Topic: Cincinnati: Demolition Watch

[natininja]

I got an email that had a rendering in it and frankly it looks like crap. Keep Clifton Natural Foods, the Christy's building, and the houses on Lyon Street. That's too much historic fabric to lose for more EIFS. Hopefully the developer REALLY wants to build and ends up reworking their plans to just fill in the parking lot instead of tearing anything down.

Sounds like the CUFNA, while wanting to preserve the historic buildings, also would not want to give up any parking. Would be nice if a deal could be worked out with the garage owners across the street at U Square, to offer spaces out of there to residents of the new place.

[CincyGuy45202]

Rents at the U Square garage are $95 a month, and are open to anyone not just residents of the apartments.

[jmecklenborg]

I think the issue here is Christy's can't really remain a viable business without 10 or so parking spaces, and when that's combined with the space needed to move those cars to said spaces in combination with the Christy's footprint then it really eats into the space available to the developer.  Spaces in the garage for Christy's would mean doing a public parking element which means it might have to be staffed or whatever, although I'd imagine that parking meters in the ground floor of the garage would work just as well.  I mean, if you're going to choose houses to tear down, tear down more on Lyon St. and save Christy's. 

[ryanlammi]

Demolition Permit Requested for the Goetz House (Christy's and Lenhardt's) at 151 W. McMillan in Clifton Heights. Discussion in the CUF Development and News thread.

[Ram23]

I'm not sure how this slipped by, but it seems Glencoe Place is being demolished.  Here's the permit, issued last month:

http://cagis.hamilton-co.org/opal/apd.aspx?entcode=cinc&ezstdadrtag=2||GLENCOE|PL|GJ1527633405|||CINC|CINC|00880009008500002G|008800090085|008800090085|CINCINNATI&APD=2012P09334

Edit: copy + pasting the link should work, clicking doesn't for some reason.  Otherwise, you can search for the addresses: "2 Glencoe," "7 Glencoe," or "34 Glencoe."

[CincyGuy45202]

Damn.

[Sherman Cahal]

Glencoe-Auburn Place, 1884-2013: http://www.abandonedonline.net/2013/03/19/historic-glencoe-auburn-being-demolished/

[TheCOV]

Love to have some of those lintels before they are needlessly pulverized.  I would have thought that our "green" society would help prevent this kind of waste....

[Sherman Cahal]

There are no provisions to salvage. As the contractor told us - just take whatever you want. I'd really like the stone work on the old hotel. Anyone want to help me lift it out of there in the back of my Subie?

[OTR]

There are a couple nice buildings on Mohawk St. with demo orders near the Metal Blast building. I'd really hate to see them come down. How do I learn where certain buildings are on the list of future demos?

[CincyGuy45202]

Building-Cincinnati.com always posts Public Nuisance lists. That's a good place to start.

[Ram23]

There are a couple nice buildings on Mohawk St. with demo orders near the Metal Blast building. I'd really hate to see them come down. How do I learn where certain buildings are on the list of future demos?

I believe this site is updated monthly or quarterly: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/community-development/property-maintenance/condemned-buildings-for-review/

[OTR]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=512986775404273&set=a.425638887472396.86034.100000788668634&type=1&theater&notif_t=photo_comment

[jmecklenborg]

Gamble House demo permit for next week:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130330/NEWS/303300049

[jjakucyk]

I just noticed today that this little office building at the Madison Road entrance to Rookwood Pavilion was fenced off and all the trees cut down.  I guess it's going away.  http://goo.gl/maps/excfJ

[OHSnap]

^I'm fairly certain that used to be Jeffrey Anderson's offices, before he moved into the Rookwood Tower.  I seem to remember the parking spaces on the back side being reserved for various of the Anderson clan.  It's been available for lease for as long as I've lived in the area, and that's getting on to eight years now.

[OHSnap]

And by the time many of you read this, the Gamble house will be gone:

http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/Crews-begin-demolition-of-Gamble-House/-/13549970/19543302/-/bf8lu4/-/index.html?absolute=true

[RestorationConsultant]

I had 127 emails in my inbox today related to the loss of Gamble House from preservationists nationwide. The prevailing view is why was this allowed to happen and where was CPA?  Unfortunately CPA is non effec tive, afraid to  REALLY fight the hard battles, and "offend' their polite society driven" donors. Knox Hill Neighborhood Association will be working on a preservation forum soon, to establish a community and neighborhood grass roots organization that is not afraid of offending society donors, nor beholding to the city, to actually fight the hard battles that need to be fought to save this city's history.  Its not just the grand mansions and archiect designed homes that need preservation.

In case local preservationists didn't know we are now viewed as totally ineffective at saving things. (CPA is a joke)This MUST be changed and Knox Hill will facilititate a preservation forum soon to set a real preservation advocacy plan and a new preservation advocacy organization that is not afraid to fight the hard battles.

The loss of Gamble House is not only a major historic loss but a major setback to preservation. Time for a change! There are 5000 homes on the endangered list and we must stop the tide of demolition by both private individuals and the city.

The time has come to really fight to save our history before if is all gone!

[jjakucyk]

^ So what would you have done to save the Gamble house that wasn't already tried?

[Sherman Cahal]

Paul, you blame the city for every scrap of building that is razed in the city. In 1978, the house was listed in the "Cincinnati Historic Inventory" booklet. That offered no protection, and the residence was open for nomination to the Historic Conservation Board. Anyone can nominate a Cincinnati building for historic designation. Did you apply? No. No one did that for over 30 years until Greenacres made the passing remark on February 3, 2010 that it was seeking bids to demolish the building on their property. It was also eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Did you apply? No.

Council approved of a city Historic Landmark designation on May 12, 2010, but that was overruled in court because an application for the designation was filed after a demolition permit was solicited. I mean, the Zoning Board of Appeals ruled against Greenacres twice. The Historic Conservation Board denied an application for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the residence on December 6.

Want to "blame" someone other than folks like yourself who waited until the last minute to try to save the Gamble House? Try Hamilton County Common Pleas Magistrate Michael L. Bachman, who ruled in July 2011 that the demolition permit was indeed valid, noting that the house was declared historic only after Greenacres filed for a demolition permit. The ruling was appealed by the city.

On January 20, 2012, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Winkler ruled that the demolition proceedings of the Gamble House should continue. City council, in an unanimous decision, ordered Curp to appeal a judge's decision that permitted the demolition of the Gamble House on February 15. The decision from council ignored Curp's advise that they should not appeal Winkler's ruling, who noted that the "city had a low likelihood of success on appeal." Curp hired an independent counsel to handle the appeal. But a three-judge panel of the Ohio's First District Court of Appeals ruled on October 17 that the city could not refuse to issue a demolition permit for the Gamble House based on the urban conservator's determination that the structure had historical significance.

But hey, continue to blame the city, CPA and whoever else. They tried - but the effort was made far too late.

[GCrites80s]

Jeez Sherman, where were you in 1978?

[el double u]

On January 20, 2012, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Winkler ruled that the demolition proceedings of the Gamble House should continue.

WINKLER STRIKES AGAIN!!!

[Sherman Cahal]

Jeez Sherman, where were you in 1978?

Just noting that efforts were made back in 1978. I don't know how old Paul is, nor do I care to, but the house had been sitting for 30 years with no efforts made to list it on a city or national register. Simply having it noted as old in a book isn't enough.

I did amend my post - it was poorly worded and assumed Paul could have done something about the residence back then.

[jmecklenborg]

Sherman, the house had an on-site caretaker for decades.  Why would people think it was in danger of demolition if there was somebody living there full-time maintining it and the grounds?  Why would anyone think that a foundation with over $200 million would justify demolition because it "cost too much"?

The house was doomed the moment Louis Nippert died.  His wife ordered it demolished because of what he did there.  Fill in the blanks. 

[Sherman Cahal]

Jake, there may have been no danger in demolition during those 30 years, but it doesn't mean that it can't be nominated to the city or the National Register of Historic Places. It adds a barrier of protection so that when a caretaker passes on, or has to move out of the house (as I believe happened in this case), then the risk of the house being razed by the next owner or attendant decreases.

I mean, people were blaming the house demolition on west side/east side rivalries. Greenacres renovated Fleischmann's house in Indian Hill (yeast baron) - it's not as if they are new to the scene in this type of work. Others alluded to... more sexual activities but that is pure unsubstantiated.

It's just that people forgot about the house and no one ever believed that it would be razed so quickly. With 900+ buildings listed in the local "Cincinnati Historic Inventory" booklet, not every building can be nominated or remotely saved. But we can at least be more proactive about at least identifying those at risk - like the Hannaford-designed Mary A. Wolfe House on Burton Avenue.

[RestorationConsultant]

Sherman FYI, when the city issued the VBML,  and Greenacres didn't comply, the city or CPA  could have used a legal receivership petition to a court, to legally take possesion of the property to make the required repairs under the VBML  ordinance, gone back to the judge at which point  the repairs had been completed and Green Acres would have to pay the cost of the repairs or lose the house. The city could have used CDBG funding for that purpose (which I am sure Westwood CC would have gladly authorized the use of their CDBG funding for that purpose.  CPA could have raised the money with no problem (there were people ready to write checks) Neither entity had the "guts" to take this perfectly legal course. I know this because I was INVOLVED in conversations with some CPA board members and certain city officials.

We NEED a community based preservation organization that is interested in saving historic property and not beholding to the politics, society donors, or the 'optics' of looking like you are being hardnosed and fighting to save it. That is what preservation organizations are SUPPOSED to do, and when you stand up to city hall a few time they tend to come around and see things your way. I would with preservation groups nationwide and they fight. They would fight for Gamble , they would fight for Glencoe, the would fight for Corryville and we would not have 600 city demos this year and we wouldnt have 5000 homes on the VDML/keep vacant/condemn.

Do you know why the city is now having to hold section 106 review hearings on all those homes?  Because Knox Hill filed a federal complaint with HUD, we raised cain with OHPO and they forced the city to start doing section 106 reviews. Many of those homes because of the fact they have to go through a section 106 review have bought time for many to be saved.

Why did it take a new at the time community group to actually read the federal law and understand how its supposed to work? Well because if you knew how federal review works you would have known that the city got away with the blatent misuse of federal funds. Where was CPA? Some of them were trying to pressure us to back off, thats where!

CPA is still afraid to take on Larry Harriss's improper proceedure of performing 106 review, and lobby OHPO to yank the Programmatic agreement and force the city to hire someone who will do proper review.

Sherman, you may be a member of CPA but you have no clue what is going on. Start asking some hard questions of CPA and see what answers you get.

[Sherman Cahal]

You can't take private property via eminent domain for the reasons that you listed. On September 25, 2010, Winburn introduced a motion on whether eminent domain could be used in the case of the Gamble House. City Solicitor Curp stated that historic preservation was a legitimate legal tool to take property via eminent domain, but that it would be a time consuming and costly process. Council was split, and Curp suggested that the process shouldn't begin unless the city has money set aside for maintenance of the property.

Winburn found funding from a never-constructed Bond Hill industrial park for the Gamble House on November 10, and he suggested that the house and a total of 2.28 acres of land be seized - not the full 15 acres, for $300,000 instead of a full $750,000 (fair market value). But the movement to take the property died - namely because no money was found for maintenance of the property if it were to pass into the park board's hands.

And no, you don't have to file a Section 106 review for all properties, like the Gamble House. It's required when a federal agency needs to identify/assess the effects of their actions on historic resources, considering public views and concerns, which impacts the final decision made, and is a component of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. You throw Section 106 around as if it is a necessary component to any demolition project, and it isn't - no federal funds were used in the razing of the Gamble House. Ever. Here is a snippet of what Section 106 review is from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:

"In the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), Congress established a comprehensive program to preserve the historical and cultural foundations of the nation as a living part of community life. Section 106 of the NHPA is crucial to that program because it requires consideration of historic preservation in the multitude of projects with federal involvement that take place across the nation every day.  Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the eff ects of projects they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties. Additionally, federal agencies must provide the ACHP an opportunity to comment on such projects prior to the agency’s decision on them.

Section 106 review encourages, but does not mandate, preservation. Sometimes there is no way for a needed project to proceed without harming historic properties. Section 106 review does ensure that preservation values are factored into federal agency planning and decisions. Because of Section 106, federal agencies must assume responsibility for the consequences of the projects they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties and be publicly accountable for their decisions."

And under "Determining Federal Involvement":

"If you are concerned about a proposed project and wondering whether Section 106 applies, you should fi rst determine whether the federal government is involved. Will a federal agency fund or carry out the project? Is a federal permit, license, or approval needed?

Section 106 applies only if a federal agency is carrying out the project, approving it, or funding it, so confirming federal involvement is critical."

But when applied to the hundreds of other properties that will be demolished - most of which are abandoned, vacant houses, a Section 106 review is not always needed. A review is applicable only if the house is historic. Just because it is old, does not mean that it's historic. And if there is no city/state/federal historic listing, or an overlay protection, then it's fair game.

I think I actually copied and pasted this same text when you last went off on Section 106 review when the Friars Club was demolished.

[TheCOV]

Sorry Sherman, but I'm with Paul on this one.  He never used 106 reviews in reference to the Gamble property, he was just showing the ineffectiveness of others, and that he was involved in making sure that their feet were being held to the fire regarding use of 106 reviews.  Furthermore, if folks like Paul weren't screaming about "every scrap of building that is razed in the city", then it would all be gone for future generations.  And seriously Sherman, any fool could see that this structure was far from a scrap of a building.  If we allowed this structure to be razed yesterday, whats next?  Music Hall and the Union Terminal?  We lose these demolition fights on what seems to be a daily basis anymore.  There will be more.  But if there were no line drawn in the sand on this one, I truly ache for our city, as I see it literally disappearing before my eyes.

I too pass a good deal of blame onto the city.  They didn't enforce their own codes, and the structure fell into disrepair.  This gave credence to Greenacres claims that the structure was too expensive to rehabilitate.  What an effing crock.  I could have restored that building myself.
As a multi-property owner in the city, I'm aware of how aggressive the code enforcement people can be.  On certain people at least.  If a $200 million organization can't afford to paint their house, do you think maybe officials were looking the other way in their case?  I have purchased derelict, foreclosed property, and within two weeks received letters and visits from the city to make sure I repaired steps, and painted peeling trim boards.  They were always courteous, and gave me extensions when I needed them, but they sure as hell made sure I did what they wanted me to.  Of course, I don't have the ability to threaten that my organization could maybe redirect millions of dollars out of other charitable deeds the city needs, and specifically money for renovations to Music Hall as a way of maybe letting me get by with some long deferred maintenance on a home in one of the citys more ignored neighborhoods.

Anyway, I'm typically a property rights guy, and if they wanted the house demolished, so be it.  However, as with all things, there are exceptions, and this one fits it for me.  Carter Randolph is a prick, and he never dealt in good faith.  He/Greenacres received the property as a gift, so it's not like it was his hard earned money, and no one was telling them what to do with the property in the sense that  they had to run a bakery, or a petroleum processing plant or something.  Keeping the home was actually compatible with his desired use of the property.  Make no mistake it was he who controlled the course of action on Greenacres behalf. I don't buy in to any of the rumor that Louise wanted it demolished.  She could have done that the day Louis died if she wanted to.  It was all Carter Randolph.  He is really the only person with a personal connection to the house since he was a boy. Until further proof reveals otherwise, I personally have always felt something dark happened to him at this place, which set in motion his hatred for it.  I have no proof, and I'm not trying to slander the man, but it's just a hunch and a feeling I got from him in person, and from trying to make sense of his illogical decisions regarding his desire to destroy this landmark.

Randolph claims that Greenacres wants to use the 15 acres for a land preservation education site.  Why the hell couldn't Greenacres just partner with the Park Board for this purpose?  Hello, we have a 1,500 acre park within a mile of their site.  It's called Mt. Airy Forest.  Ring a bell?   With the location of the house on the acerage, it would have been easy to parcel out just the home, or leave it as is.  Furthermore doing so would have almost NO impact on their desired use of the property as a land preservation "classroom".  It's interesting that the day after the demolition, Randolph now states he doesn't know what the plans are for the site, and that he wants to allow for a "cooling off" period.  A$$hole.

I understand that it was his property to do with as he wishes, however, he was the mouthpiece for an organization whose intended purpose is to do good things for the citizens of this city.  The citizens expressed their extreme desire to see the home remain.  Yet, he didn't care.  He acted like a child and smashed the toy that he didn't want anymore, even though others still wanted to play with it.  Others who were willing to pay for it.  A$$hole.

[Sherman Cahal]

I think you misunderstand - I also believed that the house was worth saving, and that Greenacres acted in bad faith.

Greenacres turned down 3 offers from CPA, after saying that anyone interested should "write a check - $150,000, fair market and an inflated $250,000 offer. They decided to put up unreasonable restrictions - it couldn't be a museum or a commercial enterprise, for one. And then they illegally stripped the interior of the house and stored the items in the barn. Greenacres also comically stated that they would recreate one room of the house in the barn for display, which was a huge insult to preservationists and to the Gamble estate.

If you ever talked to Randolph, you would find out that he was the biggest a**hole in the world. Literally flat out saying that "preservationists need not worry, I'll have this house torn down in no time." They will restore a yeast baron's house, but not Gamble's estate? Even his winter estate was protected down in Florida - with money coming from the Nippert family of all places. This guy was a grade A jack*** when he opened his mouth, smirking, and I unfortunately had to bear witness to it on more than one occasion.

The city did what it could when it was rushed into making these decisions over a period of three years after the demolition intent was noted. But the Gamble House was in sound condition before 2010 - I can't find a listing of code violations for the house, but it was reported to be in fair condition until it was stripped of its interior. It only fell into disrepair after 2010 - when workers removed windows, doors, cut utilities and let the elements in. They were cited for zoning and housing violations, but I can't find anything where the city actually collected fines - probably because the house kept going back and forth with the courts.

As for the remainder dealing with Section 106 and Paul's comment, I had meant the post to be more broad and amended it minutes after I posted it. I think Paul misunderstands the Section 106 review. While the Gamble House was demolished with no federal funds - privately financed, the same cannot be said for hundreds of other houses in the city. A Section 106 review is not required unless federal money is involved. An old house, for better or for worse, is not historic. The examples you gave - Music Hall, Union Terminal, for instance, are historic - they are listed with the National Register of Historic Places. I think the differing here is what the government considers historic.

Here is a glaring gap that I am saddened over: Glencoe-Auburn. That was listed on the National Register and yet it was demolished after being abandoned for only a few years. It was salvageable; it was worth saving. But guess what? We let a larger hospital (and company) bully preservationists around. Maybe if the Gamble House was listed on the register sometime after the 1970s, another layer of protection could have been afforded, but it's too late.

[Sherman Cahal]

Take a tour of the house:

http://youtu.be/9CPxBYlrunI

[ink]

But no Section 106 review is required unless they are declared historic.

Actually, no 106 review is triggered if federal money is not used. All federal undertakings trigger 106 review, but the review may not mean protection, even if something has historic designation.

[RestorationConsultant]

Sherman, "receivership' is not eminent domain. It is a totally different legal process available to any adjacient property owner, community entity or governmental resource when a property is in violation of applicable laws (municipal code) is in disrepair and the owner of record fails to comply with  a municipal code order. Camp Washington uses it all the time to take property from negligent property owners and its perfectly legal under Ohio law. As I said different from eminent domain and nothing to do with 106 revoiw (which is an issue we should be concerned about)

What it would have done in this case, is allowed the property to be brought into complience with municipal code. Probably at a 250-350K stabilization cost to meet the VBML standard at the time. Greenacres would have fought this but legal precident in the State of Ohio has held that if a property owner (regardless of who they are) is in violation of municipal code, receivership is viable.

What this process would have done, is take the issue of the demo permit off the table and brought it into an issue on non complience with municipal building code. In short it would have taken the national registry issue out of the equation (for the moment) and made the issue of the demo permit null as it was an issue of non complience with city orders.

What would have happened is the city (or CPA) could have stabilized the property, a 12-18 month process, further delaying the issue. The National registry could have proceeded to eventual conclusion (but we would have removed the cart before the horse legal issue). GA would have had to reimburse the repair cost and all the legal manuevers we went through would have been delayed another 12-18 months.

Green acres spent over 450K in legal fees to get Gamble demoed. This process would have added another 400-600K to the cost. As a non profit, the state would have taken a serious look  if the 'charity' was acting as a good steward of donated funds. The state could have found abuse, removed the GA board and set up a new board to administer  the foundation.

We could have saved this building, removed the GA board for failure to act as proper stewards of donated funds and the good work of Greenacres could have continued by a board that really had the interests of the community at heart.

But no one at the city or CPA had the "will" (balls) to fight the largest non profit in Ohio!

[jmecklenborg]

I'm repeating here: Louise Nippert ordered the house torn down.  When somebody with several hundred million dollars wants something torn down, it gets torn down.  The foundation wasn't going to sell to the city or anyone else. 

[TheCOV]

I'm repeating here: Louise Nippert ordered the house torn down.  When somebody with several hundred million dollars wants something torn down, it gets torn down.  The foundation wasn't going to sell to the city or anyone else. 

There is no evidence to support that.  Louise Nippert could have had that house torn down fifty times over since the death of her husband.  It only happened once she was severley infirmed and liar liar pants on fire Carter Randolph could do whatever the hell he wanted.

[RestorationConsultant]

No one 'Really" knows what Ms Nippert wanted, we only have representions from Carter, and most people who were close to Ms Nippert felt there were "issues' with here "awareness" of what was going on around her for some time. As someone with an 89 year old parent I know first hand that people of advanced age are often not aware of what is going on in the real world.

The problem is when others 'represent' what wishes were.

BUT what we need to be concentrating on is making sure this never happens again. There are hundreds of significant properties city wide that are endangered.  The real issue is CPA is run by mosty architects and society types who are "beholding" to other peoples agendas.

We need  a grass roots community based organization devoid of "conflict of interest ' issues and with far greater transparency.

Less "country club' more pick up a hammer and make a difference!!!!