Does anybody have interior photos of the building's floors that used to be the department store? I'm curious how easily those floors could be re-purposed for big retail (department store, grocery, big box, etc.).  What are the ceiling heights for those floors? It's not often that you get a huge, windowless footprint... so it sure seems like it'd be a great fit for large format retail.

 

 

^ The Eastern portion of the base was Bond's and the Western portion was J C Penny's. Here are several interior photos of Bond's from the LOC. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=bond's%20cincinnati

 

This link may or may not work (if not, just Google "Terrace Plaza Thesis" and you'll find it):

 

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin1243361231&disposition=inline

 

It has a lot of good photos, including one on page 151 (actually 155) of the former department store space as it exists today. Spoiler: it's incredibly dreary now.

A windowless large-plate space sounds like just the thing for a downtown Kroger if they aren't willing to build a real urban store elsewhere. 

Thanks for sharing!

 

This link may or may not work (if not, just Google "Terrace Plaza Thesis" and you'll find it):

 

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin1243361231&disposition=inline

 

It has a lot of good photos, including one on page 151 (actually 155) of the former department store space as it exists today. Spoiler: it's incredibly dreary now.

This link may or may not work (if not, just Google "Terrace Plaza Thesis" and you'll find it):

 

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin1243361231&disposition=inline

 

It has a lot of good photos, including one on page 151 (actually 155) of the former department store space as it exists today. Spoiler: it's incredibly dreary now.

 

Oy!  Yeah, that's REALLY tough to work with.  It's a lot of space with no windows and surprisingly low ceilings.  I don't even think a contemporary department store would work in there.

 

A grocer could MAYBE take one floor of it.  (CityTarget anyone?)  But even if we were to get something great like that, you've still got a minimum of 4 unused levels.  Could every other floor be removed to give them some height?

^A large simple logo like Target's would look great as the only thing on that brick facade. 

 

Would it be possible to ventilate it and turn it into a hidden parking garage without marring the facade?

^A large simple logo like Target's would look great as the only thing on that brick facade. 

 

Would it be possible to ventilate it and turn it into a hidden parking garage without marring the facade?

 

I don't think there'd be huge cries from the historic preservation community if the south side had holes punched in it for ventilation.  You could actually relatively easily add a ramp in the back from Race St.  Does anybody know what's inside that weird tower in the back?  I'm assuming that's all freight elevators and other vertical circulation.

A 680 job call center is moving into a former department store in Hamilton.  This would have been the perfect use for the bricked over portion of the Terrace Plaza.  It's a shame the building isn't in better condition, because it would seem that this location would have been very competitive in the selection process.  Great news for Hamilton, though.  These types of opportunities don't come around often, so I hope there is another type of use that could make this building feasible.

 

Link to article about Hamilton: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/02/23/customer-service-firm-plans-to-bring-680-jobs-to.html

That part of the building was a large call center for AT&T until around 2006-2007ish when they were kicked out so the property could be redeveloped.

This would have been the perfect use for the bricked over portion of the Terrace Plaza. 

 

This is far from a perfect site for a call center or any back-office use.  Free parking is a necessity for jobs that don't pay well.  Look at Paycor's selection process and why then ended up in Norwood surrounded by a sea of free surface parking. 

 

The price of this building has to be low enough to ignore the bricked up portion of the project before any action happens. 

Yes, I was thinking it would be hard for parking / transportation downtown with lower paying jobs.  Though the bus transit can help mitigate for some people, it would still be a tough for a lot of people to afford parking.

What it would be perfect for is a data center. CyrusOne has a massive downtown data center already, and there are a few other floors in office buildings around town that have small data storage facilities. Having no windows in your data center is a benefit, whereas it's a negative for almost all other uses.

Doubtful it could be a data center. Minimum ceiling height is 12' - 14' and I'd wonder if the floors could support the weight.

^The weight of servers?  I can't imagine that would be an issue.

The windowless portion should be something like a data center. It sounds like a lame idea, but there are a few data centers downtown that I know of that take up office space that has windows, yet they just cage them off and tint over them. 

 

The second floor was originally glass curtain wall like the first floor, though, and I think restoring that would be a nice touch.  I think the solid brick is a historically significant part of the building and I'd hate to lose it, even though it's hard to program a use for such a windowless space. 

 

Reminds me of the hideous 10 South Canal building in Chicago. The bottom 20 floors or so are solid concrete walls, as it serves as an AT&T data center.

 

Here's a photo of the 10 South Canal building in Chicago:

 

^The weight of servers?  I can't imagine that would be an issue.

 

So many ways we could go with a your mom comeback, if this were still a light and airy website. 

^The weight of servers?  I can't imagine that would be an issue.

 

Depends on the slab and how many cabinets / UPS you put on each floor. These tend to weigh 2-3 thousand pounds each.

Downtown Cincinnati hotel rots as owners battle in court

As two former business partners battle in court, the former Terrace Plaza Hotel in downtown Cincinnati is rotting.

Located at 15 W. Sixth St., the 20-story building has been in rough shape for the better part of a decade. But when a new ownership group acquired the property in 2013, it looked as though it could return to its former glory.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/09/21/downtown-cincinnati-hotel-rots-as-owners-battle-in.html

 

The article goes through all the financial woes of the owners.

The article goes through all the financial woes of the owners.

 

"...at this point it would make more sense to tear down the building and sell it for the value of the land."

 

Only one company can save this project:  3CDC

I don't see why this building is such an asset that needs saving. It was a hotel and department store, not even culturally significant.

Because it's basically the epitome of highrise modernism in the Midwest. Letting it go would be a dramatic loss for architectural history and would be looked back on with the same disdain as we do with demolitions such as the former library where Macy's is, etc.

 

This building is incredibly unique to Cincinnati as we have very modernist highrises in the city. The tower could very nicely be converted to a residential product we don't currently have Downtown and the base could be reworked to house something (not really sure what since it's a very challenging structure). But demolishing it would be a huge loss for the city.

^Among architects it may be viewed that way, but the general public probably doesn't care and won't care. It's not some elaborate, objectively beautiful building as the old library or the Albee Theater.

There's certainly arguments to be made on both sides.  It's a pioneering modernist building by an equally pioneering female architect whose contributions have unfortunately been mostly anonymous and continue to be unrecognized.  The building is of an experimental time period in modernist design, before the "rules" really became solidified and folks like Mies and his ilk ran roughshod over the downtown skylines.  There's very few buildings like this from this time period to begin with, let alone remaining today, so uniqueness and notability are more than satisfied.

 

On the other hand, from an urbanistic standpoint, the building is a classic example of harsh and aloof modernist ideals, wholly inappropriate for an urban context.  If the completely blank base of the building would need significant numbers of windows cut into it just to make it habitable, on top of all the other alterations and repairs that would be needed, then maybe it's not worth the trouble to preserve something that the majority of people would dub ugly if not oppressive. 

 

Regardless of the preservation arguments for or against, I wonder if the extraordinarily convoluted financial tribulations of the last few years represents a genuine plan for rehabilitation or a deliberate attempt at demolition by neglect and deference of liability.  Maybe the answer falls somewhere in between, I don't know, but what a mess. 

Honestly it's a really bland and ugly building. I know, I know, it's "historically significant", but the building literally looks like low income housing you would find in the bronx.

 

Why not demolish it and open that space up. With housing in high demand for the urban core, I don't see why (assuming things continue to grow in Cincinnati), why that lot can't become a high rise Condo tower instead.

^Among architects it may be viewed that way, but the general public probably doesn't care and won't care. It's not some elaborate, objectively beautiful building as the old library or the Albee Theater.

 

And yet those were torn down. Because architecture is cyclical. Just because people right now don't find objective worth in a building like the Terrace Plaza Hotel doesn't mean it isn't there nor does it mean that if it was left to stand that it wouldn't be greatly celebrated as an historic piece of architecture in the same vein as we view things like the Albee and and old library now.

Honestly it's a really bland and ugly building. I know, I know, it's "historically significant", but the building literally looks like low income housing you would find in the bronx.

 

Why not demolish it and open that space up. With housing in high demand for the urban core, I don't see why (assuming things continue to grow in Cincinnati), why that lot can't become a high rise Condo tower instead.

 

I can't help but point out this attitude is exactly what led to mass demolitions of Italianate buildings starting in the 1950s to make way for parking lots. "These buildings in OTR are awful, they all look like Bronx Tenement housing." Part of the reason the Terrace Plaza looks so bad today is that it's been neglected and abused for decades. Originally, I think it looked very nice, especially so when considering the use:

 

 

Another question that should be asked is – would it be replaced with something better? Chances are it wouldn’t.

Honestly it's a really bland and ugly building. I know, I know, it's "historically significant", but the building literally looks like low income housing you would find in the bronx.

 

Why not demolish it and open that space up. With housing in high demand for the urban core, I don't see why (assuming things continue to grow in Cincinnati), why that lot can't become a high rise Condo tower instead.

 

I can't help but point out this attitude is exactly what led to mass demolitions of Italianate buildings starting in the 1950s to make way for parking lots. "These buildings in OTR are awful, they all look like Bronx Tenement housing." Part of the reason the Terrace Plaza looks so bad today is that it's been neglected and abused for decades. Originally, I think it looked very nice, especially so when considering the use:

 

 

Another question that should be asked is – would it be replaced with something better? Chances are it wouldn’t.

 

You have to be delusional if you honestly think that the Terrace Plaza building stands shoulder to shoulder to any building in OTR.

 

One is built with detail and intricacy and pure labor from the mid to late 1800's by our German forefathers, built from hand brick by brick.

 

The other, looks like modernistic crap.

 

And would it be replaced it with anything better? If you belive that Cincinnati is still doomed and will continue to be nothing more than empty lot-ville, than sure, probably not.

 

But I on the other hand think the urban core is growing and is on the uptick, and the demand in housing will continue to grow. I can't imagine why this can't be replaced with something better. Depends on your perspective you know?

Sorry TroyEros[/member] I'll ferevntly disagree based on the grounds that nobody is trying to compare the buildings, just the attitude.  Besides, it looks like there are a few hand-lain bricks on Terrace.  Perhaps you should research some of the original design details and interiors of this building.  There's alot of it online.

 

Someone needs to save this building.  It's worth keeping.

You sound precisely like the people he's mentioning who fired up the bulldozers to demolish the West End. Point is, the Terrace Plaza has some fantastic period detailing and design choices and is absolutely capable of standing shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the historic architecture in the city. Modernism =/= crap.

You have to be delusional if you honestly think that the Terrace Plaza building stands shoulder to shoulder to any building in OTR.

 

One is built with detail and intricacy and pure labor from the mid to late 1800's by our German forefathers, built from hand brick by brick.

 

The other, looks like modernistic crap.

 

And would it be replaced it with anything better? If you belive that Cincinnati is still doomed and will continue to be nothing more than empty lot-ville, than sure, probably not.

 

But I on the other hand think the urban core is growing and is on the uptick, and the demand in housing will continue to grow. I can't imagine why this can't be replaced with something better. Depends on your perspective you know?

 

I was alluding to the fact that people once viewed the Italianate buildings that fill Cincinnati as ugly and expendable, much like you view Modernist buildings today. In 50 years when there are few Modern buildings left, people will look back and wonder why we let it happen again.

 

 

Oh and based on my comment earlier, you might think I would be in favor of demolishing it, but I was just stating that this building will probably never reach a wide level of adoration. There has to be a solution to the huge blank wall that kills the street's vibe though.

 

I understand some people will hate the suggestion, but activating that wall is really important. A large video board doesn't seem to make any sense. It's a pretty narrow street with no public plaza nearby for people to see it.

 

I don't know if "activating" means putting up a mural, adding texture, adding a video board, or what. I'm sure someone could come up with something truly creative to use the solid brick wall for. But it shouldn't just remain that plain brick.

I really DO believe it will reach that level of adoration though. There's no reason to think that modernism will just break the cycle that essentially all architecture goes through. Hell, even brutalism is starting to see recognition for its values, as obnoxious as those buildings usually are.

 

The first things that would need to happen with the base are renovation of the ground level and reintroduction of the second story glass that was bricked in later on the Vine Street half of the building. I can imagine a handful of things that could activate the base but would probably piss off preservationists. I'm a what I refer to as a lightweight preservationist meaning that I believe historic buildings should be saved, but don't think things need to be perfectly preserved. The tower portion can operate mostly as it did so I think it should remain mostly the same, but doing something like punching key holes into the base or installing a living wall system could be good ways of preserving the building while softening the harshness of the base which is not good from an urbanist standpoint.

I think this is a much better representation of the building.  Its deterioration has nothing to do with how its perceived (in fact it doesn't really look all that deteriorated on the outside).  https://goo.gl/maps/RkesMTkPgxt

 

Those overhead or distant views that you usually see from large projects like this are a red flag because it indicates that the building doesn't look that good from ground level.  Even though this building fronts the sidewalk and has first-floor retail, the overwhelming majority of what you see is a monolithic blank brick wall.  It's so massive that it looks like it's crushing the ground floor retail that's already too short to begin with.  While the Vine and Race facades are at least tolerable due to their limited frontage, there's nothing about the 6th Street facade that isn't oppressive and monotonous.  I won't say that's a 100% objective analysis, but it's by no means subjective either.  The polar opposite of high Victorian gaudiness isn't automatically the best design solution. 

I have to agree with others here, Troy.  I gather you are younger by some of your posts, and that's no problem. but you may not be old enough to have a fully developed point of view on the subject that can only come with time.

 

This is a very significant structure, and is even more so considering how far-reaching it was when it was constructed, and that its designer, Natalie De Bloise, was equally so at the time.

 

It is foolish to think we could replace this building with something better.  Our track record in that area speaks for itself.

I have to agree with others here, Troy.  I gather you are younger by some of your posts, and that's no problem. but you may not be old enough to have a fully developed point of view on the subject that can only come with time.

 

That's a very condescending statement. 

^Seconded.

 

I know I'm younger than Troy by at least a decade from hints he has dropped about when he grew, his age, etc. Unless someone is architecturally trained or has had a passion for it for a long time it wouldn't be something I'd expect the general public to be well versed in just like I'm not well versed in other areas that I've never taken an interest in.

 

This building is experienced by the pedestrian quite poorly and always will be unless something dramatic happens to the base to change that. And I think that's necessary. Which would mean historic preservation tax credits won't be able to be used. Which means it will either continue being a massive blank base or someone with more money/vision will need to take over. I'm hoping for the latter.

I think this is a much better representation of the building.  Its deterioration has nothing to do with how its perceived (in fact it doesn't really look all that deteriorated on the outside).  https://goo.gl/maps/RkesMTkPgxt

 

Those overhead or distant views that you usually see from large projects like this are a red flag because it indicates that the building doesn't look that good from ground level.  Even though this building fronts the sidewalk and has first-floor retail, the overwhelming majority of what you see is a monolithic blank brick wall.  It's so massive that it looks like it's crushing the ground floor retail that's already too short to begin with.  While the Vine and Race facades are at least tolerable due to their limited frontage, there's nothing about the 6th Street facade that isn't oppressive and monotonous.  I won't say that's a 100% objective analysis, but it's by no means subjective either.  The polar opposite of high Victorian gaudiness isn't automatically the best design solution. 

 

But even in that streetview, you're looking up at the building from across the street. The interaction with the sidewalk adjacent the building is fine. I always like looking into the windows of Batsakes and Wendel's (and similarly, The Chong in a less exciting Modern facade down the street). I think simply reopening the second floor levels, occupying the storefronts, and eliminating the auto drop off area would do wonders for the streetscape. As for 6th street, I don't think the opressiveness and monotony are negatives. Department stores wanted to be huge, windowless buildings, why pretend? The issue we're faced with now is troublesome, though - we are tasked with constantly finding uses for buildings that require windowless expanses. The Terrace Plaza missed the boat with the casino, but there are other uses, such as movie theaters, that could still have some potential.

I have to agree with others here, Troy.  I gather you are younger by some of your posts, and that's no problem. but you may not be old enough to have a fully developed point of view on the subject that can only come with time.

 

That's a very condescending statement. 

 

I meant no offense, and stated such in the post.

I think this is a much better representation of the building.  Its deterioration has nothing to do with how its perceived (in fact it doesn't really look all that deteriorated on the outside).  https://goo.gl/maps/RkesMTkPgxt

 

Those overhead or distant views that you usually see from large projects like this are a red flag because it indicates that the building doesn't look that good from ground level.  Even though this building fronts the sidewalk and has first-floor retail, the overwhelming majority of what you see is a monolithic blank brick wall.  It's so massive that it looks like it's crushing the ground floor retail that's already too short to begin with.  While the Vine and Race facades are at least tolerable due to their limited frontage, there's nothing about the 6th Street facade that isn't oppressive and monotonous.  I won't say that's a 100% objective analysis, but it's by no means subjective either.  The polar opposite of high Victorian gaudiness isn't automatically the best design solution. 

 

But even in that streetview, you're looking up at the building from across the street. The interaction with the sidewalk adjacent the building is fine. I always like looking into the windows of Batsakes and Wendel's (and similarly, The Chong in a less exciting Modern facade down the street). I think simply reopening the second floor levels, occupying the storefronts, and eliminating the auto drop off area would do wonders for the streetscape. As for 6th street, I don't think the opressiveness and monotony are negatives. Department stores wanted to be huge, windowless buildings, why pretend? The issue we're faced with now is troublesome, though - we are tasked with constantly finding uses for buildings that require windowless expanses. The Terrace Plaza missed the boat with the casino, but there are other uses, such as movie theaters, that could still have some potential.

 

It would be difficult to get hardcore preservationists on board, but could the base be opened up in a similar fashion as to what's been done at the 580 building just a few blocks east?

A call center is going into the mostly windowless Elder Beerman building in Hamilton. I haven't seen any renderings so I'm not sure if they're going to open it up or leave it windowless.

^They have added windows to Elder Beerman in Hamilton.

Funny how I specifically noticed this building on my walk to work this morning, and here it is in the news!

 

There are multiple uses that I can think of that don't require opening windows in the lower half of the building: movie theatre (as others have said), grocery store, a couple very large conference centers / presentation stage / auditorium. There is good access on the Race St side for moving large amounts of stuff like food.

 

A large mural or two on the 6th St side would also do much to relieve the monotony of the current blank wall.

I think the corner of 6th and Vine could have a lard wrap around video board and it wouldn't be too bad.

 

But I'm imagining it only going as far on 6th as it goes on Vine (much shorter side). That would probably be more of an ad than a public engagement thing, but could be used on occasion for something bigger/better. Perhaps a video board only on the Vine Street side to avoid shining large amounts of light at a building that is occupied on 6th. Across the street from Vine is a parking garage and office building.

They probably have a large marijuana growing operation going on inside this thing.  Hiding it in plain sight.   

When I look at that base I can't really think about what to do with it that wouldn't be a ridiculous proposition. Such as replacing a large part of the brick wall with glass for a giant fish tank. Or taking out all the intermediary floors and having a giant velodrome or skate park.

Funny how I specifically noticed this building on my walk to work this morning, and here it is in the news!

 

There are multiple uses that I can think of that don't require opening windows in the lower half of the building: movie theatre (as others have said), grocery store, a couple very large conference centers / presentation stage / auditorium. There is good access on the Race St side for moving large amounts of stuff like food.

 

A large mural or two on the 6th St side would also do much to relieve the monotony of the current blank wall.

 

Agreed.  There are a variety of options that don't require windows which might be viable, depending on the details and condition of the structure.  Just off the top of my head:

 

1) department store

2) grocery store

3) call center

4) server farm

5) storage units

6) spa: message rooms, saunas, steam rooms, hot tubs, pools, etc.

7) bowling alley

8) movie theater

9) performance stage/theater

10) strip/burlesque club

11) sports bar

12) arcade

13) gym: basketball, volleyball, racquetball, etc.

14) parking garage

15) TV studio

16) kitchen

17) culinary school

18) roller rink

19) ice rink

20) mall

21) museum

22) casino, if Ohio eventually allows another one downtown.

23) Do nothing.  Shore it up and wall it off.  Pretend it isn't there and just utilize the storefronts below and hotel above.

 

However, as much as I love Artworks, I feel that adding a mural to this structure would be a mistake.  For better or worse, it was intended to be a huge blank wall.  That's different than the other blank walls that exist around town because an adjoining building was demoed or by chance.  Dressing it up with a mural or a TV or by punching windows into it ignores the history of the structure and diminishes it.  Also, Ram23 is right about the building working just fine at street level for pedestrians on its side of the street, and about reopening the second story windows.  No need to demolish an interesting structure.

I personally feel that people could be served better by something else in its place. I know this is an early example of an architectural style, and has significance therein, but is it actually good design?

I personally feel that people could be served better by something else in its place. I know this is an early example of an architectural style, and has significance therein, but is it actually good design?

 

Building something with no windows because they assumed that the space would always be a department store that didn't want windows was a mistake.  Buildings must be able to serve different uses if they expect to survive for hundreds of years. 

That's not why that happened though. It happened because at that point in time the street was viewed as dirty and the idea of being fully cut off from it was seen as desirable. We very quickly learned that was a mistake, but it wasn't just because it was thought it was going to be a department store forever.

 

It's the same reason they elevated the hotel spaces so high off the street. They wanted to float above the filth of the city essentially.