ucgrady Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 When I lived in Chicago they did facad-ectomies all the time, but I don't recall any projects that have done this in Cincinnati. This seems like a case that it could make sense because of the interior layout and floor to floor heights. Is there something in our historic guidelines that is different that makes these harder to get approved or pull off, or is it more of a construction material issue where Chicago has many cast iron and terracotta facades while Cincinnati's are mostly brick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 It's a money thing. It's expensive and that's basically all there is to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwulsin Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 If they leave the "Donatos building", and simply tear down the 2-story annex, then the buildable parcel of the south tower could have a floor print of ~8,200 sq ft, which is almost identical to the size of the footprint of the north tower. So... in essence, they could build two similarly-sized towers, although the south tower would be more square and the north tower would would be more rectangular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakucyk Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 When I lived in Chicago they did facad-ectomies all the time... My architecture master’s thesis dealt with exactly this issue. When you can’t save what’s behind the facade you have to ask if it’s worth the trouble anymore. The argument is that saving the facade alone eviscerates the integrity or the soul of the building. Maybe that’s a bit hyperbolic and over-anthropomorphizing, but it’s at least worth considering. As with any approach its success or failure depends on the execution. As a general practice though, facadectomies are pretty expressly discouraged by modern historic preservation standards, even though they were somewhat common from the 1970s through 1990s. That came about as a reaction to projects where the facade was left as a freestanding sort of objet d’art such as at Penn Mutual Tower in Philadelphia, or retained as mere dressing of a blank wall with no function and blanked out windows and doors such as at Circle Centre Mall in Indianapolis. So if the problem is floor-to-floor heights and such, then saving a facade doesn't actually help that problem, and may in fact make it worse because you're trying to fit pieces together that actually don't fit, so it makes both worse for the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebillshark Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 I still think you are getting more than you are giving up wth the current plan but... What if you did this? If floor to ceiling heights in the Donatos building are the issue, remove every other floor except for the support joists. Then do open floorplan office. You'd lose square footage but that might make your renovation costs lower as well. Looks like you could get about three floors in maybe? www.cincinnatiideas.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanpioneer Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 ^But what about the columns though? How would they be dealt with if the floor's removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwulsin Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 After adjourning for 40 minutes for an "executive session", the board reconvened and approved the demolition of both 719 and 721 Main, by a vote of 5-1, conditional on a final design review of the new proposed construction (not sure when that would be, or how it would differ from what was presented today). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northsider Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Seems like the right call to me. the Donato's building isn't really notable in any way and it sounds like renovation of it to modern standards is p. much impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyEros Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 What didn't the historic board like about the design Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nati streets Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Densification of typical residential areas by the addition of basement apartments and detached garage apartments or the construction of several houses on a lot formerly occupied by a single house is one thing. The built density of a downtown is another. In Cincinnati the economic pressures that exist in other cities don't exist here because the metro population is barely growing and there is not a land crunch...there is no physical or legal growth boundary (lake, ocean, watershed, mountain range, restricted growth of water & sewer, or formal growth boundary ala Portland, OR), and there is no rapid transit system. People live in Cincinnati's denser neighborhoods as a hobby and buy property there as speculative investments -- not because of some real practical concern or because they have to due to a lack of affordable alternatives. Nobody's going to convince me that under current conditions we should permit infill in Over-the-Rhine higher than the buildings that already exist there. DT is different of course, but as we are seeing with the huge parking garage planned for the Pogue's parking garage site, big residential developments in the downtown will continue to require gigantic parking garages. You kinda had me until the second paragraph. If the nature of the investment is to be part of the urban fabric of the neighborhoods as a hobby (or you know to live within walking distance of bars, and restaurants)... Then within that argument the limit is the existing urban fabric, it is what people want to see and it is what people want to pack into. Thus a few 10-14 story buildings very much have a place in OTR, as the physical limit -which may be a ocean elsewhere- is the neighborhood boundary of OTR here, and people are and will be willing to densify within those limits. This densification is made even more lucrative and marketable by its height. The views from the roofs over and within OTR are outstanding, and I believe there will be an even larger market for this going forward when people get to the 10th floor and can see the historic fabric around them running west to Music Hall and Union Terminal beyond. I have always believed that the new should not look like the old, and in fact actually highlight and draw more attention to the value and quality of their historic neighbors by their contrast. I had actually not thought of this with specific respect to height but this too is a solid case for diversity of height (within reason) in OTR - as it sets the new apart so the old can be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebillshark Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 ^in regards to taller heights in OTR you could get into a "Tragedy of the commons" situation there though, especially at 10-14 stories. That's were a shared resource (in this case, the view) is depleted by everyone trying to harvest it, acting rationally in their own self-interest (in this case by building tall buildings which will block the view of others.) That being said I could see a little bit taller buildings in certain locations such as along Central Parkway (east-west and north-south portions) or at the base of the hills. www.cincinnatiideas.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If you follow the rule that buildings must be no more than 1 floor taller than their talllest neighboring building, I think we will be fine. That way a developer could put a pretty substantial building at the NW corner of Central Parkway and Main, as the Alms & Doekpe building next to it is already pretty tall. But you woudn't be able to build a mid-rise tower at the 12th & Vine parking lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I don't know, that's a dangerous territory as well. Because there are plenty of blocks that only have 2 or 3 story buildings and building a 5 story building would absolutely make sense. Or the situations like on the lots along Central Parkway. There's no reason we shouldn't push to match the height of the American Building on the parking lot next to Salvation Army. That proposed 9 story office building where CMHA used to be along Central Parkway shouldn't be shot down because its neighbors are only 2-3 stories. In a place like OTR you basically have to say, "buildings range from 1-7 stories within the boundaries of OTR (excluding lots along Central Parkway) and therefore that should be what we allow." There are already 5+ story historic buildings within the central parts of OTR yet people always seem to think a 4 story limit on new construction or 5 stories with a setback so the top level can't be seen from the sidewalk is the correct scale. New buildings shouldn't be forced to be smaller than their historic neighbors through policy. That's a pretty great way to underutilize our land and make the streetcar less useful in addition to encouraging more expensive housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAGuy39 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I may be in the minority on this one, but here are my overall thoughts. OTR, from Sycamore, up to McMicken, to Central Parkway, South down Central Parkway, and east to Sycamore, is the main core of OTR. I think in that area, we should be careful to keep buildings at levels that respect the height of buildings immediately surrounding them, in regards to new build. That said, I would make a case that we are fine for north south facing buildings on Central Parkway (both sides), Liberty Street (both sides) and Central Parkway east to west facing. Now, the reason I say this is because I believe also that we should look to maximize height in the CBD as much as possible. This is where the bulk of residents will end up. These bulk residents will in turn become the main customers of OTR businesses that will continue to sprout up. Also, if the streetcar gets built up to Uptown (hopefully by tunnel), then even more so, the area of uptown can really look to densify even more. I am not the biggest fan of the architecture built currently in uptown or the tearing down of historic buildings there, but there is a lot more room for dense growth in that area. This will create a more affordable living center with easy access to downtown and OTR entertainment and nightlife connected within walking distance by the streetcar. This will furth solidify all of OTR as a restaurant / high end residential / small office user area, with large nodes of population centers on both ends. I think in 20 years, we all want to say that the historic nature of OTR was preserved, because that is what makes Cincinnati unique in the midwest and stand out from the rest. If we can get the rail line connected to Uptown, I see no issues with affordability in OTR itself. Yes, some may not be able to live directly in OTR because of how expensive it could get, but at the same time, you can live within an easy shot of OTR no issues. That's a long ways off, but just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwulsin Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Here is Bowdeya Tweh's article on the HCB meeting yesterday regarding the 8th & Main project: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/03/21/panel-oks-downtown-building-demolition-new-condos/82095170/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshknut Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I read somewhere that it is initially going to be razed and turned into a parking lot. No official plans have been given to the city at all. Basically, they are going to turn it into a parking lot and if "economically feasible", build condos at some point in the future. Has anyone else heard this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 That is not my understanding. The demolition is only allowed pending full approval of the new condo tower. Also, I don't think Griewe is interested in being a parking lot owner. He is putting forward these plans because be wants to build a condo tower downtown. Now, The Dennison, on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebillshark Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I read somewhere that it is initially going to be razed and turned into a parking lot. No official plans have been given to the city at all. Basically, they are going to turn it into a parking lot and if "economically feasible", build condos at some point in the future. Has anyone else heard this? No, people online are getting this confused with the Dennison, for which there is no redevelopment plan. Renderings of the project at the Donato's site were included in the historic conservation board packet on the city's website. www.cincinnatiideas.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshknut Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Good. I knew this was the case for the Dennison and hoped that they were wrong about this other project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jmecklenborg Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 It seems to me that this and the Denison coordinated their efforts in order to confuse the public and overwhelm efforts to oppose either project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanlammi Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 ^You and your conspiracy theories, Jake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Schneider Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 No, just the opposite. Greiwe was worried that people would confuse 8th and Main with the Dennison. Guessing that he wants the Dennison restored too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebillshark Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 It may work to the Dennison's favor. If the Historic Conservation Board wants to be known as moderate or pragmatic, they could approve Donato's building demo and protect the Dennison. www.cincinnatiideas.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jmecklenborg Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 ^You and your conspiracy theories, Jake. Real estate people tend to be very clever. Much smarter than the average internet commentator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Greiwe is very public and open about what he wants for the city. Demolition without development is not it. The man is a developer. He wants to create things. Regardless of your opinion of those specific things he doesn't just want to go in and tear things down. It is always for a reason and with the intention of creating something larger in its place. And so far I don't think he has ever torn something down and not built on the lot in any of his projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 It may work to the Dennison's favor. If the Historic Conservation Board wants to be known as moderate or pragmatic, they could approve Donato's building demo and protect the Dennison. I think the Eighth and Main decision was a good sign. "You can demolish this historic building that would be cost prohibitive to rehab, as long as you actually move forward with your plan to build this new condo tower there." Meanwhile, the Dennison owners have no public plan for what they want to do with that site. The HCB can say, "show us the plan or else you're not tearing down the Dennison." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCOV Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 It may work to the Dennison's favor. If the Historic Conservation Board wants to be known as moderate or pragmatic, they could approve Donato's building demo and protect the Dennison. I think the Eighth and Main decision was a good sign. "You can demolish this historic building that would be cost prohibitive to rehab, as long as you actually move forward with your plan to build this new condo tower there." Meanwhile, the Dennison owners have no public plan for what they want to do with that site. The HCB can say, "show us the plan or else you're not tearing down the Dennison." Then they can pull down the Dennison and not build what they promised. Just like Ron Brown did to St Martins back on 2008. He tore down that beautiful church but promised to replace it with condominiums. We are still staring at the scar in the landscape where the building was ripped out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seicer Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Has the historic building at that corner been used on the upper floors for decades? Someone floated an image of the building in the 1960's yesterday (I think on Facebook), and it showed the upper floors boarded over then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 From everything I'm gathering the problems presented by Greiwe and John Schneider have been a big part of its vacancy for decades. It just isn't setup for modern office or residential standards and retrofitting wouldn't create a product anyone would want to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seicer Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Is this outlined somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Schneider Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I've renovated about three dozen buildings over the years. A lot of old buildings work really well for adaptive re-use. This one doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 John do you remember what the column spacing and floor-to-floor was inside? That could help with the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram23 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Does anyone have any pictures of the interior? I know I'd be interested in taking some if not - if for no other reason than to just have some record of it before its gone. Sherman Cahal[/member] would probably be interested, too. If renovation is really unfeasible, the pictures would help the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Schneider Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Columns are 9' 6" on center. Can't remember the exact ceilings heights, but the final result was that for office use, allowing for MEP, would achieve finished ceiling heights on four of the six floors of 6'8" to 8'5" You really need 9' ceilings for offices these days. I think apartments could work around some of these constraints, making the beams and columns part of the design. Griewe's team did this. Can't remember his exact numbers from Monday's presentation, but I remember thinking that, gee, even if you got the building for free, you would still lose money. That shouldn't surprise anyone. We see all the great work with these old buildings happening all over OTR, but we forget how subsidized a lot of those projects are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 9'-6" o.c. is not enough for residential. My 490 square foot studio would have a column line running right down the center of it if there were columns at 9'-6" o.c. That would make laying out a comfortable living/dining area very difficult. Bathroom, Kitchen, and bedroom (if you got creative) could work, but your main living/dining areas would have a lot of trouble. And a finished head height ever being below 7'-6" is really unacceptable. 6'-8" would be met with laughs from potential tenants shortly before they slam the door on their way out. I'm definitely even more on board with demolition now. That just isn't the type of building that suits itself to being retrofitted for another use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit Hash Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Not to mention the building is not seismically up to par and would be a fire hazard without upgrades that are not economically feasible. Edit: Old Photos of Cincinnati on FB flared up with debate on this and it devolved into the preservation version of the communist domino theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Precisely why I've left every single Cincinnati facebook group. I loved seeing all the old photos but the old mentalities that persisted in that group (and basically all others)? Not so much. I'm so much less stressed as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 $36 million condo tower approved for downtown Cincinnati The Historic Conservation Board unanimously approved a certificate of appropriateness for a 13-story mixed-use condo building with first-floor commercial space, internal parking spaces on the first through third floors and 30 condos on floors four through 13. Developers Terrex Development & Construction LLC and Greiwe Development Group plan to build the condo tower at the southwest corner of Eighth and Main streets. The estimated total cost for the project is $36 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cin614 Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Great News :clap: :clap: I wish the tower would be 3 or 4 more stories taller. Cincinnati thinks to small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cin614 Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 I don't know how I feel about that design. I felt like the first concept rendering was better and outgoing. This rendering just seems plain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old edale Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 I wish this development could be a little taller too, but honestly at this site, 13 stories is probably about appropriate. We need about 10 more of these guys scattered around downtown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Well, hopefully they'll make a big profit on this one and roll that into building the second tower at the northwest corner of the intersection, replacing the surface lot that's there now. I would much rather have a bunch of projects at this scale rather than filling downtown with a bunch of Eighth & Sycamore / Fourth & Race type projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAGuy39 Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 I have a feeling it will do well. All about contacts and Greiwe has a lot of success it seems. Though it did say they have to pre-sell about 20-30% before they get financing, which I am sure they can do quite easily once they start marketing. The units in Mariemont sold quick I was told, and I drive by the units he developed in Hyde Park and it shows 17 sold on the sign. I am not certain how many units are in there. I am guessing they will be successful with pre-sales on this, move forward, and once they hit enough sales on this go forward with the second phase development. I will say, I would like to see the second tower be a different color of sort to break things up a bit, but that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoerstw Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Enquirer article on the HCB approval. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/08/09/plan-downtown-new-build-condos-okd/88447598/ They also note that the price per square foot will be roughly $500, with condos ranging from $600k-$1.2M... but that the developer will still seek a city subsidy such as a property tax abatement or grant. At what price per square foot are these profitable on their own? $500/sqft is highest downtown/otr has seen proposed (that I can recall). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAGuy39 Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 I read it as possibly around $900k profit for the developer. Considering it's probabably a large team, that most likely isn't enough for the investors to spend their money on if the condos don't sell. I don't know what the total square footage is, but if it's a $37 million dollar project, 900k makes it 37,900,000 selling point/ $500 = 75,800 ft^2. If you want to double that 900 kg, you would have to go to $38,800,000 / 75,800 ft^2 = $512/ft^2 They may deem that price too high, so they will ask for a city subsidy to help soften the blow. This will then give them a gauge on the market in that range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Doesn't the city currently grant tax abatements to every new development in the city? If that's the case, I don't see why they wouldn't apply for it for this project. Thanks to the city's current asinine policy of reducing the property tax rate lower and lower every year, they can give as many tax abatements as they want and it won't result in any less tax revenue for the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cincinnatus Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Has anyone tallied up where we're at so far as CBD development and then CBD + OTR development - dollar-wise? Both current construction and (seriously) proposed plans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinkley Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Looks like Sibcy Cline might be moving to this new building (which seems like a good sign that it'll actually happen). http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/09/30/exclusive-sibcy-cline-to-move-downtown-office.html Disclaimer I can't actually read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoerstw Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 HCB Packet 3/13/17 has an update to this project. The original developer, Greiwe Development, could not make the project work (can only assume a lack of buyers). And North American Properties has inherited the rights to develop the property into ~120 micro apartments and to remove the parking aspect of the project. It looks like it is recommended for approval. It is right on the streetcar line which i believe lowers the parking requirement, and 3CDC just opened that large garage at 8th/Sycamore (which North American Properties is developing the residential on top of that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebillshark Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 HCB Packet 3/13/17 has an update to this project. The original developer, Greiwe Development, could not make the project work (can only assume a lack of buyers). And North American Properties has inherited the rights to develop the property into ~120 micro apartments and to remove the parking aspect of the project. It looks like it is recommended for approval. It is right on the streetcar line which i believe lowers the parking requirement, and 3CDC just opened that large garage at 8th/Sycamore (which North American Properties is developing the residential on top of that). Awesome. A huge "win" if they can build that many units without parking. Something I would like to see replicated across the CBD. www.cincinnatiideas.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now