About the only use for a windowless space is a museum.  Look a block away to that nearly windowless bunker known as the CAC.  But all art museums have high ceilings, and so the Terrace does not appear to be useful for that purpose, aside from that giganticness of the borg cube. 

 

There are several uses that could be applied here. I've been in many nice hotels with large conference rooms that don't have windows. They could use the space that way and the hotel could act as sort of an extension of our lackluster convention center.

Due to the floor to floor height and column layout the only realistic uses for the base (that doesn't involve creating window openings) are server rooms, storage units, or very inefficient parking. There are already a few storage places downtown, including one that's literally across the street. Server spaces are dependent on need, and the gigantic Cincinnati Bell and Cyrus One buildings are right down the road. That leaves a bad parking layout that would be both expensive, inefficient and would require massive ventilation due to it having no windows.

 

I think realistically adding windows to the base is needed to make the renovation of the building financially viable. I think more brick can be salvaged that Woolpert's rendering, but as pointed out it would have to be in vertical swaths to maintain integrity or would require complete removal and re-installation with new lintels.

Due to the floor to floor height and column layout the only realistic uses for the base (that doesn't involve creating window openings) are server rooms, storage units, or very inefficient parking. There are already a few storage places downtown, including one that's literally across the street. Server spaces are dependent on need, and the gigantic Cincinnati Bell and Cyrus One buildings are right down the road. That leaves a bad parking layout that would be both expensive, inefficient and would require massive ventilation due to it having no windows.

 

I think realistically adding windows to the base is needed to make the renovation of the building financially viable. I think more brick can be salvaged that Woolpert's rendering, but as pointed out it would have to be in vertical swaths to maintain integrity or would require complete removal and re-installation with new lintels.

 

Data centers also require lots of heavy duty HVAC and electrical system gear that would not be easy/cheap to retrofit into the building.

If opening up the base can't be avoided, fine, but the trendy early 2010s kajiggering of the windows is a bridge too far if you ask me.  Maintain the original massing, it can just as easily be a monolithic glass curtain wall to play up its history as a monolithic brick wall, while showing off the internal structure of the building.

 

I agree, and something like below but playing off the original brick pattern would be great. In the daytime it would still feel monolithic, but it would also feel shiny and new and allow daylight to flow in. At night it would become transparent and allow light to come out of the interior and spill into the city.

 

Why would the brick need to be removed in full-height columns?  On any high rise the brick is usually supported at every floor by a steel shelf angle. 

Why would the brick need to be removed in full-height columns?  On any high rise the brick is usually supported at every floor by a steel shelf angle. 

The brick was not designed that way for the Terrace Plaza, I worked on a design team that did numerous studies about seven years ago on the building. There is only steel at the top and bottom of the stack brick. There was not any intermittent steel angles at every floor plate. This was a design idea that SOM played with in the 40s

I've heard that it's simply tiebacks from brick to the structure with no shelf angles, due to it being an extremely early version of brick curtain wall. I have no proof of this, just hearsay in nerdy architecture conversations.

 

EDIT: See comment above ^

So is there just constant rebar from top to bottom? 

So is there just constant rebar from top to bottom? 

 

I have old scanned prints of the original construction documents. I just need to remember where i moved them, or which external hard drive i saved them on. Once i can find the detail i will post it.

If opening up the base can't be avoided, fine, but the trendy early 2010s kajiggering of the windows is a bridge too far if you ask me.  Maintain the original massing, it can just as easily be a monolithic glass curtain wall to play up its history as a monolithic brick wall, while showing off the internal structure of the building.

 

I agree, and something like below but playing off the original brick pattern would be great. In the daytime it would still feel monolithic, but it would also feel shiny and new and allow daylight to flow in. At night it would become transparent and allow light to come out of the interior and spill into the city.

 

 

I have not seen many walls as ugly as this one. I personally love the new rendering.

Yeah I don't know, I understand the want to have it saved as is or as close to the original as possible. But the thing is that it really does deaden that area. Putting windows into the building would do wonders for that area of downtown and really open it up and connect it to 84.51 and the buildings north of it on 7th Street.

 

I liked the opinion of having more of a sheer glass across the face to save the design, but I also thinking having it "opened" more like the rendering would better make the area feel more open instead of: "Let's throw a racquetball off this thing and feel claustraphobic and creeped out" feeling it currently has.

 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1015436,-84.5147699,3a,75y,5.23h,112.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB5541K-_efxxZ4KVgYrFPg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DB5541K-_efxxZ4KVgYrFPg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D101.22067%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1024551,-84.5149982,3a,75y,147.61h,111.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUv77BTBrmizMOUdNshTxcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1021306,-84.5155693,3a,75y,106.49h,109.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXw8UL8Q0jeEU3k8Bvf4epA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.102481,-84.5132789,3a,75y,244.93h,119.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_rfX5vQI3FJ5iBte8X87Mw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

the google earth photos do one thing. Prove that it is one ugly ass building. It is like a mal-formed pyramid. Historians will look back and refer it to The Pyramid of Meidum in an attempt to answer why?

This building is so treasured and architecturally significant that any sort of drastic renovation should be done by a renowned architect. As is, these renderings are reminding me of The Ecco Homo (Potato Jesus) disaster. If the brick must be stripped, I think the best option would be to incorporate windows in a way that not only maintains the monolithic design, but also matches the architectural integrity of the original structure. Think of The Broad in LA (top) or the EDP Headquarters by Aries Mateus in Portugal (bottom) and possible treatments. I know the clock is ticking to save this building, but preservationists are right in their hesitations with this renovation.

 

 

Not to start a battle, but a block west is this soul crushing view. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1020877,-84.5164128,3a,90y,88.62h,113.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8Pj5dRKIa7atbgP5OaYWmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Not to start a battle, but a block west is this soul crushing view. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1020877,-84.5164128,3a,90y,88.62h,113.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8Pj5dRKIa7atbgP5OaYWmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

How dare you ruin my day like that!

As ugly as that is it's a hotel which brings tons of money into downtown.  The Terrace has done nothing but sit empty and rot for 10 years.  It might be another 10 years before a developer comes around if we turn this one down.  Turning these developers down because some want to keep an ugly brick wall is idiotic imo.  I live a block away from the Terrance and it is an absolute black eye on downtown in a very prominent location.  The sooner it can be developed the better off downtown will be.

I couldn't agree more. To further that thought, the Terrace was built at a time when most downtown buildings were shorter, and the overall grunginess of the city was nearing its peak with all the smoke and soot filling the air.  The design conventions were of a "retreat from the city", so there was no aesthetic reason to have windows that looked out on to general unpleasantness. Look at the contrast between the historical photos of the building when it set itself apart from most of the surrounding buildings during its heyday. Then contrast that with how awful and out of place the giant wall looks today in modern downtown Cincinnati.

 

Preserving that giant, ugly, unwelcoming brick wall serves no purpose in 2018 other than to satisfy a fringe minority of architectural buffs. That wall is almost as offensive to the eyes as just about anything from the Brutalist era in my opinion. 

I'd say that the almost-windowless Cincinnati Bell expansion ("Cyrus Ohio"), and probably a few others (including the hideous Dunhumby death cube), are more egregious presences, but I just can't see a day when anyone other than academicians take any interest in this building.  The public doesn't hate the building because they don't even notice it. 

 

 

I actually kind of like the Dunhumby Death Cube

Former Terrace Plaza has a new owner, and it isn’t Anderson Birkla

 

The former Terrace Plaza Hotel has a new owner, and it isn’t the developer who a year ago unveiled a bold plan to transform the building.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/08/11/exclusive-former-terrace-plaza-has-a-new-owner-and.html

If there are any architects out there that will be around Wednesday, the AIA has a talk and idea lab for generating suggestions for the redevelopment and direction of Terrace Plaza. Im a designer but not an architect or I would check it out myself. https://www.facebook.com/events/173662766799230/

 

On another note, I saw this fundraiser mentioned in a trade magazine and to me it had a clear Terrace Plaza vibe. Someday, in some fashion this space will be back to use again. https://www.interiordesign.net/articles/15399-diffa-s-picnic-by-design-celebrates-broadway-supports-hiv-aids-organizations/

 

Councilman asking Terrace Plaza become local historic landmark

 

 

Cincinnati City Councilman David Mann is asking the Historic Conservation Board to make the Terrace Plaza Hotel a local historic landmark.

 

Mann filed an application for local historic designation for the building, located at 15 W. Sixth St. The local historic designation would add a layer of protection to the building, Mann said.

 

“It helps makes sure a decision isn’t lightly made to demolish the building or redevelop it in a way that doesn’t respect its historical significance,” Mann told me.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/01/14/councilman-asking-terrace-plaza-become-local.html

Preservationists recommend parking for major part of former Terrace Plaza Hotel

 

 

Preservationists who want to save the former Terrace Plaza Hotel at 15 W. Sixth St. in its current form believe that the vast interior behind a windowless brick wall that is one of the building’s key features can be used as parking.

 

Councilman David Mann and a group of preservationists said at a Tuesday news conference that they will seek to have the building designated as a landmark by the Historic Conservation Board, the Cincinnati Planning Commission and the Cincinnati City Council. 

 

The announcement signals a potential major battle over the future of a key corner in the center of downtown that will play out over the next six months. That’s in addition to the battle over who should own the building that’s already taking place in federal court.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/01/15/preservationists-recommend-parking-for-major-part.html

What a sad state of affairs that the only use we can think of for a windowless section of a building is a parking garage.

9 minutes ago, taestell said:

What a sad state of affairs that the only use we can think of for a windowless section of a building is a parking garage.

 

This worries the hell out of me because if this goes through like Mann wants without thinking of the repercussions. Birkla will just walk away from the building altogether. If he wasnt committed to the building and project we wouldnt be in court about the sale of the building out from under him. He has deep pockets and good intentions with this building. 

I don't know the exact contents of that window-less section, or the structural details of the building, but is there a problem with cutting large windows into the facade if this ever gets developed?  I know cutting windows into a brick building is expensive, but it's going to be a huge project anyway.

The Cincinnati Preservation Association doesn't want windows to be put in because they consider the blank brick section to be an historically significant part of the building's architecture. That's why they suggested putting parking in it.

 

The developer wants to put windows in that section and use it for office/residential/etc. See the rendering below:

 

On 7/18/2018 at 4:26 PM, ColDayMan said:

A crucial step for $61 million redevelopment of Terrace Plaza

 

 

The developer planning a bold redevelopment of the former Terrace Plaza Hotel is set to take a crucial step this week.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/07/18/exclusive-a-crucial-step-for-61-million.html

FWIW, the Mayor doesn't seem to care one way or the other whether we save the Terrace Plaza and would rather "let the market decide":

 

Quote

The former Terrace Plaza Hotel is another building loved by preservationists that the mayor questions the need to preserve. No demolition permit for it is pending.

 

It “has been empty for 10 years now, and I think it’s ugly, but other people think – somebody wrote a whole book on the historic nature of that building, and it doesn’t even have any windows for seven floors,” Cranley said. “Somebody says, well, that’s a wave during the 1970s of no windows and so therefore it’s historically significant.

 

“I think it’s a worthy debate as to whether to save the Terrace Hotel.”

 

I may have mentioned this before but I know someone who did a parking feasibility study for the building's base.  Apparently it is technically possible, but it's very inefficient layout-wise.  We really do need to get over this obsession with parking.  Downtown is in this bad position where parking is scarce enough that most office workers need monthly permits to ensure they can get a spot at all.  That discourages alternate modes because the monthly parking pass is now a sunk cost.  However, parking is still just cheap and plentiful enough that it's better trade off than taking the bus, and employers are more likely to expect that you have a car available to take to meetings or whatever. 

 

I know that sounds contradictory, but let me put it like this.  If parking were more available and cheaper, then it would be easier to take the bus or bike to work most of the time, and only drive and park at daily rates when you know you have to.  That's unlikely to be a downtown worth going to, however.  Conversely, if we were talking Chicago or New York levels of parking, then the default expectation is that you're not driving and parking downtown, you're taking transit or using other means.  Those other modes have to grow to fill the need for everyone rather than just those who have no alternative.  As it is we're in this weird middle ground with the worst of both worlds and the benefits of neither.  So the cry is always "moar parking!" 

Interesting.  IMO, the 8th floor and up (and the internal design) are the best parts of this building, not the 7-story brick wall.  As long as those are preserved, I see no problem changing any of the facade on floors 1-7.  I'm all for preservation, probably to a fault, but that brick behemoth is such an eyesore at the street level.

The irony here is so insane. Whats the point of "preserving" this building if it's going to be turned into a parking garage? I feel like the original architects would be disappointed.

25 minutes ago, Yves Behar said:

The irony here is so insane. Whats the point of "preserving" this building if it's going to be turned into a parking garage? I feel like the original architects would be disappointed.

 

Exactly my thought. Turning it into a parking garage would be more of a travesty than eliminating the brick facade. 

I don't see how a blank brick wall can be considered historic.  It's the rest of the building that should be preserved.  If the blank wall has to stay I doubt it will ever get renovated.  

3 hours ago, taestell said:

The Cincinnati Preservation Association doesn't want windows to be put in because they consider the blank brick section to be an historically significant part of the building's architecture.

 

In keeping with the "spirit" of the building, I would be okay if they did smaller, subtle punched openings in the brick with the glazing pushed back from the exterior brick veneer. Hopefully the preservationists would go for this too, since it keeps with the original concept of a solid mass. 

 

3 hours ago, taestell said:

FWIW, the Mayor doesn't seem to care one way or the other whether we save the Terrace Plaza and would rather "let the market decide":

 

 

It seems that people are under the false pretense that if the building was designed by SOM it's immediately worthy of architectural fetishism. Do people know SOM also designed the PNC building on 5th?

7 minutes ago, Yves Behar said:

It seems that people are under the false pretense that if the building was designed by SOM it's immediately worthy of architectural fetishism. Do people know SOM also designed the PNC building on 5th?

 

This is only a small part of why it needs to be preserved. Do some research. 
 

https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/02/whats-in-the-future-for-cincinnatis-modernist-icon/552968/

Just now, Largue said:

 

This is only a small part of why it needs to be preserved. Do some research. 
 

https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/02/whats-in-the-future-for-cincinnatis-modernist-icon/552968/

Thanks for the condescending suggestion, but I've done my research here. I still disagree that this is anything significant beyond some of the elements of the interior, which are gone.

I think the building is worth preserving. I also think a treatment can be done to the exterior without punching holes in the exterior or making it parking.

If the blank brick walls are “preserved” IMO there’s a risk the building will still feel ominous and the street will still feel somewhat dead even after an expensive renovation. 

I don't think you have to maintain a blank brick wall. I think you can do creative additions to the outside, without completely changing the facade.

 

I'm not an architect, but I have to imagine there are some pretty cool things you could do to the exterior to make it more manageable.

 

Add a screen to part of it to break up the exterior. Maybe make it an interactive screen where you can control things from across the street.

 

Maybe it's as simple as hanging banners from the terrace above. Something that is art and also advertises the business inside. There are a lot of possibilities to make it more pleasing to the pedestrian without punching holes in it or changing the facade to glass.

An interactive screen would be dated in no time.

While all these exterior additions are nice for the street front, they present no solution for the unusable interior space. It would be incredibly inefficient as a parking garage, and it obviously can't be occupied for anything too useful due to the lack of fenestration. Aside from a self-storage facility, I don't think there's a solution without putting holes in the wall. What it comes down to is how big the holes are, what pattern they create, etc... I don't think this building can get redeveloped without creating usable interior space in the currently window-less portion. 

There are uses that don't require windows along the perimeter. Casinos, arcades, movie theaters, department stores, etc.

 

You can also bring real sunlight down from the terrace level via tubes to make the interior feel less enclosed. The southern side could also be opened up to provide real sunlight.

 

It would make a pretty terrible office to work in every day, but there are ways to make viable businesses without punching open the exterior.

Here is a suggestion for some of the walled up space in part of the base(from Margy Waller on Facebook) an immersive visual art gallery. Almost like an indoor blink with changing shows. If we had something like this I'd probably check out every one depending on how it is priced.  https://www.artsjournal.com/brightride/2019/01/14/music-makes-art-magic-atelier-des-lumieres/

I went to an urban putt putt golf course in San Francisco this past weekend. Seems like something like that would be a good fit for the windowless portion of the base. The problem is, there are plenty of individual users that could take some of this space, but it's very hard to think of a single tenant, or multiple smaller tenants, who could fill the whole thing. BTW, does anyone have floor plans for these bricked up floors? Are the floors largely wide open since it was formerly a department store, or are the spaces broken up into smaller rooms?

I think they are largely open spaces with columns and low clear story height.

Photo #15 shows one photo of the space:

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/01/14/councilman-asking-terrace-plaza-become-local.html#g/362822/15

I find it so odd that AT&T had a 700 employee call center inside the Terrace Plaza in Cincinnati, one of the few American cities where AT&T never provided telephone service. (Cincinnati Bell is one of only two telephone companies in the contiguous United States that was never part of AT&T.)

They may not have provided local service, but they were part of the long-distance backbone?  AT&T still owned about 1/3 of the shares of Cincinnati Bell before the breakup, so it's not like they had no stake in the company.   

Yeah, long distance was the only service that AT&T provided in Cincinnati at that time, as far as I know. There was no AT&T cellular service yet (Cincinnati was covered by Ameritech's cell phone service which later became a part of Cingular, and then finally a part of AT&T in 2007).

 

Speaking of telecommunications companies, another possible use of that windowed space would be a data center. It would be great it a local company like CBTS to occupy that space, but they are probably doing fine with their current location in the Cincinnati Bell building.

I don't think it's that weird that the call centers were in another city. I've noticed that were you send your utility bills is almost always in a town not served by or not the HQ city of the company. Like, AEP bills go to Canton or something, Vectren bills go to Cincinnati or something, Columbia Gas bills go to Cleveland or whatever, maybe Duke Energy bills go to Akron? It's weird.

 

edit: OK, AEP bills go to Pittsburgh and Columbia Gas bills go to Cincinnati despite both being Columbus-based companies.

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by GCrites80s