Author Topic: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks  (Read 1471438 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PhattyNati

  • 574'-Carew Tower
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1365 on: April 24, 2007, 03:21:08 PM »
^ that comment is completely off base.  affordable doesnt mean crack runners.  affordable means people that arent getting paid 150k right out of college can actually live there.  this not an exclisive resort neighborhood only for the super rich.
“The Cincinnati Enquirer must be edited by children.”   Mark Twain

Offline UncleRando

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 7520
  • Get on board!
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1366 on: April 24, 2007, 03:37:00 PM »
From all of the talk/mention of ESPN Zone that I have heard in the Cincinnati region...I would say its practically a signed deal with them at The Banks.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are in the 1st phase right on Main St or somewhere within spitting distance of GABP.  I think it will be very cool!

BTW ragerunner...he wasn't commenting about the existence of apartments, but rather he was refuting that downtown needs more 'high end' apartments.  Most of the apartments downtown are high end...and imo that is a problem...some more apartments in the $500-$600 per month range would be great!

It would be quiet a 'land' if they get an ESPN Zone since there are only 8 of them in the US. I say Hard Rock Cafe is the first to sign a contract.

Mark my words...THERE WILL BE AN ESPN ZONE AT THE BANKS!

Offline DanB

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 2246
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1367 on: April 24, 2007, 03:40:21 PM »
^ that comment is completely off base.  affordable doesnt mean crack runners.  affordable means people that arent getting paid 150k right out of college can actually live there.  this not an exclisive resort neighborhood only for the super rich.

yeah, the crack comment was a joke... but you are wrong.  It IS an exclusive neighborhood.  The property is too valuable to put cheap affordable housing in it.  Why would anyone want that?  Even if it was affordable, how would you choose who lives there?  What would stop the super rich from renting them to have an extra apartment downtown?  How naive can you be?

Does Paul Brown Stadium have any low-cost suites?  Using the same thought process, why not?  Why can't the little guy get to sit in a suite?
"Casinos and prostitutes have the same thing in common; they are both trying to screw you out of your money and send you home with a smile on you face."

Offline UncleRando

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 7520
  • Get on board!
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1368 on: April 24, 2007, 03:41:41 PM »
As far as the design, what is directly underneath/below the 2 restaurants?  Is that a watwerfall or fountain.  it looks like something interesting but I cannot make out what it is.

Check out this brochure about the Central Riverfront Park:
http://www.crpark.org/brochure/Trifold6Final.pdf

Go to page 2, and look at the part where it says 'Fountains of Blue'...that is what is proposed for that part of the park.

Offline UncleRando

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 7520
  • Get on board!
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1369 on: April 24, 2007, 03:46:40 PM »
^ that comment is completely off base.  affordable doesnt mean crack runners.  affordable means people that arent getting paid 150k right out of college can actually live there.  this not an exclisive resort neighborhood only for the super rich.

yeah, the crack comment was a joke... but you are wrong.  It IS an exclusive neighborhood.  The property is too valuable to put cheap affordable housing in it.  Why would anyone want that?  Even if it was affordable, how would you choose who lives there?  What would stop the super rich from renting them to have an extra apartment downtown?  How naive can you be?

Does Paul Brown Stadium have any low-cost suites?  Using the same thought process, why not?  Why can't the little guy get to sit in a suite?

First off, cheap is not the same thing as affordable.  What would be great is that a teacher, firefighter, police officer, or any middle class citizen for that matter be able to live downtown.  Whether it is an elite neighborhood or not is not up to me or anyone else on here, but I would like to see the neighborhood actually be a neighborhood rather than a bunch of retired baby boomers looking to spend their retirement money (cough The Ascent cough).

Secondly, of course there should not be low cost suites...but should the entire damn stadium be full of $200 tickets??  I do not think that anyone is suggesting low-income housing at The Banks, but I do not see the problem with having middle-class citizens living downtown...do you??

Offline UncleRando

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 7520
  • Get on board!
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1370 on: April 24, 2007, 03:48:30 PM »
Local leaders pledge: Banks to break ground this year
April 24, 2007 | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

DOWNTOWN - Top elected leaders of Cincinnati and Hamilton County delivered the promise in no uncertain terms: The Banks will start this year.

"We have an opportunity to build into this city, greatness ... just like the people of past generations did," Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory told an estimated 1,000 attendees Tuesday at the Courier's annual Commercial Developers Power Breakfast at the Duke Energy Center downtown.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 03:43:57 PM by ColDayMan »

Offline Jeffrey

  • 629'-Rhodes State Tower
  • *****
  • Posts: 737
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1371 on: April 24, 2007, 04:36:53 PM »
Hmph....sort of bland compared to those other renderings that Monte posted. 

Seems the site plan is evolving....it looks like they are doing some sort of expansion on the Bengals stadium side, which is going to change the character of the space somewhat, setting up a more asymetric type of thing vs what was originally proposed.  Could be interesting if they pay close attention to the urban design. 

I do like what they are doing with that internal street...making it more of a street, vs the original plan, which had plazas along that street.

Here are two quicky diagrams.





...just trying to see how this might work out, spatially. 


Mecklenborgs comments about the parking revenue west of Vine and why this project is being phased the way it is pretty interesting.  Good catch, or assumption, on that one.

So this company has done things in Atlanta similar to this?  Maybe their projects down south are going to be a tastte of  what they are going to be doing here.
 

Friends to Save the Arcade...stay informed via the website of the grassroots movement to save the Dayton Arcade.

Offline NBow37

  • 629'-Rhodes State Tower
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1372 on: April 24, 2007, 04:46:15 PM »


Mark my words...THERE WILL BE AN ESPN ZONE AT THE BANKS!
[/quote]

UNCLERANDO, I like your enthusiasm!  cmon finances, get it sorted it out...southshore newport, the ascent, hopefully queen city square phase II, One river Plaza, 5th and Race, all the lofts around downtown, Ovation, Eden Park tower, and now...THE BANKS (Hopefully)

Offline Jeffrey

  • 629'-Rhodes State Tower
  • *****
  • Posts: 737
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1373 on: April 24, 2007, 05:17:07 PM »
This would be the most logical place for an ESPN Zone as you are between two big pro-ball stadiums. 

The food-and-drink aspects of this place could be developed more on a sports theme or sports-bar theme.  Maybe a NASCAR place, too... I know Dayton has that "Ballpark Village" proposal floating around, but this is a real ballpark village.

The neat thing is that you sort of have a "Newport at the Levee" thing going on,too.  Not decking over Fort Washington Way means The Banks will be somewhat seperated from downtown, this could be marketed as more of a seperate district, away from downtown, but with downtown as a backdrop or stage set.  Sort of the way Newport at the Levee is somewhat seperated from Newport and is its own complex.

 

« Last Edit: April 24, 2007, 05:18:13 PM by Jeffrey »
Friends to Save the Arcade...stay informed via the website of the grassroots movement to save the Dayton Arcade.

Online jmecklenborg

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 11376
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1374 on: April 24, 2007, 08:27:27 PM »
As for the whole old vs. new argument, here are some pictures of the old riverfront.  The problem is I don't even trust today's architects to get old right.  It's like, you watch new movies with sets and they get the proportions and approximations of old materials dead-on but for whatever reason in real life real life architects are just clueless.  Just look at Great American Ballpark for an example of how today's architects have no idea what appropriate window sizes and spacing is or how to define a roofline. 








Pearl & Walnut








Mrs. Trollope's Bazarre, demolished around 1850:





As an example of a movie with well-proportioned sets, here are a pair of shots of the simulated French town from Saving Private Ryan:







Offline mohr37

  • 408'-Kettering Tower
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1375 on: April 24, 2007, 09:07:13 PM »
Some high res. photos:

















Offline seicer

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7927
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1376 on: April 24, 2007, 09:14:59 PM »
I don't see why we need to recreate 'history' every time we see a new development gear up. A city can thrive perfectly fine with modern architectural details, granted that they are designed correctly and blend in with the city. I believe too many people connect the new modernism (i.e. what is above) with the crap that came out of the 1960s and 1970s.

Offline UncleRando

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 7520
  • Get on board!
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1377 on: April 24, 2007, 09:28:53 PM »
I love historic architecture as much as anyone (well maybe not ink), but I think I'm gonna have to agree with seicer on this one.  Sure modern bldgs lack the ornamentation that Gothic and Classical buildings had/have, but there is nothing wrong with them.  Instead of ornamentation the buildings have more glass and a cleaner look...is that soo bad??  Now I certainly would not want an entire city built like this (cough...Phoenix...cough, cough), but I don't think its a bad thing to have it built.

Offline The Last Don

  • 367'-PNC Bank
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • Don Corleone
    • Urban Life
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1378 on: April 24, 2007, 09:55:20 PM »
It's interesting to see the historic photos juxtaposed next to the new renderings.  The architect did a good job at creating a sleek, contemporary neighborhood with an urban focus.  I also like the proportions...it looks like it's built at a pleasant, human scale.
Cincinnati Urban Life: now iPhone compatible.

Online ink

  • UO Supporting Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5658
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1379 on: April 24, 2007, 10:50:28 PM »
A city can thrive perfectly fine with modern architectural details, granted that they are designed correctly

Exactly! I don't find that to be the case here. These buildings don't even work together in the rendering! It is just a bunch of rectangles--literally. Give me a darn arc!!!

This is going to be just like the school house lofts project: topping off a great historic beauty (downtown) with an ugly modern mess (the Banks).

I'm not opposed to contemporary, but this project is a mess.

I do like the little buildings at the end of the bridge, however.

Online atlas

  • 947'-Key Tower
  • ********
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1380 on: April 24, 2007, 10:56:23 PM »
whats up with the areaq on the northeast side closest to the corner of 2nd and main?  Is that a balatanly open parking garage that isnt surrounded by buildings? 

Offline mohr37

  • 408'-Kettering Tower
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1381 on: April 24, 2007, 11:21:20 PM »
The new design reminds me quite a bit of Hamburg's massive riverfront project, Hafencity.  Here's a link to an article discussing it in detail:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,469072,00.html

This particular quote from the article sums up my fears of the new renderings thus far:
Quote
But is there any room for spontaneity? "No, not really," Bruns-Berentelg admits. "It's not easy because with a newly created city, the question is how it holds together," he says. "The danger is that of creating a post-modern amalgamation."

That, in fact, is what many such ambitious development projects have turned into in the past. Berlin's shiny new Potsdamer Platz -- a project likewise directed by Bruns-Berentelg -- may have turned into a tourist magnet, but it hardly fits seamlessly into the city. The London Docklands, while now a popular place to live and work, took years before it was accepted as part of London. And La Défense in Paris -- an eerie collection of skyscrapers built in the 1980s -- somehow jumped straight from futuristic to passé without ever really capturing the hearts of Parisians.

Offline thomasbw

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 3221
    • www.cincystreetcar.tumblr.com
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1382 on: April 24, 2007, 11:23:18 PM »
whats up with the areaq on the northeast side closest to the corner of 2nd and main?  Is that a balatanly open parking garage that isnt surrounded by buildings? 

I hope not, but it looks like it

Offline mohr37

  • 408'-Kettering Tower
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1383 on: April 24, 2007, 11:26:59 PM »
^ From the looks of it, they've totally ignored 2nd St. altogether.

Offline seicer

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7927
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1384 on: April 25, 2007, 12:03:45 AM »
Wow. I just noticed that massive parking lot. Hopefully that will go away, or be repurposed if a cap is installed.

Online ink

  • UO Supporting Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5658
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1385 on: April 25, 2007, 12:07:23 AM »
^I think that is a garage.

Offline Mov2Ohio

  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1386 on: April 25, 2007, 12:07:34 AM »
Yep that's definitely a parking garage. In the center you can see the ramp as it goes to the next level and the shadow of the top deck is cast on the ramp. That could also be access to the underground Parking garges and not a garage thats above ground.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 12:38:25 AM by Mov2Ohio »
Without change, progress is impossible.

Offline Johio

  • 947'-Key Tower
  • ********
  • Posts: 1473
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1387 on: April 25, 2007, 01:01:15 AM »
In response to the question to why people are always wanting a 're-creation' of old architecutre....

I think there is a desire for this by many for a lot of (good) reasons.

1.) Between the construction of highways/expressways, urban renewal, and just natural urban growth...U.S. cities have torn down a large amount of historic buildings in the past. I think there is a rational that believes that to offset this uniquely American tragedy, we could at least design our new buildings in a way to honor our past.

2.)Many people simply like older architecture better. What comes across as 'sleek and cool' to some looks 'cold and sterile' to others. This seems to be the biggest problem with modern architecture. Its cool for about 10 maybe 20 years tops but then it gets really dated really quickly. There are those who see classic architecture not as ancient and primitive but as 'romantic' pieces of artwork with an incredible amount of attention to detail.

3.) Classical architecture has proven to stand the test of time in terms of aesthetics....things like the Art Museum and Music Hall still look good even a century or more since they were built.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 01:02:09 AM by j3shafer »

Offline CiNYC

  • 555'-LeVeque Tower
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1388 on: April 25, 2007, 01:03:18 AM »
Quote
Yep that's definitely a parking garage. In the center you can see the ramp as it goes to the next level and the shadow of the top deck is cast on the ramp. That could also be access to the underground Parking garges and not a garage thats above ground.

Perhaps, but the site plan doesn't imply that there will even be liner retail on the north side, so that's currently proposed as the blank face of a parking garage.

Overall, I also think that the site plan is much better than the old one.  As Jeff pointed out, that particular corner has been designed to be important, and should be treated as such.  I'm a sucker for terminated vistas and I hope they do it right.  I also like how they've eliminated the plazas.  With 8000 acres of parkland a block to the south, no one should be crying for open space.  That street should be tightly packed with as much business and activity as possible.  I guess my major objection is with the scale of what purports to be the main thoroughfare in this (Freedom Way).  You essentially have a block and a half to the west and 2 blocks to the east, bisected by an entire block with nothing but a museum (with little to no street presence) and 2 freestanding restaurants.  This hardly adds up to a destination district suitable for spending a significant amount of time walking around.

Perhaps this reiterates my point that the siting of the Freedom Center is horrible to begin with.  It's made it difficult to create a coherent street which is obvious from the plan.  If we had 4-5 blocks or more on either side, it could appear as a civic destination and a break from the street wall (ala Place des Arts in Montreal).  However, the poor design of the site and building make it dead space in what could otherwise be a cohesive shopping/entertainment strip, something that, oddly enough, this city doesn't have. 

Don't even get me started on the architecture.  It's as if you sent a group of Drees architects to Vancouver, brought them back, and told them to recreate what they saw from memory.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 01:06:52 AM by CiNYC »

Offline CiNYC

  • 555'-LeVeque Tower
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1389 on: April 25, 2007, 01:25:16 AM »
addenda:

1.  Jake, excellent images.  We should remember, though, that Frances Trollope's Bazaar was looked at with as much disgust as we view this proposal.  Yeah, the other pictures exhibit a sense of scale, proportion, and detailing that we're not privy to today, but that one was funny.

2.  I'm preaching to the choir here, but the limitations that parking is putting on this project are astounding.  Underground garages notwithstanding, there is an insane amount of square footage devoted to parking here.  Quite a few of the buildings appear to be no deeper than 40'-50' to allow room for parking.  I've worked on projects in suburban areas that have to meet these requirements, but for this to be the case downtown is just sad.  Had the (inevitable) transit been implemented before the Banks, we'd see a much better plan.

3. So, Jake again, despite the differences you've shown between Cincinnati and Atlanta, we share the same driving habits, and are unfortunately subjected to the same type of development.

Offline LincolnKennedy

  • 665'-Queen City Square
  • ******
  • Posts: 998
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1390 on: April 25, 2007, 08:37:21 AM »
Wow. I just noticed that massive parking lot. Hopefully that will go away, or be repurposed if a cap is installed.

2.  I'm preaching to the choir here, but the limitations that parking is putting on this project are astounding.  Underground garages notwithstanding, there is an insane amount of square footage devoted to parking here.  Quite a few of the buildings appear to be no deeper than 40'-50' to allow room for parking.  I've worked on projects in suburban areas that have to meet these requirements, but for this to be the case downtown is just sad.  Had the (inevitable) transit been implemented before the Banks, we'd see a much better plan.

I can't believe how much ground level parking is being provided.  It is ridiculous.  What lines of communication are there between the city's planned Streetcar line terminating immediately in front of this development and the county and the builders?  I suspected the relationship between MARTA and these developers was b.s.  I'm of a mind to actually write the commissioners, though I doubt that will do any good.

Offline ragerunner

  • 574'-Carew Tower
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1391 on: April 25, 2007, 08:41:03 AM »
I will say it does appear there is some weak connectivity between the main retail area (Freedom Way running east and west) and the streets running north and south into downtown. Hopefully some kind of link will be made with the potential caps in the future or this project may turnout to be its own little island. They need to ensure that the pedestrian feels well connected to the Fountain Square area (i.e. minimal breaks in ground level buildings).
Colorado Front Range - 300 days of sunshine, mass transit, and an outdoor paradise.

Offline seicer

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7927
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1392 on: April 25, 2007, 08:55:40 AM »
2.)Many people simply like older architecture better. What comes across as 'sleek and cool' to some looks 'cold and sterile' to others. This seems to be the biggest problem with modern architecture. Its cool for about 10 maybe 20 years tops but then it gets really dated really quickly. There are those who see classic architecture not as ancient and primitive but as 'romantic' pieces of artwork with an incredible amount of attention to detail.

Not really. Architecture that was 'modern' in the 1960s up to the 1970s (and 1980s) dated fast because they were considered on the fringes of what was acceptable. Large amounts of concrete used. Stalin-like designs -- boxes, rectangles, etc. that composed your entire viewing angle. Smaller windows for efficiency. Large concrete public plazas. Considered Brutalist in a good sense. You want a good example? Check out Northern Kentucky University's campus. It's original structures from the 1970s to the 1980s were considered Brutalist, cold, and... boring. It's only undoing the mistakes of its past with its new campus expansions by designing modern, clean structures.

What I see in the building stock for The Banks is clean lines, lots of windows for maximum sunlight, colorful uses of steel supports (blue, orange, etc.), street-level decorative elements, on-street parking, centralized parking garage, flora, etc. It shouldn't become outdated, but over the years it will develop a sense of unique character.

I see it this way: People traveling in will see The Banks before they will see the downtown (esp. those coming from NB I-71/75 and I-471). A progressive city with this massive riverfront development, set with a grand backdrop of old and classical architecture. The Banks will not have buildings that will be incredibly tall, so it will provide good balance visually.

Offline cramer

  • 555'-LeVeque Tower
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1393 on: April 25, 2007, 09:03:22 AM »
Speaking building heights, there's no way the Bengals allow 20 story buildings or anything approaching the height of the ghost buildings in the rendering next to PBS. That's completely misleading.

One would think that the intersection of 2nd and Main would be of primary concern in Phase 1, what with it being across the street from GABP and the main approach to the ballpark. This should be a signature part of the design, not an afterthought.

Offline cincydrewinclifton

  • 408'-Kettering Tower
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1394 on: April 25, 2007, 09:10:57 AM »
why is it that everybody thinks picking a modern style and staying with it is a bad thing. personally I never understood why some of the buildings or neighborhoods considered the best modern architecture are some of the ugliest to the eye. I like the new banks (and its rectangles lol) and I'm glad it won't have some funky epcot center ball or something artistic and ugly like that or that it doesn't look like UC campus (ugly, though architecturally applauded) which I finally never have to stare at anymore now that I've graduated lol.
"the conversation is over" -eddie munster

Offline UncleRando

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 7520
  • Get on board!
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1395 on: April 25, 2007, 09:21:06 AM »
NAACP may ask for 'no' votes on Banks
BY JESSICA BROWN | JLBROWN@ENQUIRER.COM
April 25, 2007


CINCINNATI - The local branch of the NAACP may ask the two new members of the Banks Working Group to vote "no" on a development deal because of a lack of minority inclusion on the project. A unanimous vote is required for the project to move forward. NAACP President Chris Smitherman said in a release Tuesday that the Working Group, the city-county body charged with recommending a development plan, had not established partnerships with any African-American developers or investors.

"Shame on the Banks Working Group," he said. "The message was clear. 'Let's build it. Let's exclude you (African-Americans) from ownership and equity.' "

For more, click the link above
Reporter Jane Prendergast contributed
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 03:44:49 PM by ColDayMan »

Online David

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1396 on: April 25, 2007, 11:31:09 AM »
"and I'm glad it won't have some funky epcot center ball or something artistic and ugly like that or that it doesn't look like UC campus (ugly, though architecturally applauded) which I finally never have to stare at anymore now that I've graduated lol."

Are you serious?! Crosley Tower, Dabney Hall, the Business School, yes. But the rest of the school is amazing in my opinion. The Steger Center, College of Engineering and DAAP are my personal favorites. You wanna see an ugly school, go check out the University of Louisville. It's a damn industrial park.


Im actually glad they chose a modern architectural style. It's downtown, people. Not sure if you noticed but there is PLENTY OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE DOWNTOWN! Don't act like it doesn't fit into the context of downtown; our CBD is SUPPOSED TO BE ECLECTIC. Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the ignorant rants you hear in barbershop conversation around here is that Cincinnat was, is, and always will be "stuck in the past", then its usually followed by someone bringing up our favorite Mark Twain quote. I love old brick buildings as much as the next urbanist dork but what better way to help change our perception of being non-progressive than by building something this modern. And furthermore, what is wrong with big windows? Who wants to live in darkness or have a higher energy bill when you can have natural light?
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 11:32:01 AM by David »
Modern architects recognize 300 masterpieces but ignore the other 30 million buildings that have ruined the world. - Andres Duany

Offline seicer

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7927
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1397 on: April 25, 2007, 12:16:54 PM »
Hey, UofL has its redeeming qualities :)

But yeah, parts of it do resemble an industrial park. Especially its more suburban campus.

Online atlas

  • 947'-Key Tower
  • ********
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1398 on: April 25, 2007, 12:29:09 PM »
also, can we have some sort of movement to get freedom way changed to something less...corny.  I suppose this isnt that big of a deal but come on, if this is gonna be the main drag of a very important center in our city, then shouldnt it be something better and less generic?

Online ink

  • UO Supporting Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5658
Re: Cincinnati: Downtown: The Banks
« Reply #1399 on: April 25, 2007, 12:31:48 PM »
what better way to help change our perception of being non-progressive than by building something this modern.

So you think we should make major decisions on one of the largest projects in Cincinnati history based on "ignorant rants?"

Anyway, just being modern doesn't mean much, it has to be good design as well.

Oh, and about the large windows: there is a diffence between large windows (which many old buildings have) and walls of glass. Again, nothing necessarily wrong with a glass building, I'll admit I kind of like the Pinnacle project in Cleveland (please don't spread that around ;) ).

Remove Ads