The original version was almost all glass storefront on the first floor (think window displays like Bloomingdale's in NYC) and must have had an interesting street presence. The valet area needs to be removed and the storefront should be restored there to create a hotel lobby (on-street valet like 21C has should be fine here as well). The huge expanse of brick is classy, and people calling for it to be removed, punctured for windows, etc. will be our generation's version of the people who tore down Italianate buildings all over the city because they looked dated.

 

Exactly.  This is far from my favorite building, but I've always believed that when you renovate any structure, you should pay respect to the style in which it was built.  Anything else looks weird and dated 20 years later.  Whatever you may think of the base, it adds to Cincinnati's architectural diversity.  Instead of trying to "fix" the base by adding windows, restoring it to look like this would be a huge improvement:

 

Cincinnati, like any city, has blocks dominated with ugly surface lots, concrete parking garages, non-historic intrusion buildings, etc. Not every block in a city has to be successful at engaging the pedestrian, as long as the vast majority do so. We can let this one slide to preserve its architectural intergrity, and still not risk an unwelcoming city streetscape if we work on correcting the other blocks that are a drain on the streetscape, but do not have any reason to be maintained.

Cincinnati, like any city, has blocks dominated with ugly surface lots, concrete parking garages, non-historic intrusion buildings, etc. Not every block in a city has to be successful at engaging the pedestrian, as long as the vast majority do so. We can let this one slide to preserve its architectural intergrity, and still not risk an unwelcoming city streetscape if we work on correcting the other blocks that are a drain on the streetscape, but do not have any reason to be maintained.

 

Very well put.

 

If in another 50 years people still don't like it, I might be okay w/ tearing it down. But there are far worse offenders now, like surface lots and parking garages. There's even something slightly charming about this building; I can see why it was considered fancy back in the day. Even if the style of that day is mostly reviled now.

If the store fronts are active, someone on the sidewalk wouldn't really notice the blank brick wall above and it wouldn't kill the street IMO.

 

I was going to say something similar the other day, and I think on Vine Street that's probably a fair statement.  However, the building is so massive along 6th street you can't help but notice how completely blank and despotic it is.  Opening those second floor windows would help, but the first floor is so squat to begin with that its presence is crushed by the mass looming above it.  I doubt there's a solution that will satisfy everyone. 

I doubt there's a solution that will satisfy everyone. 

Ya think? ;-)

 

Personally I absolutely love the look of this building in the above pictures, with the vantage point from afar and maybe 8 stories in the air. The brickwork itself is just fascinating. I don't know I've ever seen brick laid this way without overlapping joints. I think the long vertical joints are cool and the quality of the mortar is amazing.

 

That being said I do feel sad at street level. But, I really do think that in my case, I'm just sad for the building. I think I'd feel happy if it had the above mentioned mods for the first two floors and was full of active tenants.

 

I mean, I don't need to be engaged by the street level architecture, without thinking, everywhere -- giving up my responsibility for how I feel to the architecture. Sometimes I think it's ok for the architecture to completely stand out and dominate, even if that means that it disturbs all motion and feeling around it. In my mind, it's a showpiece, worthy of being observed for what it is.

 

 

Whenever a building or development is shown from an overhead or distant view, that should be a red flag that its street level interface is lacking.  It's sometimes unavoidable for large buildings, but at the very least a distant ground-level view (like the renderings for Dunnhumby) is better than a helicopter view that few if any people will ever see in reality. 

 

The brick pattern (stack bond) was a common early-modernist technique for showing that the brick is just a veneer and not load bearing.  It has to be executed flawlessly however, because the lined up joints are completely unforgiving to any wavering.  The typical layout with each course shifted by half a brick (running bond) is much better at hiding side-to-side variation. 

If the store fronts are active, someone on the sidewalk wouldn't really notice the blank brick wall above and it wouldn't kill the street IMO.

 

I was going to say something similar the other day, and I think on Vine Street that's probably a fair statement.  However, the building is so massive along 6th street you can't help but notice how completely blank and despotic it is.  Opening those second floor windows would help, but the first floor is so squat to begin with that its presence is crushed by the mass looming above it.  I doubt there's a solution that will satisfy everyone. 

 

I think single biggest flaw on 6th street is the valet/pull in area. Those are awful everywhere they exist in the city, but this one is one of the worst because of the way the rest of the building meets the sidewalk. Get rid of that, and establish some sort of retail or lobby use on the entirety of the first floor and that block would be much, much different no matter what is going on on floors 2-8.

Ugh. We are getting into an era where historic designations are coming around to mid-century architecture. My absolute least favorite.

 

To me mid-century simply isn't a pinnacle era in design of anything. It was our whole species lurching forward into the technological age and experimenting with how to express that in design. We were shedding the age of hand-made, ornamented, humanistic stuff. And you know what? Almost all of it is really fucking awful. It's awkward. It's unrefined. It's ignorant. We are just now, in the 21st century, beginning to have the experience, the finesse, the materials technology, to really express "modernism" as a refined design standard.

 

To each his own, but I just have zero attraction to anything beyond the 1930's, and even Art Deco isn't high on my list. In fact, I think the pretend nostalgia that people my age (20s, 30s) have for mid-century modern is so contrived, it's almost trendy.

^ I agree with you, but don't agree that means we should destroy, or completely change the character of, this particular building.

Ugh. We are getting into an era where historic designations are coming around to mid-century architecture. My absolute least favorite.

 

I think there were people in Cincinnati in 1950 saying very similar things about Italianate architecture. Luckily Cincinnati had enough of that around that they couldn’t destroy it all. There’s not a whole lot of mid-century modern around, hopefully we can manage to keep it for future generations who might value it more than some do today.

 

As for furniture, many would say the mid-century modern style produced some of the greatest designs in history. I don’t think many people have to force themselves to like it; they’re the antiques of our generation.

 

Just because something is rare that doesn't mean all examples should be preserved though.  I agree we're in the "danger zone" for mid-century modernism that much Victorian architecture was in a few decades ago.  Maybe there will be a turnaround and it will become better liked or even loved, but that's not a guarantee.  Either way, a noble goal is to preserve the best examples of a particular style rather than trying to preserve it all with some broad brush.  When the individual building is less relevant to the overall form and cohesiveness of the neighborhood, that's when you implement a historic district.  When a particular building is a notable example of work in and of itself, then you do an individual landmark designation, but allow the surroundings to "keep trying" to build their own landmarks.  Otherwise you eventually run out of redevelopable properties because everything becomes protected in the long term. 

 

To some extent this already happens naturally, whether for architectural merit or simple construction quality.  By definition the better examples last longer through time on average.  There was no shortage of bad Victorian architecture constructed in the 19th century, and much of that has since gone away.  Even a lot of the bad mid-century stuff is already disappearing, like high-rise housing projects and dowdy schools from the 50s, etc.  Here's the thing to keep in mind though.  When talking about the poor examples of any historic or revival architectural style, the adjectives used are usually along the lines of gaudy, garish, ugly, or stodgy.  With modernist buildings though, you're more likely to hear terms like despotic, monotonous, shocking, or oppressive.  That's a pretty fundamental difference, and it shows that the hatred a lot of people have for modernist designs is more than about stylistic tastes, but even the most basic interaction between the building and the people who occupy and look upon it.

Ugh. We are getting into an era where historic designations are coming around to mid-century architecture. My absolute least favorite.

 

I think there were people in Cincinnati in 1950 saying very similar things about Italianate architecture. Luckily Cincinnati had enough of that around that they couldn’t destroy it all. There’s not a whole lot of mid-century modern around, hopefully we can manage to keep it for future generations who might value it more than some do today.

 

As for furniture, many would say the mid-century modern style produced some of the greatest designs in history. I don’t think many people have to force themselves to like it; they’re the antiques of our generation.

 

 

I think maybe you missed my point. Certainly people in the 50's wanted to get away from Victorian or Italianate because it was tired, a lot of it was literally dirty and run down, and they were excited about the future. The difference is that those styles were at the top of their game when they were created. They are examples of things that were refined and refined and refined and refined over hundreds of years. They are valuable because they are good examples of what people can craft. Most mid 20th century stuff is crap.

 

The 20th century tore down the 19th because it was old. The 21st should tear down the 20th because it was bad.

Ugh. We are getting into an era where historic designations are coming around to mid-century architecture. My absolute least favorite.

 

I think there were people in Cincinnati in 1950 saying very similar things about Italianate architecture. Luckily Cincinnati had enough of that around that they couldn’t destroy it all. There’s not a whole lot of mid-century modern around, hopefully we can manage to keep it for future generations who might value it more than some do today.

 

As for furniture, many would say the mid-century modern style produced some of the greatest designs in history. I don’t think many people have to force themselves to like it; they’re the antiques of our generation.

 

 

Haha. Sorry, I was just referring to architecture. I think Jake took that and ran with it. Personally, I think you can be monolithic and simplistic with a coffee table and it doesn't look oppressive. It's 2 feet tall. A building is another story.

Dangerous aesthetic opinions like these about terrace plaza are how you lose buildings like the Prentice in Chicago. If I bought a Jackson pollack should I add some straight lines to it to make it more clean and modern? It's a slippery slope and besides this place could be totally cool Mad Men style.

The Prentice Hospital was a landmark building no matter what you thought of the style, and one of the first designed with CAD. Comparing it to a mid-century hotel in Cincinnati that happens to have a brutalist base is just sentimental and silly.

 

I think most of the time, judging important buildings is like the test for prurience in sexually oriented film: You just know it when you see it. Terrace Plaza is a perfect example. It has a fantastic history. But you look at the building and you just go "ugh." It's a dud.

If I bought a Jackson pollack should I add some straight lines to it to make it more clean and modern?

 

No matter how much the starchitects may want to believe it (or want everyone else to believe it) buildings are not and cannot be pure art objects like a painting or sculpture.  They have practical, functional, and civic considerations that must be taken into account along with aesthetics.  That's exactly why we're having this argument in the first place. 

Ugh. We are getting into an era where historic designations are coming around to mid-century architecture. My absolute least favorite.

 

I think there were people in Cincinnati in 1950 saying very similar things about Italianate architecture. Luckily Cincinnati had enough of that around that they couldn’t destroy it all. There’s not a whole lot of mid-century modern around, hopefully we can manage to keep it for future generations who might value it more than some do today.

 

As for furniture, many would say the mid-century modern style produced some of the greatest designs in history. I don’t think many people have to force themselves to like it; they’re the antiques of our generation.

 

 

Haha. Sorry, I was just referring to architecture. I think Jake took that and ran with it. Personally, I think you can be monolithic and simplistic with a coffee table and it doesn't look oppressive. It's 2 feet tall. A building is another story.

 

Looks like somebody deleted one of my posts, no doubt because it was ostensibly "off topic", but precisely because it was so on-topic. 

 

I think the Terrace Plaza has value only because it breaks up the streetscape with shapes and textures that would never be built again, but I think it in no way contributes as much to the city as, say, The Cincinnatian Hotel directly across the street.  But I can't see how this building survives a red-hot real estate market.  In a prime location we have...a box with boring windows with limited redevelopment potential on top of a box with no windows with very few possible uses.  Compare that to a new building in a prime location where any floor can be rented to just about any conceivable tenant. 

 

 

It was probably because it was condescending and unrelated. Fixies and your opinion on them and the people who own them isn't exactly related to the Terrace Plaza Hotel.

 

Are there any examples architecturally of a building similar to the Terrace? I'm having trouble thinking of anything with such a massive, blank base in the middle of a city at this scale. The ground level is just so awful I'm having trouble imagining anything ever being enough to rectify how much the base kills street life. If it was two blocks away in a less central location I don't think I'd mind as much, but being less than a block away from Fountain Square is where the problem begins in my mind. In one location we're trying to reinvigorate streetlife/pedestrianism, yet you get one block away and there's this, a building which had the goal of doing the exact opposite. It's a dichotomy I'm not really sure how to work with.

I guess I defend this building because it is unique, and there really isn't anything else in cincinnati like it. It is not nearly as interesting as Prentice I grant you, but for our city it is pretty special. Plus all these feelings about it being anti pedestrian have nothing to do with floors 2-8. If the base was transparent and full of tenants/life we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unless you are 40 feet tall or levitating above 6th street it doesn't really matter if there are windows or breaks in the facade anyway up there. A lot of this is just current taste, because if you covered the entire base with reflective glass with an opaque film applied so you couldn't see behind, most people would see that as an improvement. Personally I love the bricks, the way they line up, and they way it feels like a heavy geometric solid floating above the ground floor. I always thought this building would've been perfect for 21c, with the museum in the large windowless base, and the hotel and rooftop above. Oh well

I don't know if that statement is accurate. Street life isn't only based on what happens directly on the ground. The first 3 or 4 floors of a building are within one's peripheral when just walking down the street. I'll agree, after a certain point (40 or so feet) it stops mattering as much because you only notice things that high unless you look up. But up to that point you definitely do recognize there's a large, windowless mass above you.

 

But like you said, if it was teaming with life and had active storefronts (and that awful valet area was removed for a more traditional lobby) then it might just be enough to counteract that feeling of mass looming overhead.

I guess I defend this building because it is unique, and there really isn't anything else in cincinnati like it. It is not nearly as interesting as Prentice I grant you, but for our city it is pretty special. Plus all these feelings about it being anti pedestrian have nothing to do with floors 2-8. If the base was transparent and full of tenants/life we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unless you are 40 feet tall or levitating above 6th street it doesn't really matter if there are windows or breaks in the facade anyway up there. A lot of this is just current taste, because if you covered the entire base with reflective glass with an opaque film applied so you couldn't see behind, most people would see that as an improvement. Personally I love the bricks, the way they line up, and they way it feels like a heavy geometric solid floating above the ground floor. I always thought this building would've been perfect for 21c, with the museum in the large windowless base, and the hotel and rooftop above. Oh well

 

I think the point of the museum hotel would have been lost if the museum part wasn't so woven into the hotel part.

So... aside from our current discussion, is anything actually happening with this building?  I haven't heard anything in a long time.

I think what prompted the topic to be revisited was the appearance of scaffolding and some construction equipment in the upper portion of the tower. Not sure what's going on, whether it's preventative construction, clearing, etc. but something is going on.

There appears to be some DEMO work going on at the top of the Plaza Hotel. If you look at the dunnhumby construction web cam in the corner you can see the roof of the Plaza. There are a bunch of garbage/containers filled with what looks like concrete rubble.

There appears to be some DEMO work going on at the top of the Plaza Hotel. If you look at the dunnhumby construction web cam in the corner you can see the roof of the Plaza. There are a bunch of garbage/containers filled with what looks like concrete rubble.

 

There were probably about 20 people up there this morning as i was leaving for work.

That seems like a pretty hefty amount of people/work being done without at least having some sort of tentative plan for the building. Hopefully we'll be hearing something soon. It'll be so nice to have this building occupied again.

My guess would be some sort of roof work, but those are pretty big chunks of brick and concrete so I'm not sure what that's all about. 

Maybe while they're at it they can go over and renovate the Dunhumby building. 

I walked by today and spotted trucks on site from Otis (elevators), and electrical/telecom contractor, and a surveyor. The interior of the shops/storefronts had paper up over the windows and lights on inside, there appears to be some work going on in there as well. I also spotted some people up in the 8th floor windows, which serve the main lobby of the hotel. I wonder why this hasn’t made an appearance in the Courier or Enquirer??

I believe two nights ago a large crane around 10:30pm was set up at the base of terrace plaza and lifted all the bags of bricks/concrete and debris from the roof into a dumpster.  It looks like the roof is full again with these large piles of brick to be hauled away again. 

 

What i cant figure out is what are they demo-ing inside that is resulting in this much material?

I got a better look at what is going on this morning and it looks like the brick has been stripped off one of the west facing sides of the very top part of the building that rises above the main body of the building. Hence all of the brick that was being loaded into the dumpster.

^ It's called a parapet.  That's a very common point of failure in the building envelope, especially for concrete and older masonry structures, because of differential movement between materials over time.  Usually the parapet leans inwards as the brick expands slightly from moisture absorption over time, while the concrete (or in older buildings clay block and common brick) structure shrinks.  Any rusting steel lintels also cause further problems because it expands greatly as it rusts, and since it rusts more towards the outside it forms a wedge shape also pushing the parapet towards the inside of the building. 

^ It's called a parapet.  That's a very common point of failure in the building envelope, especially for concrete and older masonry structures, because of differential movement between materials over time.  Usually the parapet leans inwards as the brick expands slightly from moisture absorption over time, while the concrete (or in older buildings clay block and common brick) structure shrinks.  Any rusting steel lintels also cause further problems because it expands greatly as it rusts, and since it rusts more towards the outside it forms a wedge shape also pushing the parapet towards the inside of the building.

 

Thanks for the info, as my education background is not in this field I lack the technical knowledge.

^ It's called a parapet.  That's a very common point of failure in the building envelope, especially for concrete and older masonry structures, because of differential movement between materials over time.  Usually the parapet leans inwards as the brick expands slightly from moisture absorption over time, while the concrete (or in older buildings clay block and common brick) structure shrinks.  Any rusting steel lintels also cause further problems because it expands greatly as it rusts, and since it rusts more towards the outside it forms a wedge shape also pushing the parapet towards the inside of the building.

 

Thanks for the info, as my education background is not in this field I lack the technical knowledge.

 

 

Saw more bricks being taken down this morning. A lot of work being done here Attempted to post picture but didn't upload.

Make sure they are jpg or gif with a maximum individual size of 200KB and no more then 17 per post.

My assumptions:

 

1.  The city ordered the stabilization because it was in bad shape.  The owner is doing the bare minimum to keep the building water tight.

2.  If the city didn't order the stabilization, then the current owner is fixing major problems for an interested hotel operator or a property sale to someone else. 

 

Also, I know the lower levels are discussed frequently, but I have to assume at this point that the building is such a bargain that you could just leave them empty.  If someone finds a tenant for them, then its a bonus. 

According to Kathy at Cincyopolis:

 

Yep, they actually started on the Terrace Plaza on 6th. Construction workers told me they’ve got 4 or 5 years of employment at the site which will be hotel and office space.

 

I just talked with a modernist preservation group who said the building is in imminent danger of demolition.

I just talked with a modernist preservation group who said the building is in imminent danger of demolition.

 

Because of the state of disrepair of the building/is it in danger of becoming a public hazard and falling? It was occupied in the mid-2000's wasnt it?

 

 

Let's hope that Brian Korte's post is the correct one, and that this won't get demolished. That would be awful. Would the workers onsite lie, or leave out the fact that the building will be demo'd during their 4-5 year project? If the demo involves knocking out windows in the base ala 580 building and the building on 4th street that's one thing, but a full building demolition would really be tragic. I know people focus on Italianate buildings and of course Union Terminal and Music hall, but this building deserves its place in the sun too and hopefully a remodel can provide that.

This is the last news I've seen and it says that the "New owner intends to reopen hotel."

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/08/12/new-owner-of-former-terrace-plaza.html?page=all

 

The closing date in the article matches the latest closing date on the HamCo Auditor site.  The parcel owner is listed online as:

 

Owner Information

Call 946-4015 if Incorrect

CINCINNATI 926 HOTEL LLC

600 VINE ST

STE 2800

CINCINNATI, OH 45202 USA

 

 

Could we be seeing the initial demo work of the 926 Hotel?

 

It looks like windows are being removed as well.

According to Kathy at Cincyopolis:

 

Yep, they actually started on the Terrace Plaza on 6th. Construction workers told me they’ve got 4 or 5 years of employment at the site which will be hotel and office space.

 

 

Here's a link to that post: http://cincyopolis.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/walking-to-city-hall/

The concern i heard was that the new owner doesn't have a good plan, doesn't have a tenant in line, and may run out of money.  It's had some water damage issues as well. It's not about to collapse or anything, but it's huge and needs a lot of work and no one is clamoring to do anything with it. And a lot of people consider it ugly.

Being an SOM building has its merits on the architectural side, and even though  the aesthetic qualities of the Terrace Plaza may be debatable, also realize that SOM is one of the few firms that also does their own structural and civil engineering. They design some of the best built buildings in modern times. The quality control is super tight and rigorous on their projects, and all materials used in construction and interior design are top notch. I hope this can be saved, they don't do shoddy buildings.

Terrace Plaza getting new life?

Bowdeya Tweh, [email protected] 1:14 p.m. EDT September 25, 2014

 

 

Does something about your community have you puzzled? [email protected] and we'll do our best to track down answers.

 

QUESTION: What if any are the plans for the old Terrace Hotel? Given the resurgence of downtown Cincinnati and the building boom of hotel rooms, it seems like this facility gets overlooked. Will this place ever get repurposed? This would be a great assignment for some College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning students.

 

- Ken Perica

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2014/09/25/terrace-plaza-hotel-cincinnati/16207695/

So he's fixing code violations just in time to file for bankruptcy and have someone else who actually knows what they're doing take over it? Perfect.

Ha i thought the same thing. If this guy dumps a bunch of money in and fixes all the stuff that scared other developers away it could pan out pretty well.

 

Current ownership doesnt seem to have the best track record.

Downtown hotel’s future uncertain as foreclosure looms

Feb 2, 2015, 7:22am EST

Staff Cincinnati Business Courier

 

The future of the downtown Cincinnati Terrace Plaza Hotel is hanging in the balance as its owner faces legal trouble, the Enquirer reports.

 

The iconic hotel at 15 W. Sixth St. is facing foreclosure after its owners defaulted on construction loans.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2015/02/downtown-hotel-s-future-uncertain-as-foreclosure.html

Seems like the perfect time for someone to swoop in, get the property for cheap and without the code violations that were fixed this summer, and convert it to residential. I really hope it doesn't return to being a hotel. We need some more permanent residents in that side of Downtown and this would offer a really unique product. And maybe the base could be marketed towards some of the urban big box stores like City Target at some future date when we have the population Downtown to support it properly.