If that's true, how do we bring that to the historic board attention? And I feel there should be some legal damage for that person if it's true that they are guilty of intentionally trying to damage a historic building in order to demolish it.

The link has a template email to send to the Director of Buildings and Inspections. I edited this and sent it. I suggest we all do the same. We cannot afford to lose anymore of our history (Especially to parking lots).

 

Thanks.  I emailed him.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/01/28/potential-demolition-of-building-in-downtown.html

Changed hands 2 weeks ago. Business Courier couldn't confirm who was in charge of the LLC that currently owns the building. I didn't see anything on CAGIS indicating they received a permit to do work. So if they were cutting into the floors to add a new staircase, that was likely illegal.

^ The Business Courier may have updated the article, but it states that Diamond said he is still the owner despite the transfer to the LLC (it must be his LLC).

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/01/28/potential-demolition-of-building-in-downtown.html

 

If there were a "Law and Order: Code Enforcement" show this would be a perfect case for it.

 

It could be an illegal construction accident, but both the owner (Diamond) and the adjacent property owner (Kulkarni) have good reasons to want the building gone. Kulkarni also has enough knowledge to know that the building can bypass any reviews if it needs an emergency demolition, and he knows what leads to emergency demolitions. Diamond could want to get rid of the building and sell to Kulkarni to settle the lawsuit about falling debris, something he is now at fault for since his earlier lawsuit against Kulkarni awarded gim $65k that was supposed to be spent to stabalize the exterior wall of his building, but wasn't.

 

 

The city was originally going to pursue criminal charges against the current owner but then said they would wave them if they demolished the building immediately. Now with the push back, I'm not sure what's going to happen. I just hope if it is demolished, Kulkarni doesn't get it because he's a sleazeball.

^That's basically incentivizing anyone with an historic structure to side step the demolition approval process by starting demo on their own.  There should be criminal charges unless the current owner stabilizes the building immediately (or sells/transfers it to something like 3CDC).  Otherwise, what's the point of even having an Historic Conservation Board?

Agreed. It's extremely rare for the city to pursue criminal charges in cases of demolition by neglect, unfortunately. Demolition by incompetence or malicious intent should be pursued with criminal charges every time. Hopefully the building is stabilized.

When I think of this guy, I think of John Cranley, and off line hand shakes and head nods...

Agreed. It's extremely rare for the city to pursue criminal charges in cases of demolition by neglect, unfortunately. Demolition by incompetence or malicious intent should be pursued with criminal charges every time. Hopefully the building is stabilized.

 

Agreed.  I wish they pursued it for demolition by neglest as well, especially in hot areas like OTR and the CBD where people are actively looking for properties to acquire and restore.

Just saw this cross-posted in the Cincinnati & Historic Preservation thread:

 

 

Building that witnessed both of A. Lincoln's elections is being torn down. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/02/08/city-decides-fate-of-historic-fifth-street.html

The demolition of historic Uptown buildings to make room for new McHousing continues.

 

 

Click here if you dare to see the "after"...

At the Board of Housing Appeals this morning, I learned that 108 W Third St is condemned and seems like the owners want to get a permit to demolish it.

 

Here is the Auditor's report of 108: http://wedge3.hcauditor.org/view/re/1450001029000/2015/summary

 

The same LLC also owns the adjacent building at 112 W Third St: http://wedge3.hcauditor.org/view/re/1450001028900/2015/summary

 

An affiliated LLC also owns the vacant parcel where they demolished the former historic building at 116 W Third: http://wedge3.hcauditor.org/view/re/1450001028800/2015/summary

 

The three properties are all owned by LLCs affiliated with <a href="http://www.cincybar.org/news-resources/legal-directory.php/18370">Robert S Brown at 2199 Victory Parkway</a>. So I'm assuming they want to tear down both 112 and 108, which - if they assembled all three parcels -would create an 81'x100' parcel.

 

The <a href="http://wedge3.hcauditor.org/view/re/1450001029100/2015/summary">108'x100' surface parking lot</a> at the corner of Race St is owned by a Nashville-based LLC.

 

If the parking lot and the three Robert Brown parcels were combined, it would create a 189'x100' parcel.

So can we infer that there is some large development in the future for these combined parcels? Or do we have another Dennison situation on our hands?

Probably another Dennison situation. Neglect the building, claim you have no choice but to demolish it, turn it into a parking lot in the hopes that some development plan will materialize in the distant future.

I don't know anything about the parking lot, so this is pure speculation. Robert Brown has owned his properties going back to 2000. The Nashville owner of the parking lot bought it in 2008 for $1.25 million, and they might simply want it for the parking revenue. But $1.25m is a lot to pay for 40 parking spaces ($31,250/space), so perhaps they had originally planned on building a tower on that parcel... but then the recession kept dragging on and the real estate market dried out.

 

 

Isn't the Nashville based group a subsidiary of Drury? Drury planned a combo hotel/residential tower of pretty substantial height on that parking lot in addition to the Pogue's building just north of it. I can't recall the architect though who designed so I can't find the site with images of that site.

I live in an apartment building behind these buildings. The roof access on one of the buildings was left open about 1.5 years ago and I've watched the roof slowly rot and couldn't do anything about it. I'm sure it was intentional.

Isn't the Nashville based group a subsidiary of Drury? Drury planned a combo hotel/residential tower of pretty substantial height on that parking lot in addition to the Pogue's building just north of it. I can't recall the architect though who designed so I can't find the site with images of that site.

 

I think the Drury proposal was for the east side of Race St. (The parking lot we're talking about is on the west side).

 

Here was some discussion on the "Drury" site a couple of years ago: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=333.msg701571#msg701571

 

Oh whoops, I totally misread something upthread. Carry on.

Meanwhile, at the Davis Furniture building...

 

If you ever get near the Dennison it might be beneficial to get some roof close up images just to see if anything "funky" was going on up there the week the tarp went up. I'd hate to think that they put holes in it to attach any of the support cables. Keep on flying! I love the updates and the new views of the city. For my own amusement i turned some of your other pics into tilt shift images since the angle and subject matter is perfect for it.

Meanwhile, at the Davis Furniture building...

 

What a waste that half a block is.  Main and 12th are hugely popular streets yet there's nothing there. 

Honestly, if the demolition of the Davis Furniture building meant the new construction of an L shaped building that fronted both Main and 12th, I'd support it.  Both of those open parcels around it are fairly small for new construction, and the Davis building itself really isn't very ornate or special, imo.

Who owns the parking lot along 12th?

Who owns the parking lot along 12th?

Salvation Army.

Who owns the parking lot along 12th?

Salvation Army.

 

So, they don't pay any taxes on it?

Who owns the parking lot along 12th?

Salvation Army.

 

So, they don't pay any taxes on it?

 

Presumably they pay zero taxes. 

 

I assume then that the lot facing Central Parkway used to be Davis's lot?  I remember the store being open but never went in it.  The famous bowling pin painting on the side was quite faded in the 90s but then was repainted around 2001, pretty much exactly as it had been before.  Then the store closed around 2005.  It looked pretty similar to the furniture store that is still open on Findlay Market or the comically outdated "Home Furnishings" store in DT Hamilton that my friend from high school inherited a year before Ikea opened and put it out of business. 

 

 

 

Who owns the parking lot along 12th?

Salvation Army.

 

So, they don't pay any taxes on it?

 

Looks like they don't pay any property taxes:

http://wedge3.hcauditor.org/view/re/0750004016300/2015/payment_details

 

Honestly, if the demolition of the Davis Furniture building meant the new construction of an L shaped building that fronted both Main and 12th, I'd support it.  Both of those open parcels around it are fairly small for new construction, and the Davis building itself really isn't very ornate or special, imo.

 

My main rationale for saving the Davis is actually to prevent such a scenario from happening. IMO the buildings of the past where built to a smaller scale which was better for walkability and keeping the pedestrian engaged but was also economically more robust because many different property owners were involved. It may be wishful thinking on my part but I think a new smaller multi unit residential building being built next to the Davis at Main and Central Parkway would be a sign that our economy and downtown are really in a roll as opposed to a larger, subsidized half block development.  This guy said it better here:

 

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/12/7/best-of-2015-granularity

 

I think the same argument applies to saving the Dennison.

I would love to see a developer buy up the entire block and build something there. The new building could actually be quite substantial, since the historic guideline is +/- 1 story from neighboring buildings, and both the Alms & Doepke and Emery Buildings are quite tall. In a dream world, there could be a very tall building between Central Parkway and the alley, and a slightly shorter building between the alley and 12th, so that it "steps down" towards OTR.

 

With that being said, I am 100% opposed to the Davis being demolished until a developer comes forward with a plan showing what will replace it.

I think part of that block is zoned DD which means the guidelines may not dictate as strictly the parts of the block along Central Parkway. I could see a Texas donut style development with a garage in the middle ringed by outbuildings or topped by apartments. The front parts of the Davis would stay and a taller building would enfront Central Parkway with a shorter 4-5 story building along Main and 12th.

Does the salvation army own that parking lot on 12th and main? Would love to see some infill developed there to help continue reinforce that wall of structures currently there .

In the latest Historic Convervation Board Packet (from Oct 26), the board denied a request to demolish 1349 E McMillan. The property is owned (through an LLC) by St. Ursula Academy, and they wanted to demolish the building to create more surface parking.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/oct-26-2015-packet/

 

I just noticed that 1349 has been demolished.

 

According to the aerial images from the Auditor's site, it was demolished some time before March 6. I know the HCB staff recommended denying the demolition approval in November. But I don't know how the HCB Board voted. Are those votes recorded somewhere?

 

Here's the aerial imagery showing the demolition: http://wedge3.hcauditor.org/view/re/0630002003300/2015/aerial_imagery_full

I was going to post this exact thing.  I work close by and noticed this.  I wasn't certain when they actually demolished it because it is always kitty corner from where I turn left onto Woodburn going back home, but I did notice in the last few weeks that they just finished the parking lot.

 

Maybe this would be good for someone to shoot an e-mail to the city to see what is going on and if by any chance they don't come back with a good answer, take it to the Enquirer for a juicy story from Bodweya (sp?)

The number of demolitions of truly beautiful historic buildings in this region is starting to make me physically ill. Uptown does not seems to care the slightest bit about historic preservation. The Christy's mansion, the Uptown Properties demolition in Mt. Auburn, and now this. Downtown, we lost the Arch Street houses and the Joseph family is trying to tear down the Dennison. Even suburban areas like Milford and Loveland, which have a lot fewer historic buildings, are OK with demolishing the ones they have.

 

I know a lot of us OTR boosters get criticized for focusing so much on OTR and not getting involved in what's happening in other neighborhoods. But I feel like OTR is the only neighborhood in the region that's actually getting historic preservation right (maybe with some exceptions in Northern Kentucky). It's too heartbreaking to get involved with these historic preservation battles in other neighborhood where it seems like the community councils aren't trying to fight it and the developers are going to get their way.

^ Or in Corryville where the Developer IS the Community Council. A hopeless fight, and one mans vision for an entirely new and condo-ized Corryville without any historic fabric becomes the plan. I'm actually surprised Meckelenburg Gardens is still there to be honest.

 

Honestly I think the fact that there IS so much of it really hurts preservation efforts, as paradoxical as it seems. This, coupled with the fact that Cincinnatians don't seem to travel much to see that their collection of historic buildings is actually something very unique, makes it all but impossible to convince many people that it's worth saving. To them, it's "old and worthless" and any new development, no matter how schlocky and terrible, is considered an upgrade just by virtue of its newness. If people would realize that there really is nothing like these neighborhoods elsewhere in the country, they might have more of a fighting chance, but the region needs to see the inherent value in these old buildings first. Uptown is going to struggle the most with this because the two groups of people who are probably going to care the least about historic preservation are college students and absentee landlords.

 

By and large, people don't have to fight these fights in other cities. Columbus gets it, and Cleveland has started to get it - hell, they completely rebuilt one of the Playhouse Square lobbies that burned down fifty years ago to its original grandeur (not to mention the Heinens and everything else along Euclid). There should be this level of activism in Cincinnati, which has far and away the best collection of historic urban fabric in this part of the country, but no one will step up to the plate. We shouldn't be fighting battles of the Dennison, or over Union Terminal for f**k's sake. Who in their right mind would actually say "it's an old drain on finances, tear it down?" It's one kind of unforgiveable when we lose places like the West End, but when we have people in this region who don't even care about Union Terminal and Music Hall, it's a very, very difficult war to fight.

There are a ton of books at the Cincinnati and even Columbus libraries that show the history of demolition in Cincinnati and of what was lost, but I think sometimes Cincinnatians don't have that inner curiosity about what things looked like. Cincinnati's oral history is so strong compared to other cities that the visuals don't get examined as well. The old main library was a total trip inside but it seems like not that many people have seen pictures considering the reaction it gets out of people. In contrast, every Columbusite has seen pictures of Ohio Stadium being constructed.

I think in other cities there is a legitimate debate about historic preservation vs. neighborhood affordability, but here we just tear things down for damn parking lots.

Right, in a lot of cities, including Columbus, that kind of mandatory debate began in the '80s. I can only think of 1-2 buildings that came down in Columbus that maybe shouldn't have in the past 15 years.

Also, there has been a "for sale" sign in front of the mansion at the corner of McMillan and Auburn for several months now.  It sez "development site".  This is directly across from the small church that was demolished last year. 

The number of demolitions of truly beautiful historic buildings in this region is starting to make me physically ill. Uptown does not seems to care the slightest bit about historic preservation. The Christy's mansion, the Uptown Properties demolition in Mt. Auburn, and now this. Downtown, we lost the Arch Street houses and the Joseph family is trying to tear down the Dennison. Even suburban areas like Milford and Loveland, which have a lot fewer historic buildings, are OK with demolishing the ones they have.

 

I know a lot of us OTR boosters get criticized for focusing so much on OTR and not getting involved in what's happening in other neighborhoods. But I feel like OTR is the only neighborhood in the region that's actually getting historic preservation right (maybe with some exceptions in Northern Kentucky). It's too heartbreaking to get involved with these historic preservation battles in other neighborhood where it seems like the community councils aren't trying to fight it and the developers are going to get their way.

 

I still get ill thinking about Glencoe. 

We've already destroyed plenty of this beautiful city.

 

Honestly I think the fact that there IS so much of it really hurts preservation efforts, as paradoxical as it seems. This, coupled with the fact that Cincinnatians don't seem to travel much to see that their collection of historic buildings is actually something very unique, makes it all but impossible to convince many people that it's worth saving. To them, it's "old and worthless" and any new development, no matter how schlocky and terrible, is considered an upgrade just by virtue of its newness. If people would realize that there really is nothing like these neighborhoods elsewhere in the country, they might have more of a fighting chance, but the region needs to see the inherent value in these old buildings first. Uptown is going to struggle the most with this because the two groups of people who are probably going to care the least about historic preservation are college students and absentee landlords.

 

By and large, people don't have to fight these fights in other cities. Columbus gets it, and Cleveland has started to get it - hell, they completely rebuilt one of the Playhouse Square lobbies that burned down fifty years ago to its original grandeur (not to mention the Heinens and everything else along Euclid). There should be this level of activism in Cincinnati, which has far and away the best collection of historic urban fabric in this part of the country, but no one will step up to the plate. We shouldn't be fighting battles of the Dennison, or over Union Terminal for f**k's sake. Who in their right mind would actually say "it's an old drain on finances, tear it down?" It's one kind of unforgiveable when we lose places like the West End, but when we have people in this region who don't even care about Union Terminal and Music Hall, it's a very, very difficult war to fight.

 

I would argue that Cleveland still doesn't get it. There are literally disappearing neighborhoods in the outer ring urban neighborhoods of cleveland. Lets not forget that whole casino debacle either. Cleveland is just as bad as Cincy.

 

Alot of Cincinnatians and Americans think historic american architecture is very samey, and boring. Lack of details, and very plain to the eye. I can understand that in some ways. Definitely lacks the grandiosity in fine intimate details of historic European architecture. Plus every historic building in Cincinnati you can most likely find similar buildings in Columbus or Cleveland or NYC, or Boston. There's not that level of culture in it's architecture that so many European countries have. There's nothing unique so to speak, nothing that a Cincinnatian can identify with and point out that is completely unique to there city in terms of architecture. You can find Italianate historic structures in literally any east coast city you travel to.

 

That's why I think there's a lack of care in some respects to historic old buildings, they are every where in america (not a dying breed so to speak where you can only travel to X part of the country to see such buildings), and antiquated in many average people eyes. Plus there's a lack of culture IMO. Many of us are german, and the city of cincinnati is many our grandfathers and great grandparents grew up in and established there roots. I think that many cincinnatians have an identity crisis, and can't really relate to Cincinnati and there own personal history and culture. A void, so to speak.

 

That said the craftsman ship in just the pure brick work is leagues upon anything we have now.

 

 

So much got built in Ohio from 1880-1930 that some repetition was unavoidable.

Its so crazy how blind Cincinnati is to its architectural treasure.  Every other city that has it in the US seems to recognize and celebrate it a lot more.  I do see signs of hope towards change though - it seems that younger folks in Cincy are much more proactive towards realizing how important the cities historic treasure is.  Preservation groups in other cities have this stereotype of being "old ladies clubs" but I've noticed in Cincy some of the best preservation advocates have been folks my age and younger.

 

Being from closer to Dayton originally I guess gave me an insider and outsiders perspective, inside enough to Cincinnati to understand the city mentality but outsider enough to realize what's wrong with it.

 

10 years ago the Dennison would have gone down without even a fight.  Things are moving in the right direction, I just hope it isn't too late.  Wish more of Walnut Hills especially had been saved.

Its so crazy how blind Cincinnati is to its architectural treasure.  Every other city that has it in the US seems to recognize and celebrate it a lot more.  I do see signs of hope towards change though - it seems that younger folks in Cincy are much more proactive towards realizing how important the cities historic treasure is.  Preservation groups in other cities have this stereotype of being "old ladies clubs" but I've noticed in Cincy some of the best preservation advocates have been folks my age and younger.

 

Being from closer to Dayton originally I guess gave me an insider and outsiders perspective, inside enough to Cincinnati to understand the city mentality but outsider enough to realize what's wrong with it.

 

10 years ago the Dennison would have gone down without even a fight.  Things are moving in the right direction, I just hope it isn't too late.  Wish more of Walnut Hills especially had been saved.

 

I think what your going to end up having is most of OTR salvaged, the OLD West End will follow through when OTR gets built out. Brighton/Mohawk district will be salvaged as well as part of the OTR, "Super Block", along side Pendelton as well.

 

The problem is that millennials are very passionate for OTR, and will do anything to save any structure in that district. But if it's a historic building in Walnut Hills there's not many care's given. I don't understand how this big disconnect came about, but millennials are very territorial nowadays with preservation, and right now they only thing they care about is preserving OTR.

 

Which I get. There's nothing like OTR. There's nothing like it's narrow streets, and hidden alleyways. It's really special, and Walnut Hills lacks that super star gloss that OTR has. But still preservation should apply to every neighborhood, and favoritism towards one particular neighborhood over the other is BS.

 

But sadly that's currently how it is. Lots of love for millennials and OTR. Other neighborhoods, not so much...

In my opinion, historic preservation only really matters when you can save a whole street or whole district worth of buildings. Of course there are exceptions where a single, historically significant building should be saved. But in general, what we want to save is the historic feeling of the neighborhood.

 

In a neighborhood like Corryville where entire blocks are being demolished for low quality student housing, why even bother to fight that fight? Uptown Properties has the time and money to fight the historic preservationists, and even if we win, we might save 1 block of buildings in a neighborhood that's full of junk like VP3. It makes much more sense to focus our effort on areas where we can actually have an impact and start to send a message to developers: "You can not demolish an historic building in OTR. Period."

In my opinion, historic preservation only really matters when you can save a whole street or whole district worth of buildings. Of course there are exceptions where a single, historically significant building should be saved. But in general, what we want to save is the historic feeling of the neighborhood.

 

In a neighborhood like Corryville where entire blocks are being demolished for low quality student housing, why even bother to fight that fight? Uptown Properties has the time and money to fight the historic preservationists, and even if we win, we might save 1 block of buildings in a neighborhood that's full of junk like VP3. It makes much more sense to focus our effort on areas where we can actually have an impact and start to send a message to developers: "You can not demolish an historic building in OTR. Period."

 

Very true.

 

I also think that at the end of the day that many young cincinnatians are finally realizing how important OTR is to our culture of Cincinnati. OTR isn't just a neighborhood, but rather a vital lifeline to our past. It's history is profound, and the buildings become more than just old and antiquated buildings, but rather a key connection to our past and history.

 

Other neighborhoods struggle establishing that identity that OTR has been able to establish recently with our millienials. I really think it's because it's not just about the architecture, but it's also about being able to live in a neighborhood that has so much history and meaning that OTR has to Cincinnati.

 

I think at the end of the day, I'll trade a 100% fully rehabbed OTR/Pendelton/Old West End/Mohawk/Brighton district, and be perfectly fine with losing everything else. There's nothing like OTR in cincinnati. No other neighborhood compares to it's beauty, and it's street layout, and it's history. Oh and the views! Certain houses on mulberry street over look above all of OTR, and downtown cincinnati. It's so damn priceless, and on a crisp sunrise there's nothing more beautiful to witness the sunrise against the historic brick row houses and church steeples.

 

  No other neighborhood holds the sheer magnitude of potential that OTR holds. OTR is a neighborhood time capsule that is rare to find nowadays in the midwest, and is continually disappearing in other major cities, and I promise you that it will become a premier attraction for our city when everything is built out and gentrified.

 

I've grown to become a preservationist through my discovery and love for OTR. But I'll admit, my love for Cincinnati is really only because of  my discovery of OTR. It's that special of a neighborhood for me, and I'm literally obsessed with the potential it holds (in terms of rehabilitation and infill and just continued gentrification northwards).

 

But it still saddens me regardless to see continue destruction of other neighborhoods, especially when it's for surface lots or ugly infill.