it doesn't have the rather distinct boundary CUF has with Downtown. Pill Hill makes a lot of sense being Uptown, but Prospect Hill feels more like a part of Pendleton/downtown. Mt. Auburn is sort of bipolar, while CUF has a clear core further up the hill.

I talked to some people and Christy announced she was closing at the last merchants meeting.  She left open the possibility of having someone manage the biergarten during the summer, but she basically doesn't have the time/energy to run the place.  She has not presented any intent to sell the building at the moment.  No development plans of any sort have been presented for that site at this point.

My one piece of insider knowledge is that sales at Addriatico's in 2012 was so significant that it probably pushed Papa Dino's over the edge and has taken a chunk out of everyone else's delivery, dine-in, and bar business as well.  They are doing upwards of $10,000 in sales on big days, and previous big days on Jefferson were $3,000, virtually all of that delivery.  Obviously with the new development nearing completion they and the rest of the area's established restaurants will take some kind of hit. 

^^If it should go up for sale, someone should talk to Greg Hardman to see if he has any interest in the property.  Not that he needs it, but given its historical significance to Moerlein and the fact that it is already set up as a restaurant/bar/biergarten, it might be something they want to acquire/preserve.  It could make an interesting companion to the Moerlein Lagerhouse. 

^ Love it!  An uptown lager house!

 

The owners of christys building also own the big parking lot behind Clifton Natural Foods. They are pros at running a profitable lot and tow cars constantly if they don't pay. That doesn't bode well for the Christys....

Turns out there is at least one active redevelopment plan for the Christie's/Lenhardt's site that includes the demolition of the historic Moerlein mansion, the Clifton Natural Foods building, and four houses on Lyon.  CUF community council and CPA are aware and working to get the building designated as a historic property to forestall demolition.

We can be sure that whatever replaces them will be cheap crap. 

The family is keeping the Moerlein Mansion and leasing out the business. They have a leasee lined up already.

^This is fantastic news. That is such a relief.

 

As for the redevelopment plan that included this site as well as the Natural Foods building, hopefully SOMETHING will still come of that, preferably just using up the stupidly massive parking lots over there. I have no clue how that would all work, but having that all redeveloped would help make that side of the street feel as urban as the other side of McMillan now feels.

Makes me wonder if the owners of Christys would give up that parking lot if the money was right. Right now they are raking it in on that parking lot. I am a regular at Clifton Natural Foods, and stop in almost daily for cool drinks and such. Hardly a day goes by w/o seeing the tow trucks hooking another car. That parking lot is way too big for that area now.

Hopefully someone wants to develop that spot bad enough to pay whatever price would result in all that parking being removed. That spot and the lot (plus Thai Express) on the corner of Wheeler are the two spots I've always wanted to see developed most along that stretch.

Hopefully someone wants to develop that spot bad enough to pay whatever price would result in all that parking being removed. That spot and the lot (plus Thai Express) on the corner of Wheeler are the two spots I've always wanted to see developed most along that stretch.

 

Same here. I live on Clifton Ave (south of McMillan), and both of those lots are ripoffs. The one at Wheeler has meters that are way off. And they will tow in a heart beat. I am not a fan of parking lots along business strips anyway. Ludlow Ave is a good example of how it should be. Just businesses and street parking.

I was on McMillan today. I saw a green notice on Christy's front door and went to read it. Long and short of it is they will reopen as a bar in February. Not sure if there will be food, though I suspect there will be.

Mary Wolfe House at 965 Burton Avenue in Avondale is slated for demolition. Hannaford designed. Listed on the National Register.

 

 

Public Nuisance Hearing on January 25 at 1pm.

Appears that the City of Cincinnati may have more "Moving Ohio Forward" money laying around than they know what to do with. A surviving Hannaford designed house is as relevant to Cincinnati's architectural heritage as the Roebling Bridge, IMO. While this house has suffered horrible neglect, its still restorable. Another badly neglected Hannaford designed house has recently been rehabbed on Park Avenue in Walnut Hills. Just today on FB, the Cincinnati Preservation Association posted similar a demo hearing notice about a house that is probably the finest towered Queen Anne style Victorian house in Evanston (and almost anywhere in the city) at 1927 Clarion Avenue. (built in 1890 on auditor's site) Had fate placed it a couple of blocks away in Hyde Park, it would be a restored local landmark and showplace. "Neo-Victorians" or new homes built in Victorian styles often replicate these towered Queen Annes-but this one is the real thing and very impressive. No city but Cincinnati would consider demolishing some of the landmark quality homes arbitrarily tagged "nuisances". Why not take that mountain of free money declared for demolitions and use some of it to stablize and rescue a few landmark quality structures like this Hannaford designed mansion?  This all too frequent news is so sad and senseless! Perhaps its even made less understandable by the on-going renaissance occuring in the OTR. But like the endangered animals cooped up together in a zoo, it seems the city powers have decided the OTR represents the official location to see "old Cincinnati" while all the other old neighborhoods are fair game for the demolition man.

Moving Ohio Forward --------------------------------> to the landfill.

 

Pathetic.

Some of these "only cincinnati would demolish this!" Posts are driving me nuts. Have anyone of you been out west? Have any of you Been to Indy or St Louis? They've bulldozed tons of great history. Yes we all agree its bad to demolish these things but this Some Cincinnati thing, it's most of America and we should try to be like the minority and save buildings instead of the majority of the country who would tear them down.

 

That being said, it doesn't matter How nice a building is, if it is blighted and dilapidated it fits the definition of a nuisance. Just because a building is historic doesn't mean if it's in horrible shape it would magically can't be declared a nuisance. Nuisance properties don't always immediately come down, it depends on the status Of the building, whether it can be saved etc.. Finally, the moving Ohio forward money is a state program which has guidelines on how the funds can be used. Additionally that annoying thing called property rights prevents the city from just fixing up buildings owned by other people and then taking them and selling them. Heck, if the city spent $100,000 bringing this building up to code and then the previous owner continued to just let it sit there that would be a huge waste of funds.  Cities can't just take property away from people because they didn't fix it. In Ohio all the city can do is tear a building down, not take it away because its a nuisance. It's a stupid law that incentivizes demolitions but The Ohio Supreme Court has very strict rules on Imminent domain.

 

Also, I believe if the building is on the national registrar Then it is subject to the cities historic conservation board as well. If so, a certificate of appropriateness would be required from the HCB before demolition.

There are hundreds of 1940s and 1950s homes that will be coming down. These are homes that are in no way attractive right now to current buyers, often need major renovations i.e. new kitchen new baths and are not an attractive housing stock drawing people into the city. By all means, I agree that homes like the one we are discussing should not be considered for demolition through this program however there are literally hundreds of homes worth $20, 30 and $40,000, built in the 1940s that no one is wanting to buy right now and many are blighted and abandoned. I have absolutely no issue with tearing those homes down. Properties from the 19th century however, I believe deserve greater scrutiny if not complete bans against demolition.

Would be nice to amend the state constitution to allow eminent domain for negligent owners. Since they are disobeying laws for years on end, it seems fair to me. There needs to be some recourse for the government; allowing property owners to flout the law with impunity is insane.

There will be a presentation at the CUFNA meeting in the Deaconess Cafeteria at 7:30pm on Tuesday. The presentation will include the possible demolition of the building at the SE corner of W McMillan and W. Clifton as well as the possible demolition a several houses on Lyon Street and Christy's to make way for a new mixed use development and above ground parking garage.

 

 

I went to the CUFNA meeting today with a bunch of people and here is what the developer wanted to do:

 

* Demolish Christy's

* Demolish the building at the corner of West Clifton and West McMillan (home of Clifton Natural Foods)

* Demolish several (two or three) homes on Lyon

* Construct a seven story building (current one is four) at the corner that would house 500 (mostly, though it is illegal to discriminate) students

* Have an anchor retail store at the corner. Put a leasing office and workout room facing the street on McMillan (sounded like only one tenant, though)

* Install a two-story parking structure behind the buildings on West McMillan going up to front Lyon Street and West Clifton

 

The developers made it sound as if the project couldn't be done unless both buildings were demolished.

They also said they would number their reserved parking spaces to the number of units, not beds and try to give incentives like Zipcar and bus passes for students.

The council was adamant about saving Christy's and keeping a local retailer like Clifton Natural Foods, citing other projects that have brought national chains. They were also pretty upset about demolishing the building at the corner because its the gateway to the last of the old building stock. They were also very skeptical of shorting the students on parking saying that they will park on residential streets (developer didn't seem to understand).

 

As for Christy's, the general managers of Christy's are opening it back up on Friday (woo!), however Christy has been trying to sell the property without telling the managers of her lack of interest in saving the structure. A group of us decided to meet at Rohs Street Cafe on Saturday at 2pm to discuss possible next steps and to articulate what we want/don't want out of a potential project. Anyone is welcome. Only board members were allowed to speak at the meeting today because it was a CUFNA board meeting, so a lot of us didn't get to express our feelings. Though the council did do a decent job advocating for the existing buildings (some of them were more concerned about parking, though).

I got an email that had a rendering in it and frankly it looks like crap. Keep Clifton Natural Foods, the Christy's building, and the houses on Lyon Street. That's too much historic fabric to lose for more EIFS. Hopefully the developer REALLY wants to build and ends up reworking their plans to just fill in the parking lot instead of tearing anything down.

I got an email that had a rendering in it and frankly it looks like crap. Keep Clifton Natural Foods, the Christy's building, and the houses on Lyon Street. That's too much historic fabric to lose for more EIFS. Hopefully the developer REALLY wants to build and ends up reworking their plans to just fill in the parking lot instead of tearing anything down.

 

Sounds like the CUFNA, while wanting to preserve the historic buildings, also would not want to give up any parking. Would be nice if a deal could be worked out with the garage owners across the street at U Square, to offer spaces out of there to residents of the new place.

Rents at the U Square garage are $95 a month, and are open to anyone not just residents of the apartments.

I think the issue here is Christy's can't really remain a viable business without 10 or so parking spaces, and when that's combined with the space needed to move those cars to said spaces in combination with the Christy's footprint then it really eats into the space available to the developer.  Spaces in the garage for Christy's would mean doing a public parking element which means it might have to be staffed or whatever, although I'd imagine that parking meters in the ground floor of the garage would work just as well.  I mean, if you're going to choose houses to tear down, tear down more on Lyon St. and save Christy's. 

The Goetz house days are numbered: http://news.cincinnati.com/comments/article/20130806/NEWS010801/308060114/Council-won-t-save-Goetz-House

 

The Clifton Heights community council did a wonderful job, I wish more neighborhood associations were as good as they were at fighting this issue.  I tip my hat to their hard work.

It's important to note that houses like that have made way for bigger and usually better development in many cities throughout history.  Central Park West, Lake Shore Drive, and many inner-city streets used to be littered with such houses.  In the case of some of the Central Park West mansions, they were demolished after only 20 or 30 years to make way for some of the treasured Art Deco apartment buildings that now stand.  It's what I've said before about making the situation a net positive in the end.  If they were wanting to tear the Goetz House down for a parking lot or freestanding McDonalds then that would be a much different situation.

 

I have to agree with Sittenfeld that going after landmark designation so late in the game, just to prevent redevelopment, really isn't the way to do things.  It's a knee-jerk reaction on the one hand, and really isn't the right use for the historic designation process.  That said, the Clifton Heights Community Council now has an opportunity to hold the developer's feet to the fire.  The tradeoff for losing the Goetz House should be that the developer has to provide a better product to help compensate for the loss.  They can and should be held to a higher standard of design and build quality. 

Unfortunately they won't be. The development plan for the site is pretty awful. The rendering and plans they've shown are typical of what has already gone up in the area. Biggest benefit will be the removal of the massive parking lot there, but a massive parking garage will abut Lyon Street. It's going to be ugly. Everyone should be prepared for disappointment.

^That block of Lyon will be decimated by the (I believe 3-story) parking garage and demo of 3 houses on Lyon.

 

It's a sad day for Clifton Heights. Hopefully we can be a little more proactive in the future about endangered historic properties.

Hopefully. I have no problem with new development of a larger scale, student housing, etc. Or even parking garages. They just have to be done right and without harming the character of a neighborhood. This development does very little right and most certainly harms the character of Clifton Heights. The Goetz House, although in a less than favorable state, is still a gem and important piece of Cincinnati history and the buildings on the corner of West Clifton and McMillan are unique in their architecture. The loss of the houses on Lyon is bad as well, although I'd rank that as the last of the concerns in terms of what is being demolished.

 

At the very least it's good that the building will front both McMillan and West clifton. And from what I remember the garage will be two stories on Lyon Street. The wing fronting West Clifton will be three stories and the main part fronting McMillan will be five stories. The lowest level of the garage and Clifton wing will be a story lower than the entrance level of the main building.

 

I'm just really hoping for better materials to be used at this point. Losing quality architecture and replacing it with EIFS sides crapitecture yet again would be infuriating.

The tradeoff for losing the Goetz House should be that the developer has to provide a better product to help compensate for the loss.  They can and should be held to a higher standard of design and build quality.

 

Someone needs to contact this guy in Columbus if they are going to do anymore infill around the University: http://www.woodcompanies.com/  3CDC should get his number too!

The only two options shouldn't be "no-build" and "the crappy plan already proposed."  This is why I say the community council should go to the developers and dish out some tough love. 

Its funny soapbox wrote an article that pretty much fits in to exactly what's being talked about here: http://soapboxmedia.com/features/080613dbarchitecture.aspx

I'm curious what the architects think of the infill presented in this piece in NYC: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57585020/the-newest-thing-in-architecture-something-old/

^I am not an architect, but I love it.  I especially like that it's built the "old way", and isn't just plywood with a faux brick exterior.  I also like the photo of the restaurant interior they did for another building.  Again, it looks like it's actually from 1900, not like it's trying to imitate 1900.  I've always thought it was valid to embrace great design from any period and replicate it, rather than always try to push past what has worked previously.

I know the Goetz House issue is settled at this point, but I mentioned it on Twitter today and ended up starting a debate on the topic.

 

I think the developers are evil geniuses for making the current owners demolish the home before selling them the property. That way, the story is not framed as some Big Bad Developer trying to demolish it -- it's a hard-working elderly couple who need to demolish it so they can sell their land and retire comfortably. And I think that narrative has succeeded; a lot of people on Twitter and elsewhere are looking at this as a victory for the building's current owners, in a very Tea Party "personal property rights" kind of way.

 

I think there is very little hope for historic preservation in the uptown area. With demolitions like the Friar's Club, the Schiel School, the Goetz House, and numerous homes in Corryville, the urban fabric has already been damaged too badly. UC is even demolishing historic buildings on campus, claiming that Wilson Auditorium is too expensive to renovate. What is the future of other historic buildings such as Old St. George or the University YMCA?

Is it time to pragmatically cede that preservation is not going to happen, and shift efforts to demanding quality in new construction? At least UC is building with design in mind. Private developers are tearing down beautiful structures and replacing them with utter garbage. I feel much better about the prospects for Wilson's replacement than the Goetz House's.

^If so, then it's also the time to focus on salvage efforts of demolished properties.  So many of the places are just bulldozed, when they should have a crew carefully removing items of value (balusters, transoms, fireplaces, hardwood floors, etc.) first, so that they're available for restoration efforts elsewhere.  I'm sure there are private businesses that do this type of thing.  I think it just isn't focused on because neither side wants to consider it; the developer wants the existing buildings gone as quickly as possible and the preservationists don't want them demolished at all.  At some point, someone has to recognize that letting the entire building end up in a landfill is a loss for everyone involved.

It's unbelievable how people can take things for granted. Downtown Columbus in 1989 taught me everything I needed to know about preservation. Maybe there's some kind of scary tram tour of Columbus '89 that they can send Cincinnatians on so that they learn to appreciate what they have.

Davis Furniture building demo permit has been applied for.  Plan is to demolish it for parking.  Ironically, the streetcar is supposed to stop in front of that building.

 

Also, the Dennison Hotel building has just been purchased by the Joseph auto group, who owns the giant surface lot adjacent to the property.  They are certainly interested in tearing it down.

Thats disappointing. I thought 3CDC has plans for that building a few years ago.

Also, the Dennison Hotel building has just been purchased by the Joseph auto group, who owns the giant surface lot adjacent to the property.  They are certainly interested in tearing it down.

 

Time to apply for historic designation is now, not after permits are applied for. Gogogogogo

Thats disappointing. I thought 3CDC has plans for that building a few years ago.

 

A 3CDC affiliate is who sold it to them according to auditors records.  They had plans for a partnership with Model Group and Talbert House for low income supportive housing.  I have no idea why they wouldn't just move it to market rate apartments if that project fell through. Very disappointing.

 

That being said- I checked and it already is designated historic.

 

This does seem odd.  They received funding from CMHA in 2011 for the conversion into affordable housing.  I wonder what happened to that project?

 

And it doesn't make sense to demolish this building for parking, as its footprint isn't that big, would they fit ~50 parking spaces in that area?

 

Would be awful to see this building torn down for such a short sighted purpose.  Maybe joseph auto group is on a mission to tear down that entire block for parking..

 

Wouldn't it be difficult to tear down this structure as it is designated historic?