They may not be architecturally significant by themselves, but they are significant as a whole because they present an unbroken street front in an area of downtown that has a block wide parking lot right next to it.

 

Density, density, density. Those buildings could be renovated into condo's very easily, or made into apartments etc...

 

I totally agree with that assessment.  They show what that corner of downtown was like 100 years ago.  The more old buildings we can preserve, the more authentic downtown seems.

This reminds me of a map I saw on the Building Cincinnati blog.  It shows the loss of buildings since 1930 in a section of OTR: 

 

 

Downtown has lost most of its buildings since 1930.  Is this what we want?

^ That map makes me sick to my stomach...

Parking was the use/argument when I previously read about the demolitions.

 

For what though?  The soon to be redone Poison Room?  Everything currently surrounding it has sufficient parking, and the Central Parking lot at 4th & Plum isn't seeing enough use to demand acquisition and demolition for another spec lot.

^ Unless the owner is betting on future success of downtown (and that particular section of downtown in particular) creating increased demand for parking in the area.  If the guy can demo the buildings cheaply enough, more parking could be very profitable if downtown continues to improve.  I certainly hope these buildings stay and get rehabbed somehow, though.

Can anyone in their right mind tell me why a parking lot would replace these buildings? Buildings are to your left. You see what is directly across the street, right?

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.09992,-84.517755&spn=0.001059,0.002368&t=h&z=19

 

Not only a ginormous surface lot, but next to it you have a parking garage. wtf?

Welcome to post WWII city planning.

 

We need to make room for the fleets of suburban SUV's when they caravan up to venture downtown.

^ Oh, there's plenty of room across the street. The problem is, that this (5th St. where buildings are) lot wouldn't make any money.

I know it, you could park the death star in that lot. The more room we make for surface parking the less interesting the city becomes. It's a cycle that has gone on for decades and things will just get worse unless the city takes a stand. Does anybody know of any taxes cincy levees against surface parking lots? Seems like an easy way to spur development.

 

Here's to hoping Cincy has a future without them.

 

Guess it's time to change my picture.

Parking was the use/argument when I previously read about the demolitions.

 

For what though? The soon to be redone Poison Room? Everything currently surrounding it has sufficient parking, and the Central Parking lot at 4th & Plum isn't seeing enough use to demand acquisition and demolition for another spec lot.

 

I don't think the article was that specific; it is killing me that I can't find it again.

 

Even with enough parking, we can't assume that a developer/speculator is sensible enough to recognize that fact.

 

 

Parking was the use/argument when I previously read about the demolitions.

 

For what though? The soon to be redone Poison Room? Everything currently surrounding it has sufficient parking, and the Central Parking lot at 4th & Plum isn't seeing enough use to demand acquisition and demolition for another spec lot.

 

I don't think the article was that specific; it is killing me that I can't find it again.

 

Even with enough parking, we can't assume that a developer/speculator is sensible enough to recognize that fact.

 

 

 

You're stating, it is not ridiculous to offer a product to a customer base if they are already being served ... I say no too, CVS and Walgreens come to mind, but what we're talking about is a Wal-Mart Supercenter literally 40 ft. from a Mom & Pop Butcher Shop. Who's going down?

You're stating, it is not ridiculous to offer a product to a customer base if they are already being served ...

 

I never said it wasn't ridiculous; I said developers may fail to realize that it is.

You're stating, it is not ridiculous to offer a product to a customer base if they are already being served ...

 

I never said it wasn't ridiculous; I said developers may fail to realize that it is.

 

I doubt that. The fact that they're sitting on these buildings to begin with says enough. I'm not a property investor and even I wouldn't tear these down for a surface lot when one sits across the street.

 

As someone who seriously considered buying a condo at Williamson and that looked at these over and over, the biggest problem that area has to work with is the fact that they have a fire-station a few buildings down. If they have new construction with soundproof walls/windows, this would be a different story.

I don't even really see how parking there would make any money for several years.  If the land is already owned (a big if), the demolition and paving costs would be at least a couple hundred grand, and that site could not hold that many cars.  It would be quite a while before they saw a return and it would be miniscule at best.

I just PM'd presOhio to see if he can find the information from Preservation Ohio/My Hometown Ohio.

 

My thought is that the parking was to accompany adjacent development, not be a pay lot.

I found this old article relating to a previous development plan for some of the buildings, I don't know what became of it other than it obviously fizzled.

 

Dellinger dealing condos and more on West Fifth

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Andy Hemmer

 

Denny Dellinger has been spotted wearing a new hat around town.  And, Dellinger will admit, he kinda likes the look.  An architect by trade, Dellinger has donned a developer's hat for some fairly major doings near the end of West Fifth Street in downtown Cincinnati, between the Spy Club and a Cincinnati Fire Department station.

 

Dellinger has three buildings under contract, 305, 309 and 325 West Fifth St., which the Silverton-based architect plans to redevelop into a mix of condominiums and retail/commercial space.  The project is literally steps from the Albert B. Sabin Cincinnati Convention Center, located right across the street.

 

One of the first components of Dellinger's vision, besides closing on the sales, is building a stairwell within 305 West Fifth St., a building connected to 309 West Fifth St.  Both buildings have been used as a warehouse for years by their owner, the Burton Kleinman family of Cincinnati, which also owns Old Town Medical Center, a tenant in 305 West Fifth. Kleinman recently died and the business is being run by his family.

 

Read full article here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2001/08/13/newscolumn1.html

Denny now lives in Dubai, so i doubt he is doing this job

The city of Cincinnati is planning to bulldoze 4 Historic Italianate Brick homes 833-839 Bank Street. These four homes are directly behind historic Dayton Street which has some of the best and most expensive restored homes in the city. These homes which have been vacant for years are restorable and should be preserved. Apparently the city is unwilling to try and work out a

compromise. These homes are important and should be saved and someone at the city needs to be held accountable.

http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS305&q=839+Bank+Street+Cincinnati&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=image

Why are they being bulldozed?

Why are they being bulldozed?

 

Apparently ciity legal and the owner of the property dont get along. The buildings are structurally fine but being vacant are attracting problems, Nothing that couldnt be solved if they were sold and restored.

 

Why any city would tear down 4 historic buildings just amazes me.

Is it too late to do anything?  I'm sure there are several people that would be willing to help save these buildings from the wrecking ball if they had the chance.  What would you recommend?

Is there more to the story?  I wouldn't think the city could just demolish them without consent of the property owner.

Dan B :The city and the property owner have been going back and forth since 06. They have been boarded for some time. City has cut the power and disconnected utlities so it on the demo list. I canmt imagine the owner at this point wouldnt be willing to sell or give them away rather than them be torn down ata  cost of about 10 grand a piece and then teh city is stuck with 4 vacant lots that arent generating any taxes.

 

Uncle Rando: I have so far contacted the National Trust to ask it be on their Presrvation 911 site. I sent an email to local preservation and have no reply form them yet. Ive even let several people know I'd donate my time to write a comprehensive restoration plan if they can be saved. The whole thing may boil down to getting city legal and the owner to reach a compromise. Maybe let him put them up for sale with a protective covenant that new owners must pull permits in 30 days or something like that.

 

I also put it on my blog and I got emails from several local people who said they would be interested in them, so I dont know, I hope someone at local historic preservation gets back to me.

I also put it on my blog and I got emails from several local people who said they would be interested in them, so I don't know, I hope someone at local historic preservation gets back to me.

 

Got a link for your blog?

Those are beautiful houses.  I hope something can be done.  Welcome to UrbanOhio, RestorationConsultant.

West End buildings doomed

By Kevin LeMaster, Building Cincinnati, January 8, 2008

 

A group of West End buildings is doomed, so you should go say your goodbyes as soon as possible.

 

Permits are in route to demolish the buildings at 833-839 Bank Street, all built between 1845 and 1880.

 

The structures have had their utlities shut off for several years, and the grounds have become centers for drug sales, prostitution, and illegal dumping.*

 

[see the URL for the rest of the entry.]

Uncle Rando: my blog is http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/

 

Other updates: I started sending emails to council members to see if anyone at the city wanted to take responsibility for this and why these kinds of demolitions were being done without public input or oversite from the council?.

 

I also posted this on a national historic architecture site and got several responses.

 

I emailed the National Trust for Historic Preservation today and asked the properties be listed on their "Preservation 911" site

Cincinnati realty firm seeks to raze historic buildings for Christ Hospital

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/01/12/story6.html

 

A holding company for the Christ Hospital wants to raze two apartment buildings in a Mount Auburn historic district to make way for a future expansion of the hospital.

 

“They’re arguing that it is financially infeasible to do anything with those properties, including sell them to somebody else who would develop them. But at the same time they’re making that argument, they’re saying we’re unwilling to offer these properties for sale on the open market,” Morgan said. “It makes their argument the perfect test case for what they want to do.”

 

Mike Morgan summed it up nicely. 

 

As for the claim they spent more on maintenance than they could make in rent: there are dozens of apartment buildings like this around the Mt. Auburn and Clifton areas that operate in the green every year.  If they can't manage to make a profit, they should probably try and sell to someone who can properly manage the property.

 

Check these images out on the auditor's page, and you'll see it's hard to believe these buildings are too dilapidated to be profitable:

 

 

Do you have any idea what a restoration for one of these structures would roughly cost? I know it can range widely, but just an idea of what it would cost to make it inhabitable?

It would be terrible to loose either of these especially the one closer to the hospital. I know that someone else could make these profitable. Like it has already been said this is one person pulling some b.s. to get what he wants.

Historic Bank Street Demolitions (update)

http://www.urbancincy.com/2009/02/historic-bank-street-demolitions-update.html

 

Several weeks ago local and regional preservationists united in an attempt to raise awareness of a potential demolition of four historic buildings in Cincinnati's West End neighborhood. Emails were sent, calls were made, and awareness was reached to a certain extent.

 

Paul Wilham led these efforts locally and did not have much luck in getting a response back from the Mayor's office on the matter. I sent my own email out on January 9th to all nine members of City Council and the Mayor's office. Last week I got a response from Council member Leslie Ghiz (thank you) that included comments from the City's Code Enforcement Division and Historic Preservation Department.

 

In the response there were several pieces of useful information. Code Enforcement clarified that the City primarily funds its demolitions with Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). This money is not allowed to be used in demolitions that might have an "adverse impact on a historic structure" as is the case for the Bank Street properties (Streetview). As a result of this contingency, the City engages in very little demolition work of historic structures.

 

In the particular case here it is the private owner who is preparing to demolish these structures - not the City. The current owners, the Reed family, have applied for the demolition permits and can go forth with the demolitions as planned unless something extraordinary happens.

 

The Reed family has been the subject of code enforcement actions in the past. Criminal prosecution even occurred in relation to compliance issues for 839 Bank Street. As a result the City has attempted to secure the buildings by barricading them on seven different instances since 2006. The Division cites that they have "no immediate plans to demolish these buildings by governmental action," and that the owner can choose to either demolish the structures as they currently have planned, or they can bring the properties into compliance through repair.

 

The question was then asked if approval is needed, from the Historic Conservation Office, for private demolition in this historic district. The response was that in this particular case the answer appears to be "no."

Even if they get saved, who would live there? The whole area looks like a wasteland.  Definitely a shame to see them go, but I think realistically, it's the best option.

I'm totally unfamiliar with the area.  Any chance these could be moved to nearby lots?

 

/edit: just saw the pictures.  Those are enormous.  Not sure if they could be successfully moved after all.  Too bad infill housing around these isn't an option.  We only have so many buildings like this in the area, and once they're gone, they're gone.

The neighhborhood is not "that" bad.  I could live there.  Unfortuntately there are maybe a hundred buildings like this in the neighboring blocks of OTR/Westend.  The whole situation is a disaster, but I am glad people are starting to protest.

Some updates: Cincinnati allows a private property owner to pull their own demo permit and its the owner that will demo. In my opinion a major loophome the city needs to close. Demolition should  ONLY be done by a contractor with bonding and insurance If property owners knew they have to pay a demo contactor 10-15K per building then they might not let them get run down. This is a historic area but not restricted.

 

I have been told by someone who had a converation with the owners, if someone would step forward they would sell, I imagine, not for much. The ideal use would be back as single family, there are homes on Dayton Street directly behind this block that are worth over 250K and some of the smaller homes have sold for 100-150K. I think a developer could restore the two smaller houses as single family and possibly convert the 2 larger ones into condos. You could get 3 nice units per building. It would be a viable project. There are vacant lots that are on the block where you could build new infill townhomes. Given its right off Central Parkway and minutes to downtown , this should be a "no brainer" for a savvy developer.

In MLS only 3 properties have sold over $150,000 in the last 11 years.  The highest was $185,000.

 

I discovered this area in the mid 90's and always thought it would be a great area to be turned around, but it has yet to happen.

 

For an area like this to improve, it would take developers going in and buying up every single property on about 3-4 blocks.  Then vacating every building and starting from scratch, but using the shells as the framework for a new city village, etc.

 

I haven't seen any improvements at all since the mid 90's.  These 4 buildings in question are not even worth the time.

 

Just like OTR...  you have to go in and buy a lot of the area to turn it around.  One house at a time will take decades and then some for improvement.

Not exactly pending demolitions, but I thought this would be a good article to share here...

 

As some historic complexes fall apart, expanded uses breathe life into others

Renovations, ruins

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/02/23/focus2.html

 

Procter & Gamble, Crosley, Milacron, Hudepohl, United States Playing Card.

 

They’re the companies that embodied Cincinnati’s emergence as an industrial and consumer goods powerhouse in the first half of the 20th century.

 

^ Those are some of my favorite buildings in Cincinnati.  Hudepohl and Crosley are by far the worst off (except for Milecron, of course; most of the significant parts are gone already). 

 

I have been very interested in doing a research project of sorts on the Crosley Building and have also tried to contact the owners at Hosea a few times, they have never responded.  They pay a lot in taxes on the place to seemingly not care about it at all.  It's not used at all, and basically filled with left-behind stuff from the former tenants.  The building has huge potential, though, as the article points out.  It's not the easiest to get to, but not extremely difficult via Hopple Street from I-75, or Spring Grove.  If the huge Kahn's building around the corner (surprised this one wasn't in the article) gets renovated into a recylcing center as mentioned in the forum elsewhere, it could bring some livlihood back into the neighberhood.  Machine Flats is next door as well.

The other challenge with some of these buildings which isn't mentioned is the problem of environmental contamination. I have to imagine that the Crosley Bldg and the Playing Card building could both have serious lead issues among others. 

My inside source tells me there were talks to convert the US Playing Card complex into condos when the move was finalized, but I doubt that's still an option.  It's a very complex complex so surely some of it will be demo'd.  They still have a coal fired power plant that used to sell extra power to parts of Norwood.  Hard to believe that there was a time when businesses independently sold extra electricity to neighbors but apparently there was. 

Playing Card does have a fair number of recent and not particularly valuable building on site. Saving the main building would be most important. I wonder if Seimens might grab some of their land since they have basically filled up their site at this point.

Is this the site?    I have no idea.

 

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qhsv5t7ywv4p&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=35160441&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

^ Yes, that is it (Playing Card).  The tower and central building are the landmarks, if you will.

 

I have compiled a bit of architectural history on some of Cincinnati's large-scale buildings that have the looming threat of demolition. I have a few books, as well as old photos and current photos for Glencoe Place, the Crosley Building, and a mis-mash of a few other buildings. I've been thinking about getting a blog going for awhile that will focus on the history and architectural importance of thse places, lest they ever be demo'd.

 

Would it be worth compiling the photos and info? Would there be any interest in that?

^I'd think so.  If you have the time please do.

^I'd think so.  If you have the time please do.

 

http://zfein.blogspot.com/

I've compiled some of the information I had on Glencoe Place (which I consider may be a demolition threat if the developer can't get things rolling soon) on my blog above.  I have a few historic plans, maps, and photos as well as some excerpts from a report I once did on the history.

I know these are rough but.. hopefully they can be saved. They are in my hood.

 

Just got this message from a friend.

 

 

 

 

We just found out that the owners of 440 and 442 Liberty Hill Street areconsidering demolishing the buildings. We expect that they will use an economic hardship argument and try to make the case that they are not feasible to rehab. These modest working-class buildings are among the oldest in the neighborhood and have great historical importance. They are among the few survivors of the original housing stock of OTR and Prospect Hill, most of which was replaced by larger and more elaborate buildings. They need a great deal of work but would be manageable renovation projects because they aresmall. Two similar houses nearby, one of which was suggested for our 2006 ProspectHill house tour, have been beautifully renovated and could serve as models. So far it appears the owners have not yet contacted the Historic Conservation Office with the demolition request.

 

 

THIS!????

440 and 442 is the wood frame duplex just to the left of the brick one you just posted.