The Clyffside Brewery Condo project appears dead in the water at this point. The two buildings which were to be part of a 3 million dollar condo conversion project that would have featured 19 loft units has just been listed by Comey and Sheperd for 199,900.00!. Cathy Frank is the listing agent MLS#1201439

 

Hopefully a new buyer/developer can be found for that project. The Brewery District area has been struggling for years and when they had the groundbreaking back in 08 I thought this project had good promise. I know a lot of people bought other property over there "banking" on that project happening.

That is a bummer.

 

 

I edited the title of the thread so that viewers know this is in Cincinnati.

It definitely will slow progress in that area. There are some really great retail buildings over there that could be developed ( I always thought it would make a nice antiques district) since its close to Findlay Market. I don't know who would be willing to take the risk over there without anything else going on.

I'm not sure they ever sold any of the units there.  A problem from my perspective was that the building was/is in bad shape and they were going to build the units out as they sold.  As a result buyers would have to have a lot of confidence and vision to feel secure in buying a unit there.

 

In case you're curious, I posted photos from inside the Clyffside Building that was proposed to be renovated into 19 units ranging from the mid-100's to the mid-200's.  You can find those pictures here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15853.0.html

Yea when it comes to OTR, people won't live there at all unless they physically see progress happening around where they want to live.  Promises don't go very far when trying to change the perception of OTR.  The streetcar should help that area a lot though.

Apparently from what I was told (by someone who knows) there was alot of interest in the condos. The problem seemed to be that they needed an investor in order to get a model done. I think if they could have gotten to that point all they would have needed were a few pre-sales to get the ball rolling.

 

Its not 2004 anymore and I agree without something to show people its almost impossible to get anyone to take a leap.

 

But frankly (I saw the same thing happen in Indy) I think the entry level 100-175K condo market is starting to get "overbuilt" in Cincy and I think there will be demand for larger units or single family types of housing. there are an awful lot of units on the market and in the pipeline right now. I do not know if "demand" is there yet?

Apparently from what I was told (by someone who knows) there was alot of interest in the condos.

There was no way that condo buyers were going to get financing.  It isn't as simple as building them as they get sold, they had to meet presale requirements that were simply unrealistic for that project.  It was a great idea on paper but in reality there was little to no chance that Duane could pull off that project.  He has vision, he has heart but unfortunately that isn't enough on something like Clyffside.

Well I think his problem was one of not having any bank level comittments lined up. On a project like this, if you can personally cover acquisition costs, permits zoning and development (model) out of pocket then you generally have enough equity to get some sort of "buy in' from a  bank.

 

BUT, you have to 1.) Have really good build out numbers. 2) A realistic Presale "break even" point, and 3.) Development deal financing for purchases pre arranged with the lender you are working with.4) a really good development track record.

 

I've worked on projects similar to this and my big take was he was offering a product not much different from say 3CDC products but it was in Brewery district, which means you are competing with them and maybe 3-4 other smaller developers with similar products AND you are in an area 'percieved" as much worse at the moment with nothing going on development wise!

 

Personally I would have done far fewer units say 6-7 large units high end at 4-500K each. Combined with a live/work/retail  condo mix at street levels.

 

BUT to do anything there, you really need a group of small and medium developers and basically do everything from  about the 200 blk of McMicken all the way up to Mohawk place. It takes LOTS of money and common goal but it could be done as the total acquisition cost of a 4 block area is pretty reasonable. One small or mid sized developer acting alone, will lose his shirt. You need  a concerted effort and maybe a little 'buy in' from the city in terms of cleaning the crime up to make the turnaround.

 

The low end condo market is so overbuilt right now you have to offer something different to be competitive.

Personally I would have done far fewer units say 6-7 large units high end at 4-500K each. Combined with a live/work/retail condo mix at street levels.

And it probably would have bankrupted you. Having the financing to build it is one hurdle, the buyer having the financing it to buy it is another. Holly and I were brought in by Duane very early on to look at the feasibility and we passed. (I think we were with HUFF at the time, before Holly became a rep for 3CDC). Christine Schoonover was brought in and she passed. You have to have a good understanding of not just what sounds good as a proposal, but what will sell--not just to the buyer, but the banks.

Your proposal sounds even further off than Duane's. Even your commercial component presents complications when the total number of units is brought down to 6 or 7, potentially making your ratio of commercial to residential too high. And the pricing?? What are you basing that off of? We have one 398,000 condo that has been sold at Gateway and that is on Main. Are you saying that you can do 6 or 7 of those at Clyffside? I am having a hard time with your logic.

my big take was he was offering a product not much different from say 3CDC products but it was in Brewery district

How do you define a 3CDC product? Like Urban Sites, Like B2B, Like Model, Like Eber, like Huber? and even then there is a tremendous difference between buildings within the same developer. Are you only talking about competing on price just at a much higher level in a less developed area? That isn't being competitive, that is being foolish. Sorry to be so harsh but it is easy to be on the outside looking in and saying I would have done this or that but until you put real skin in the game, it is just one person saying I would have done things smarter...but not. Duane at least rolled the dice. I believe the property is available now so if you would like to give it a go, now is your chance. We will do a follow up critique in a year or two...so go and prove me wrong.

Michael I"ve done 4 condo conversion projects in Indy ,countless residential restorations, all higher end and all small in buildings and neighborhoods "off the radar" to most before we did them.

 

Right now I'm strictly looking at commercial to put our historic interior design studio, our restoration consulting buisiness, our antiques business, and our vintage art gallery in. I've looked at Brewery and areas around Findlay as well. I like both areas. We self finance all our projects so I do not need bank buy in.

 

After constant battles on our own historic residential restoration (Blindsided by a VBML)  in Knox Hill (fairmount). I am likely going to go to Newport and locate our companies there.

 

Not by choice,I'd really like to be in OTR, but I find the biggest obstacle to historic preservation and restoration is city inspection who have no clue what they are doing, pick and choose what parts of the city ordinance they want to follow and basically are the biggest "roadblock' to redevelopment right now.

 

Maybe why Newport and Covington are thriving and OTR still struggles.

We self finance all our projects so I do not need bank buy in.

I am not talking about the acquisition and build out side, I am talking about the buyer financing. Some of the things you mentioned above would prohibit most buyers from buying your product,

 

 

After constant battles on our own historic residential restoration (Blindsided by a VBML) in Knox Hill (fairmount). I am likely going to go to Newport and locate our companies there.

I am in the same boat. I am renovating my home on Mulberry with the ever present problems from city and am fighting a VBML on a commercial interest on 12th. Par for the coarse but with adversity sometimes comes opportunity.

 

I"ve done 4 condo conversion projects in Indy ,countless residential restorations, all higher end and all small in buildings and neighborhoods "off the radar" to most before we did them.

We too have been known to dable in Real Estate right here in OTR

 

I've never had problems with buyer financing, our appraisals usually come in higher and most of our buyers are "move up" buyers with substancial down payments.

 

I totally "feel ya" on the VBML thing. I am sure before its over I will have to take the city to Federal court, get the VBML ordinance thrown out and force the city to start over on it's approach. Making me a "Hero" or a "Pariah" depending on which side of the issue you are on. I feel the VBML was a good idea but has been totally perverted by city inspections at this point, that it is a detriment to redevelopment.

 

I've looked at , and passed, on 3 buildings that we could have redone and made an impact on the neighborhood (OTR) but why should I spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and extra time with city inspectors to make  a project happen? A VBML is a 'death sentence' for a Historic property in my opinion.

 

Well trained inspectors who are familiar with historic construction, real repair orders and a full time housing court is the solution.

 

I was amazed that city inspectors do not even carry a camera when inspecting to document issues. I have worked with inspection departments accross the country as a consultant on preservation projectss for 20 years now, and this is the first city I've ever seen that doesn't document inspections for evidentiary proceedings.

 

VBML is a time bomb, the way it's being enforced right now is essentially governmental facilitated "redlining" and its just a matter of time before they lose in court. They will have to repay every dime they have collected, pay a ton of legal fees and probably punitive damages. VBML has the potential to bankrupt this city!

 

But the locals here who do not understand how inspection services really work in other cities, do not understand the "dis-incentive" the VBML is to historic developers and preservationists "cling' to theidea that this will "save" OTR and other near downtown neighborhoods..

 

Most cities, NOT Cincy, are waiving inspection and permit fees to encourage restoration of distressed structures and offering facade grants and streets/sidewalk/lighting improvements.

 

Go downtown and just "suggest' that and you get laughed at.

I've never had problems with buyer financing, our appraisals usually come in higher and most of our buyers are "move up" buyers with substancial down payments.

Well we work with more condo projects than just about anyone in the city and I can tell you, the suggestion on Clyffside would not only have an appraisal issue, but a whole host of other buyer financing issues as well and that is if, and I do mean if, you could find the buyers in the first place.

Go downtown and just "suggest' that and you get laughed at.

I went to Ed Cunningham and 'suggested' he remove my inspector and he obliged. Its all in how you handle them...I did so sternly.

Ed Cunningham is a good guy, dealing with , in my opinion, a legislative "bad situation" of an VBML ordinance that was a good idea 10 years ago, but doesn't work now that people actually want to come to this city and restore. Throw in the foreclosure crisis and the fact that VBML is a 'revenue stream' for the city and its not a good mix!

 

Ive got 1.2 million dollars worth of restoration going on right now, by residents in a neighborhood the city wrote off 10 years ago. If I could take VBML out of the equation and just deal with normal permits I'd have 6 homes straddled with VBML's with new owner occupants willing to buy "slum property' from out state Investors who could care less about my neighborhood. That would be another 1 Mil in restoration.

 

I've 'turned around neighborhoods' but this city stand in the way. It does not make sense since out neighborhood could be a major tax revenue base?

You would think the city would rather have 200-350K properties rather than 5K ones? We plan on pursuing historic district status in 2010 just to slow the "blight=bulldozer' mentality of the city down and get proper section 106 review on properties slated for demo using CDBG funds.

 

There is some other "agenda" going on. (it's coming out of the city managers office)

Ive got 1.2 million dollars worth of restoration going on right now, by residents in a neighborhood the city wrote off 10 years ago.

And yet projects that we are working on in OTR are exponentially higher both in cost and volume. You are preaching to the choir here. I deal with VBML's, yet I manage. I deal in a blighted neighborhood, yet I manage. I have located my business in OTR, yet I manage. I am restoring my home in OTR, yet I manage. I have to deal with the often difficult and rarely equal dictates of Historic, yet I manage. I have sat in Milton Dohoney's office along with every council member all the way to the mayors to get projects underway, yet I manage. I even have to deal with bureaucracies on the state level for both funding and licensing that you probably never have nor ever will have to deal with and all the while, I manage.

 

OTR is not easy, development itself is not easy. Have you even applied for a waiver of VBML? If indeed there are all of these properties that you are going to be working on in OTR, then what was the reasoning of the board to deny your waiver. Let me know because I personally know a couple of people that sits on that panel and I will find out why someone like me can get one but you somehow can not.

 

We plan on pursuing historic district status in 2010

That should really speed up development. Here on the hillside of OTR and Mt. Auburn is where the our historic district stops. I have dealt with more developers who refuse to work within the district due to the sometimes unnecessary and usually uneven rulings by the historic review boards. It is easier and more cost effective to simply move up one street than have to deal with that extra level of bureaucracy. This is one of the reasons why Dorsey and Boal have seen a greater number of new const. homes than other streets just to the south. Even const. on Mulberry stopped because of its inclusion into the historic dist. which saw Jerry Hunderlaw move his development further north on Sycamore vs more on Mulberry.

In some ways you are simply falling into the same mindset of those who brought us the VBML. The "I know better on how to deal with your property than you do" mindset. The VBML was put in place to help discourage the investment speculators who would just sit on decaying properties. Historic was also put in place to discourage those who would rehab a property that was not to some review boards liking. Both have two things in common, both discourage, and both have the unintended consequence of discouraging the wrong people. Be careful for what you wish for.

The VBML waiver process is flawed, number one you are acknowledging the VBML determination, in most cases on property that should not have ever been determined as such other than a overworked inspector who only wants to do one inspection per year rather than follow up several times on repair orders

 

The city wants you to provide financial information to them yet have no privacy policy in place, nor can they tell you just who has access to such information. I've had the VBML requirements and the ordinance itself reviewed by legal experts including two retired federal court judges and everyone agrees that violates a number of state and federal laws. Maybe you are OK with some paper pusher(or anyone else with access to a file cabinet, having access to your financial information but I do not. Plus the city does not require the same proceedure for a general permit.

 

The city wants you to also provide proof of liability coverage which is not a city wide requirement for all property owners. Creates special class and

is discriminatory in application.

 

What needs to happen is with legitamate property where a VBML was placed. The city should suspend the VBML requirement the minute the property owner pulls permits and should (to encourage development) refund those permits fees when the property is restored as an incentive to bring more people in to but distressed propertry.

 

The fact is that the VBML process, and the waiver process, unfairly discriminates against lower income property owners. I have actually spoke with people who just walked away from a property and let it go into foreclosure because of a VBML. There are several homes in my neighborhood where that exact thing has happened.

 

The city never considered the foreclosure crisis or the fact we have inspectors with 600 plus case loads now. The VBML was designed to be for those "worst of the worst" properties, vacant for years, owned by people with no intention to do anything with them,  not for houses with a broken window where some copper thief broke in.

 

It has simple become 'revenue stream' for the city and is being used in a way it was never designed for.

 

As for Historic District status, that normally only applies to exteriors. I've written secveral registry and conservation district nominations over the years and the net effect is a 20 percent increase in property values in 3 years and higher owner occupant rate.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. we need better trained inspectors who write repair orders and a full time housing court and a landbank.

 

 

I am not defending the VBML and this seems way off topic from Clyffside but....

 

 

The city wants you to provide financial information to them yet have no privacy policy in place

The city wants proof of funds that you are financially able to do the repairs that you say you are going to do to get it to minimum VBML standards (which are pretty low). You can have the bank issue a verification of funds that does not state any account numbers whatsoever or even specific dollar amounts and only that you are do have enough funds (perhaps more, perhaps not) to do the repairs that you outline in your application.

The city wants you to also provide proof of liability coverage which is not a city wide requirement for all property owners.

Generally that is a requirement by lending institutions as well but if the property is in the VBML process there has either been a complaint or the city has deemed it to potentially be unsafe (or there has been numerous police calls for break ins) Yes, they do want to make sure that if your building falls on someone that you do have something in place to pay for the damages, not to you, but to the other person.

The city should suspend the VBML requirement the minute the property owner pulls permits and should (to encourage development) refund those permits fees when the property is restored as an incentive to bring more people in to but distressed propertry.

Once a new CO is pulled and all work is completed, the VBML fees are returned to the property owner. That is an incentive to get a CO and not just sit and pay a VBML year after year on a vacant property.

I've written secveral registry and conservation district nominations over the years and the net effect is a 20 percent increase in property values in 3 years and higher owner occupant rate.

I have done my fair share of property valuations and I can tell you that although there is a disclosure requirement for such a district, it in no way directly affects the value. You are attributing a direct cause/effect relationship to the two yet there are too many other things at play that truly directly effect values including the simple fact that the reason that a distressed area has someone to write for a historic district means that more and more people who tend to be people who care about revitalization and restoration were already moving into the area increasing demand and adding tangible value into the properties. The hidden cost as I said above to such a district is the discouraging of new const. development especially when all things are equal between two streets except the designation.

 

Have you applied for a waiver of VBML? In the end, short of going to the Ohio Supreme Court and spending some God awful amount of time and money, you may just want to get a waiver.

 

 

Hello,

 

I am curious to know your opinion on East McMicken Ave. ?  Is it changing ?

The streetcar should help that area a lot though.

Fingers crossed for the streetcar!

Right now that area along McMicken in the general area of Cliffside has ONE house restoration and at the monent at least appears to be the ONLY one over there actively doing anything.

 

I actually looked at this house when it was for sale and he has done a remarkable job and has dropped over 200K in it. Everything else around there is vacant, condemned, or a 'boarding house' type of building. There open air drug drug dealing and prostitution everywhere.

 

Personally I plan on nominating this guy for a preservation award this year as he has trully gone into an area that most fear to tread and has been in a constant battle for over a year with the city and has numerous delays as result. He and his family are hoping to move in soon from what I understand.

 

I also spoke to the realtor who is marketing the Cliffside and she says there has been some interest in the building so perhaps that project will get revived in some shape or form. It would have a big impact on the area

^I wondered what was up with that. The paint job on that looks beautiful.

 

This is what it used to look like, with the awful siding.

Here is the Auditor photo of the above house.  Great work.

 

I heard that Sondra Walls, who owns a lot of property in the area is slowly selling everything she owns.  She is sometimes listed as Sondra Burget.

I haven't been to McMicken and Mohawk in a long time.  Great to see this has been renovated.  Excellent!