razing the Manchester?

if it's found that the Manchester is too expensive to renovate or that renovation costs exceed those necessary to build new, would you support tearing it down?

Slowly, this town is losing it's identity. With all the demo going on, the town is literally sending it's past to the dump in trucks. Problem right now is that when something around here is torn down, there is nothing to replace it with new construction. Look at what they have torn down since they started this mass demolition of the city. For the most part, empty lots, while "crossing their fingers" that something, anything, will build in the empty spaces.

No, with the track record of this city's pathetic econ. dev. plan (actually no plan at all) I don't wish to see another building fall to the excavator and dump truck. Not until they have a commitment to occupy the land that will be left when our history goes to the landfill and when they come up with a competent, doable plan to replace their mass destruction.

How do other cities, who are as cash strapped as this one is, manage to save and rejuvenate their older structures with character? This city can't get out of the way of it's own ineptness due to incompetency from the city leaders.

They are changing this city alright. And it ain't pretty and for the better either.    Disgusting.

Why did they tear down the old post office anyway? I saw some old post cards of it and it looked really cool. A lot of the old downtown is gone now, compared to what was there. The buildins from around Verity to Main are some of the last great old buildings that are left. The Seabald block is just a shadow of its former self :(

squeemy - Why is it so much more to renovate? More importantly, why are you going to tear down an existing building when there are empty lots across the street from the Manchester ready for immediate construction? What's the point in tearing anything down?

SupportMiddletown wrote: Even if restoration costs more than new construction, there is a 20% federal non-competitive tax credit and 25% state competitive tax credit that could be leveraged to drop rehabilitation costs below new construction. The character of the end product will be much different that what you could deliver new.    Alternatively, if a new facility was desired, the Manchester could be rehabbed for another use such as senior housing. In Hamilton, the former Anthony Wanye Hotel (Hamilton's answer to the Manchester), was long-vacant and near demolition, but preservation groups saved the building in it last hour and it was converted 3 years later to senior housing using LIHTC tax credits and the federal historic tax credit.

Any reason why Middletown leaders couldn't do the same thing here if Cincy State doesn't follow through?

VietVet wrote: Any reason why Middletown leaders couldn't do the same thing here if Cincy State doesn't follow through?

Well, the main reason would be CITY HALL!!!  Housing for seniors downtown was already proposed once (and at no cost to taxpayers, no less) but Kohler and the gang shot it down.

spiderjohn - what is rhetorical about pointing out an empty lot?I'll ask again, what is the point in tearing down an existing building when there is an empty lot across the street? You don't have to spend money for demolition to start building on an empty lot. Don't we have a budget crisis in this town? Is it so important to put this culinary school at the site of the Manchester that we'd ignore the obvious (and obviously cheaper) alternative? I didn't go to the Manchester because I couldn't afford to go there so forgive my poverty. What does that have to do with not wanting the building torn down? The building closed because there was no need for a hotel downtown anymore. Perhaps if there were a reason for a downtown hotel the Manchester would still be operating.

Spider....ok, we understand your take on the Manchester being a business and not a historic landmark. We understand that it folded because no one was patronizing it. It is now a useless hulk, just sitting idle awaiting disposition. I answered your question on how often I went there. No reason to have company stay there as I have a home with ample room. No reason to pay the prices they were charging. I'm not a high roller and couldn't justify the prices for the portions. We all know the hotel lost all of it's business when Armco and other companies exited the city leaving the hotel rooms empty of guests. Not enough of the old guard left that were around when the Manchester was a destination for entertainment and a nice dinner meal either.

Now, I ask you, what is the harm in investigating a new usage for the Manchester. What is the harm in the city, like Hamilton and their Anthony Wayne hotel, that was in a similar situation to the Manchester now, applying for some grants or other funding available, to find a new life for this building as seniors housing........and, if that fails, tear her down and make another green space/empty lot.

The old "put your money where your mouth is" only applies to people who have the extra income to make an investment like that. Don't know of too many people that can do what you are suggesting, do you? Most of us are just getting by in this lousy economy as you well know.

Any problem with making one last attempt?

TonyB wrote: spiderjohn - what is rhetorical about pointing out an empty lot?I'll ask again, what is the point in tearing down an existing building when there is an empty lot across the street? You don't have to spend money for demolition to start building on an empty lot. Don't we have a budget crisis in this town? Is it so important to put this culinary school at the site of the Manchester that we'd ignore the obvious (and obviously cheaper) alternative? I didn't go to the Manchester because I couldn't afford to go there so forgive my poverty. What does that have to do with not wanting the building torn down? The building closed because there was no need for a hotel downtown anymore. Perhaps if there were a reason for a downtown hotel the Manchester would still be operating.

So--the Manchester Inn was no longer a reasonable service option to those posting here for various reasons.  If Cincy St. comes in on a large scale and finds the Manchester renovation unrealistic, could it be used as a dormitory for students(if there was a need)? We have enough low-class unkept senior high-rises in the area already, and those living in them can hardly spur an area economy.

Consider the Swallen’s building.

This was also a large, city-owned building, structurally sound, in the heart of downtown, near Donham Plaza, and moth balled.

The city turned down an offer of over $200,000 from the Middletown Area Senior Citizens, who desired to use the first floor as an activity center and the upstairs as housing for seniors. Years later, when our city budget could no longer afford the cost of keeping the structure mothballed, the building was demolished.

If Cinci State decides against using the Manchester, you can look for the same fate to befall that structure.

Why??? Because City Hall routinely violates both its own ordinances and the Ohio Revised Code regarding the disposal of City-owned real estate!!!

correct--the families with serious cash have been leaving the building for decades now

Mike_Presta wrote: Consider the Swallen’s building. This was also a large, city-owned building, structurally sound, in the heart of downtown, near Donham Plaza, and moth balled. The city turned down an offer of over $200,000 from the Middletown Area Senior Citizens, who desired to use the first floor as an activity center and the upstairs as housing for seniors. Years later, when our city budget could no longer afford the cost of keeping the structure mothballed, the building was demolished. If Cinci State decides against using the Manchester, you can look for the same fate to befall that structure. Why??? Because City Hall routinely violates both its own ordinances and the Ohio Revised Code regarding the disposal of City-owned real estate!!!