I'm hoping someone on the forum who's had experience dealing with the Board of Housing Appeals and, more particularly, the common pleas court can make a recommendation for an attorney. I'm looking at a house for sale that's eminently salvageable, but which has moved into public nuisance status, and within that status, is "out to bid". Since it's been declared a public nuisance, I can't go through the BHA to bring it back into compliance; instead, it has to be done through a court appeal. I spoke with Margo Warminski at CPA, who suggested that the "out to bid" status would probably require an injunction as well (to stop demolition prior to a court date, I assume.)

 

It's currently owned by one of the companies specializing in bulk purchases of REOs.  I've spoken to someone there and believe the price is strongly negotiable; however, having to add in the expense of legal appeals may make it a losing prospect at any purchase price. If there's an attorney who can do it for a reasonable fee, though, it may be a different prospect.

 

I've also heard that a bond or other deposit is required in these cases to cover the potential costs of demolition. Does anyone have specifics about that?

 

TIA!

I'm hoping someone on the forum who's had experience dealing with the Board of Housing Appeals and, more particularly, the common pleas court can make a recommendation for an attorney. I'm looking at a house for sale that's eminently salvageable, but which has moved into public nuisance status, and within that status, is "out to bid". Since it's been declared a public nuisance, I can't go through the BHA to bring it back into compliance; instead, it has to be done through a court appeal. I spoke with Margo Warminski at CPA, who suggested that the "out to bid" status would probably require an injunction as well (to stop demolition prior to a court date, I assume.)

 

It's currently owned by one of the companies specializing in bulk purchases of REOs.  I've spoken to someone there and believe the price is strongly negotiable; however, having to add in the expense of legal appeals may make it a losing prospect at any purchase price. If there's an attorney who can do it for a reasonable fee, though, it may be a different prospect.

 

I've also heard that a bond or other deposit is required in these cases to cover the potential costs of demolition. Does anyone have specifics about that?

 

TIA!

 

First if an LLC owns it explain to them the city will place lien on the vacant land. Honestly if you have to pay a lot it for it , it may not defray the cost of what you are about to get into.

 

The city will REQUIRE you to post the equivalent of the demo cost (about 15K). You would have to show that 1.) you have purchased the property 2.) That you have obtained liability insurance (usually a million dollars). 3.)You will then have to submit some form of restoration plan to the city along with probably architect stamped drawings and an engineering report. 4.) You will have to pull permits for literally everything  (add a few thousand for permits) 5.) You will have to PROVE you have financial resources to restore it (cash, because you wont be able to get a loan on a condemned house). 6.) You will not be allowed to live in  while you are restoring it. So add in the cost of replacing your tools and probably the stuff you just fixed as you will be broken into by scrappers and heroin addicts.

 

They will also likely, once it gets to a certain point, want you to apply for a VBML waiver (which also cost time and money).

 

Unless this is a one of a kind home done by a famous architect and surrounded by high dollar houses..you will probably go bankrupt, or after years of fighting the city, (which should be congratulating you for saving it and returning it to the tax roles) you will simply walk away.

 

Cincinnati has some really great homes that need restoring that do not have this level of red tape. I could not, in good conscience advise you to put yourself through all the misery ahead of you. In the very best of circumstances, saving historic homes is an uphill battle in Cincinnati..one that is at this point? You probably should walk away.

 

I would suggest you contact attorney Michael Mann. He has an office downtown I think on 8th.

 

Michael has experience with public nuisance cases and he knows that law. I've hired him from the other side to have a property declared a nuisance.

 

He can give you objective and calm advice about what you would be getting into.

First if an LLC owns it explain to them the city will place lien on the vacant land. Honestly if you have to pay a lot it for it , it may not defray the cost of what you are about to get into.

 

This is definitely the case. I've more or less made the point to the seller that I'd be doing them a favor by purchasing the house. I've given them a soft offer of $500, pending additional information.

 

The city will REQUIRE you to post the equivalent of the demo cost (about 15K).

 

Thanks for this. Stopped by the Property Maintenance division this morning and spoke to an inspector. He ballparked $8-10K. I should have asked, and need to determine, if this needs to be cash or can be bonded.

 

You would have to show that 1.) you have purchased the property 2.) That you have obtained liability insurance (usually a million dollars).

 

I have a decent insurance company that I've used for other properties and will be running this place by them today. But yeah, another carrying cost to figure in.

 

3.)You will then have to submit some form of restoration plan to the city along with probably architect stamped drawings and an engineering report.

 

I get a lot of heming and hawing from various city sources about how specific this needs to be. Are there any hard and fast guidelines, or is it up to the discretion of someone in the department?

 

4.) You will have to pull permits for literally everything  (add a few thousand for permits)

 

I figured that's the case...once the house is under the microscope, everything's got to be done the city's way. I'm lucky to have a bit of familiarity with the process and could hopefully keep costs down.

 

5.) You will have to PROVE you have financial resources to restore it (cash, because you wont be able to get a loan on a condemned house).

 

Cash is do-able. (To add, though, not a bank loan - there are private lenders who'll lend on condemned properties. Not this one, though, as they wouldn't find the numbers comfortable, particularly since it'd be a long-term hold.)

 

You will not be allowed to live in  while you are restoring it. So add in the cost of replacing your tools and probably the stuff you just fixed as you will be broken into by scrappers and heroin addicts.

 

An issue for sure. Keeping a property secure is a challenge. While I know a few of the neighbors, this stuff still happens. I try to leave nothing of value on the job site.

 

They will also likely, once it gets to a certain point, want you to apply for a VBML waiver (which also cost time and money).

 

That's what I heard from the inspector; on the other hand, he said that's the same time at which the demolition bond would be released. Still, better a VBML waiver than the VBML costs themselves, given that this building has been vacant for several years and would doubtlessly qualify for the most expensive yearly fee.

 

Unless this is a one of a kind home done by a famous architect and surrounded by high dollar houses..you will probably go bankrupt, or after years of fighting the city, (which should be congratulating you for saving it and returning it to the tax roles) you will simply walk away.

 

Definitely what I'm trying to avoid. It's not famous and it's on a run-down street that won't see gentrification for at least ten years or so, if then. On the other hand, it's a nice solid brick building that doesn't have any structural/foundation issues. It needs trashing out, a new roof/gutters/fascia/soffits, doors, windows, insulation, new HVAC/plumbing/electrical, and the kitchen and bath replaced. Doubtlessly there are unseen issues, but it's not such a bad little house after all, as Linus might say. I generally do a significant portion of the work myself in concert with subs.

 

Cincinnati has some really great homes that need restoring that do not have this level of red tape. I could not, in good conscience advise you to put yourself through all the misery ahead of you. In the very best of circumstances, saving historic homes is an uphill battle in Cincinnati..one that is at this point? You probably should walk away.

 

*sigh* You're probably right. As I've been told more than once before, there are some houses that they can't pay you to take.

 

Thanks Jim, I'll give him a call. My advice from the law side of things thus far has been that the city can either be a bear to deal with on a matter like this, or a great help. And was then told, "good luck trying to predict which."

I figure three trips to permits, one time to see what they want, a second time for them to tell you what you brought back wont work ad third trip to meet with a department supervisor who usually agrees that what you brought the first time is enough. The people at the permit desks are not consistent.

 

I would really recommend you set up a meeting with Ed Cunningham, if you can show him what you want to do, how you plan on getting there and how the city benefits, things will go smoother.

 

As a consultant  I work with cities all across the country on historic projects and Cincinnati is absolutely the worst in terms of consistency . For a city with the architectural assets they have, they seem bent on demoing all of it and ultimately putting themselves out of a job because there will be no tax base to pay their salaries. There is a reason Covington and Newport are bouncing back and we have thousands of properties on a demo list...lack of cooperation and this city's typical adversarial stance.

There is a new facebook page highlighting the ongoing destruction of Coryville, its a sad sad read as even more elegant old townhouses are getting torn down for what probably are even more vinyl monstrosities: https://www.facebook.com/Vanishingcorryville

 

 

Those buildings on taft were interesting, but in Cincinnati NOTHING is sacred.

It's a rather one-sided view to take that all new development is bad.  Some of the most iconic buildings we have replaced nearly as amazing buildings that came before, but it was a trade up and that's not a bad thing.  If all that's old is sacred, then incremental development is impossible, and we're consigned to sprawl, stasis, and decline. 

 

Following is something I wrote in response to someone specifically asking about Corryville: 

 

It’s a difficult situation to parse, because there’s several factors at play and no true “right or wrong” answer to anything.  I’m of a mind that in general development in already built-up areas is good.  Cities have historically always been able to “grow up” by densifying, and it’s only the most recent 70 or so years that have been a perversion of that natural trend due to zoning laws.  We also waste so much space on excessively wide streets, useless and undefined “green space” and of course parking lots that I find the idea of any place being “built out” to be patently absurd.  In places like Japan where they never restricted development in the way we do here, you see much more fine-grained densification and mixed use neighborhoods.  The critical thing is that rents are actually very low in such places, because the market for units has not been artificially constrained. 

 

Such isn’t the case here, and even in Cincinnati which has some of the cheapest housing in the country, specific neighborhoods have very high prices and rents because of their desirability and the inability to build more units to satisfy demand because of restrictive zoning regulations (Downtown, Mt. Adams, Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, Clifton, etc.).  Part of the reason we see big developments like Stetson Square and the new stuff on Short Vine is because everywhere else is so constrained from densifying.  Granted there’s proximity desirability to UC, but most blocks surrounding the university are constrained to be nothing more dense than what they already are now, which is small lot single family or duplexes.  That so many houses have been converted to apartments, often illegally, shows that the laws are preventing the market for housing from working.  So the only way anything more dense can be built is when a large parcel can be assembled by a developer who has the resources to get the zoning changed. 

 

That’s what I don’t like about the situation.  It favors the big developer doing whole-block teardowns and shuts out the little guy who might build a 4-plex or a couple of townhouses in place of one or two single-family houses.  So we lose the “in between” densities that are much less abrupt of a change, and also much less expensive to build.  These projects are all coming with sizable structured parking, which is also something I’m very concerned about.  Because of the cost of the garages, the project needs to be even bigger to not only amortize the cost of that garage, but to compensate for the space it takes up.  Even without garages, every square inch of the site is turned over to surface parking which could be a nice courtyard or more building.  It also leads to lesser construction quality and detailing for the rest of the project.  I’d call Stetson Square a success on that front, as it hides the garages underneath, addresses the streets at least decently on all sides, and has quality materials and design.  The Short Vine projects, McMillan Manor (or Campus Park or whatever it’s called now), University Edge, and 65 West are fails in that respect.  It’s not just limited to Corryville either of course.  I have the same criticism of Oakley Station, the Drexel, Brookstone Village, and everything going on in Columbia-Tusculum (Delta Flats, etc.), not to mention The Banks. 

 

So to bring this all back around, I want to see development happen, but I also want it to be more doable “as of right” in all neighborhoods, not just in a few planned unit developments with huge developers.  In doing so, there’s less pressure on any one particular property to maximize its built area, and it should mean there’s less pressure to redevelop historic properties as well.  Either way, if people want to live in a particular neighborhood, they’re going to find a way to do it.  If the zoning doesn’t allow densification then buildings get renovated and upgraded or demolished and rebuilt with something only slightly bigger, eventually becoming too expensive and pricing people out.  By allowing densification to happen more gradually in all scales, it relieves the pressure on remaining properties which have a better chance of surviving at a manageable cost, while at the same time bringing in more people and enhancing opportunities for pedestrian amenities, and hopefully allowing some better construction and design quality. 

 

Here’s some favorite blogs of mine that really help synthesize and clarify a lot of my feelings on the subject. 

 

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/

http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/tradcityarchive.html

http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/

 

Not quite in Cincinnati, but apparently the old Bavarian Brewery building in Covington may be on demolition watch. Just thought I would put this here since I haven't seen any of the Cincinnati publications write about it. I have always loved this building (also loved the Jillian's Teen nights here), and would love to see it turned into a brewery again, apartments, entertainment or anything other than be bulldozed just so the owner can sell a vacant lot adjacent to the highway.

 

http://rcnky.com/articles/2014/09/29/bavarian-brewery-building-faces-possible-demolition

^I hope they find a way to repurpose that building instead of demolishing it.  I've always thought it would be a cool office building, but I know nothing of the interior layout (other than the sports bar and bowling alley).

That building is architecturally sound to my knowledge, I can't believe they want to demo it, makes no sense at all...

http://www.change.org/p/william-jung-iii-columbia-sussex-cease-plans-to-demolish-the-historic-bavarian-brewing-building

 

There is now an online petition with over 200 signatures on Change.org, With the recent boom of the brewing industry in the region it would be especially sad to see this piece of brewing history be destroyed. This could be an incredible brewery/entertainment venue similar to what was planned for the metal blast building in otr. This building is in much better condition than that building is, maybe now that the church plan in Northside is set back they can look across the river?

This place was Jillian's night club up until about 2008.  It's probably still in really good condition. 

 

Looks like Western Southern is planning to demolish those Arch Street buildings next week.

Looks like Western Southern is planning to demolish those Arch Street buildings next week.

 

I glad I got to ride a bicycle around that area last summer, kind of a last hurrah for what should be a celebrated historic area.

^It's too bad that they can't be relocated to nearby Pike Street, directly across from the Taft Museum of Art.  I love parks, but I'd gladly cede a small portion of Lytle Park to save these buildings and make Pike Street feel more complete.  Oh well.

Arch St. row houses were torn down today. 

Arch St. row houses were torn down today.

 

Damn, that's painful. Right up there with Glencoe and a house I had a personal connection with on Loth St.  just thinking about it makes me nauseous.

Realistically, other than a move ala what Jimmy James described, these buildings had no chance.  Unless you were specifically looking for them, they were pretty impossible to notice.  Is the speculation that these buildings were torn down for a replacement to the garage or just part of the reconstruction of Lytle Park?

Western & Southern intends to tear down the garage and build a residential/office tower on top of a new garage.  No specifics on height or design yet.  What we want to pay very, very close attention to is the amount of public subsidy that they will ask for on this project.  Since we still have a vacancy rate of over 20% on Class A office space in Cincinnati (it was at 12% prior to W&S's Queen City Square) -doesn't seem to make sense that taxpayers should be asked to subsidize any more at the present time.  And hopefully we won't be handing out any more 30-year tax abatement.

Some more shuffling of tenants near Lytle Park. Anyone able to read between the lines?

 

Champlin Architecture, which has been in the Woodford Building at 424 E. Fourth St. for 30 years, is in the process of signing a long-term lease for 13,000 square feet of space in the Sawyer Point Building. [...]

 

I asked Wurtenberger if the upcoming move had anything to do with Western & Southern Financial Group's plans for the Lytle Park area.

 

"Possibly," she said. Wurtenberger declined to elaborate.

Maybe W-S needs the office space for itself when it demo's the warehouse structure on the north side of 4th.  Let's hope so at least.  The Woodford Building is one of the best historic buildings in our downtown and losing it to some crappy condo tower would be a huge loss.   

Which building are you referring to when you say "warehouse structure?"

 

I'm really hoping the Woodford is saved. I know it has a lot of problems but integration into a new building would be preferred. Its two neighbors to the west are also nice but significantly less so. If they were removed it would still stink to watch them go but nowhere to the level of the Woodford.

Woodford will be demolished.  That's where Western & Southern is building their new headquarters.

Woodford will be demolished.  That's where Western & Southern is building their new headquarters.

 

Yep. There needs to be an effort to save at least the facade of that building and incorporate it into the new HQ.

W&S needs to be a way better corporate citizen.  Here they are completely ruining a district they originally helped create.  Its madening but proof that Cincinnati's cultural dysfunction goes to the very top.  To top it off they were also responsible for demoing Glencoe...

Yes, W&S believes that Lytle Park is their corporate campus, not a public park. They do not give a $#!+ about any of their neighbors (see Anna Louise Inn).

Glencoe had no chance of coming back. It was a failed development from essentially the beginning and no amount of private or public investment - if there was any, could have solved its issues.

W&S needs to be a way better corporate citizen.  Here they are completely ruining a district they originally helped create.  Its madening but proof that Cincinnati's cultural dysfunction goes to the very top.  To top it off they were also responsible for demoing Glencoe...

 

That company not only owns all of that land, they also own all of the local politicians.

 

I'm assuming that even though it's a privately-held company that CEO John Barrett and the other senior management is paid in stock.  So they're earning dividend income on that stock, then they get to sell it back to the company when they retire or later.  All of that income is taxed at a much lower rate than earned income.  There might even be separate stock for Eagle Realty.  I think John Barrett's ego is partly what is motivating all of this -- he gets to point at crap "he" built, then he personally profits from the rental income. 

 

Think back to 2008 when Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Bros, was motivated by his own personal greed to bet the bank's money on mortgages in early 2008 (the old "buy when others are scared" adage) and was out of a job in September, the bank and his own $500 million in Lehman stock crashing around him.  That's not going to happen with an insurance company like Western-Southern, but nevertheless due to payment with stock the senior management is motivated to make moves and take risks that it wouldn't otherwise. 

 

 

I wish it was company stock John Barrett was risking.  It's not.  If Queen City Square is any indication of the approach to financing they intend to take on the new corporate headquarters and office/residential tower on Lytle Park - it's taxpayers who are taking the risk.  QCS was never owned by W&S - yet they will be entitled to 100% of the profit when they announce the sale before the end of the year.  We're the ones on the line if the parking garage doesn't generate enough income to pay down the debt that will still be outstanding for the next 30 years.  W&S got all the guarantees:  the development fees, the management fees, & any profit.  Cincinnati assumed the risk.

Woodford will be demolished.  That's where Western & Southern is building their new headquarters.

 

WAIT!  by Woodford are you referring to the Guilford School Building?  Are you sure the plan is to demolish?  The Guilford is an awesome building, and the footprint of the WS garage, plus the Arch Street rowhouses is enough for a tall building. I cannot believe that this is the intention and that it is already accepted by some as fact.

No, the Guildford is the Guilford - and it is still contained within the Lytle Park Historic District.  There are no plans to demolish it.

 

When they refer to the Woodford, there are actually 5 buildings involved, 3 that front on Fourth and 2 smaller, unseen buildings behind them.  The actual Woodford is red bricked on the corner across from the Literary Club.  There's a little 2-3 story connector and then an International style annex next to the current headquarters.  Entrance is to be off of 4th.  According to John Barrett, the height of the new headquarters will be approximately the same as the P&G towers.

https://www.change.org/p/william-jung-iii-columbia-sussex-cease-plans-to-demolish-the-historic-bavarian-brewing-building/u/8567219?tk=yrc9Bi1i6L6fhPW1wBfGgmc9qqSt5ZGpz3HkW9K0cuM&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_update_email

 

The demolition has now been officially submitted, Review board will meet on November 4th. With brewing, distilling etc. booming in the region this seems like a perfect place for Bavarian Bourbon & Brewing or something. Columbia Sussex bet on Kentucky legalizing gambling, they were wrong, so why should we award them by letting them demolish this huge and historic building? I know that Covington is not really part of Cincinnati, but it is the lower case 'c' next to the 3 big C's so if you think this is important please send emails and sign the petition.

Looks like the Hannaford designed mansion at 400 Forest Avenue in Avondale could be looking at demolition at some point.

 

See here:  http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/avondale/historic-hannaford-mansion-in-avondale-could-be-demolished-to-make-way-for-new-development

And here:

 

Love the house.  Rough area though. 

 

I'm not a WCPO insider, so  I can only see the first part of this news story.

 

I would love to go back in time and see Forest Avenue in its prime.  There are many large beautiful homes that obviously are very run-down in their current state, but you can tell this was a beautiful street at some point in the past.

It's quite sad to see one of Samuel Hannaford's more creative residential designs now faced with demolition. The culprit here is not the house, which few would argue doesn't deserved to somehow be saved, but the location. Oddly, the idea seems to be that this long neglected area can only experience a rebirth if new development obliterates the old. But Cincinnati's city leaders seem almost giddy that developers are finally reshaping urban areas that were long neglected but for those who admire Cincinnati's incomparable wealth of historic architecture, it's an on-going preservation nightmare. I don't think such an acceleration of tear-downs has occurred in Cincinnati since the dismal days of urban renewal when entire neighborhoods like Kenyon-Barr were razed to make way for the Queensgate commercial district. Somehow, sometime, preservation-minded people in Cincinnati are going to have to draw a line and say "enough". The loss of the James Gamble house in Westwood was tragic but the odds were stacked against saving it almost from day one. I guess some short-sighted folks are so pleased to see Cincinnati's long neglected urban areas showing signs of redevelopment that they don't mind losing a few old homes here or a couple of ornate commercial buildings there. That's the price of "progress" right? But the attrition steadily adds up over time...when's the last time you followed in the footsteps of Mark Twain and marveled over the four miles of grand Gilded Age mansions that once made up Cleveland's fabled Euclid Avenue? Oh wait, all of that disappeared years and years ago. Nevermind. I don't know how to save this house and even if I did I'm not sure I could afford it, but I'd argue anything still standing designed by Samuel Hannaford, Cincinnati's most accomplished 19th century architect, deserves protection and preservation. Then again, much to the dismay of his legions of admirers, a fair number of Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural gems have been razed in the name of progress. If the works of arguably America's greatest architect couldn't be saved, what chance do the works of Cincinnati's greatest architect have? The dark, negative thought that only when historic architecture becomes rare in Cincinnati will the few survivors be protected is unconscionable; surely there is an acceptable condition where the old can co-exist beside the new. Most other great American cities have found a way to preserve the best of their historic architecture as well as promote new development. Why is it an "all or nothing" proposition in Cincinnati?

The owner of the Davis Furniture building on Main Street has a letter on Cincinnati.com today in which he attempts to justify his decision to tear down the building. There’s no mention of what they intend to do with the land afterwards, so my guess is on offering some free parking to their tenants. There’s no way they’d get a new building as large as Davis on that site for the $2.8 million they estimate the repairs to be, so apparently neither renovation or replacement is viable for them.

 

Their price is around $127 a square foot. I think that falls in line with the cost other similar properties throughout OTR are being renovated at. I don't think they'd be able to build new at that price, unless it was done on the cheap.

Well based on his lack of proper grammar in the title, "OTR Building Needs Demolished" it's not surprising that he doesn't understand the numbers he's throwing out. 2.8 million to renovate a building of that size is pretty on par with other buildings all over the neighborhood and could certainly turn a profit based on the average prices being reached in OTR.

 

Edit: Appears someone clued him in that there needed to be a "To Be" in that title.

Stough won't even publicly announce what they want for the building and will force prospective buyers to sign a confidentiality agreement before negotiating.

 

That is not working in good faith to save this building. A buyer with a very good track record has offered to give Stough all the money they have incurred this far and promised to rehab the building or revert ownership to the city. Stough won't discuss with this group unless they sign a confidentiality agreement. The group refuses to sign it. It's painfully obvious that Stough doesn't want the building saved. They bought it for the land it sits on.

The fact that they're also attempting to get the city to move the streetcar stop to be built there because it would bock a future curb cut is pretty telling of their plans for the site. Parking. That's it.

here is a really good description of what has happened so far with Davis Furniture.

 

http://preservethenati.com/curious-case-davis-furniture-building/

Marathon meeting determines historic OTR buildings will stay

Nov 4, 2014, 7:19am EST

Staff Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Two historic buildings in Over-the-Rhine won't be demolished after the Cincinnati Historic Conservation Board spent nearly seven hours discussing their future, WCPO reports.

 

The board voted Monday to deny the owner's request to demolish the Davis Furniture buildings near the corner of Central Parkway and Main Street.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2014/11/marathon-meeting-determines-historic-otr-buildings.html

I was happy to awake this morning to this news. These buildings (plus building on the surrounding parking lots) could be a really great gateway to OTR while riding in on the streetcar.

Get ready for a Smitty's-esque 4am fire. 

Hopefully this is the end of the fight, but it's probably not. Stough can still appeal.

 

The fact that Stough bought this building for $125k and is turning down offers to sell it for twice that amount... makes it pretty clear that they always intended to level the building and use it as a parking lot.

Zoning in OTR should be such that creating a new surface lot requires a (hard to get) variance. Isn't there anything in place that allows such a plan to be fought? I mean beyond fighting the demolition permit.

Is the old Mariemont Steam Plant finally coming down?

At the Mariemont  Village Council meeting on Monday, October 27th, Michael Heines, a developer from JAE Capital, indicated they had purchased and plan to tear down the old Steam Power Plant and convert a part of the approximately three acres into condos. These 18 condos would range in size between 1500 and 1800 square feet and sell for between $300,000 and $450,000 dollars.

http://www.mariemont.com/old-steam-power-plant-finally-coming/

 

Here are some photos of the Plant: http://savethesteamfactory.com/media.htm

Big warehouse in the Lockland split is being torn down this week. 

Stearns & Foster? Dammit.

Covington's Bavarian Brewery safe for now

 

These guys want $7mil for a building they contend needs to be demolished?

For those that may be interested, Four Landmark eligible structures in S Fairmount will be headed to demo next year UNLESS someone is interested in buying and moving them. YES for once we were able to pressure MSD and the city into at least trying to let something be saved.

 

More details about this on my blog:

http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2014/12/last-chance-looms-near-for-four.html

 

The two residential structures are both good candidates for move. The frame Queen Anne would be the cheapest to move and is one of ONLY three Queen Anne residential structures in S Fairmount, The other two are both on top of the hill in the Knox Hill neighborhood.  The commercial is not impossible as there are lots across and down the street. Anyone who would be interested I would advise to contact one of the nationally known building movers as local companies want 3-4 times what the people who do this nationally would charge.

 

The most important building is the convent building.The convent was designed by John F. Sheblessy, who was educated at the Chicago Art Institute and the Armour Institute of Technology. He practiced in Chicago and Louisville before moving to Cincinnati in 1907. Sheblessy designed several Roman Catholic churches and other institutional buildings in Cincinnati and its surrounding vicinity. This building is a long shot to move because of its size but if a corporate entity came along it would make excellent offices.

 

While MSD is likely viewing this as an "excruciating exercise" they have been 'forced' to do, for 106 compliance and don't expect anyone will be interested and they will bulldoze them, this is the FIRST time we have the county and city talking about at least allowing moving and saving something. They are becoming advertised nationally on HistoricProperties.com and several preservation blogs will be promoting the availability of these, so with national advertising there is a chance. With the city being viewed nationally as not pro preservation because of the Gamble house, Corryville, Glencoe and most recently the Arch street properties, this would be a good thing if at least one of these could be saved.

 

This is important because with the widening of Westwood some 30 buildings built between 1860-1890 will be lost and if we can set a precedent here, this would be useful don the road when we have to deal with those building being endangered.