Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-04-2012, 01:07 PM
 
865 posts, read 1,472,669 times
Reputation: 315

Advertisements

Don't get me wrong, I love Great American Tower from certain angles. I think it's a very distinctive design and very classy, but it looks way to fat from some angles. I agree that 10-15 more stories would have made it look a lot better.

The new tower at 5th and Race will fill a huge gap on the west side of downtown. It's going to have a very prominent spot on the skyline, so I want it to look good. That's all I ask.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-04-2012, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati (Norwood)
3,530 posts, read 5,023,338 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by abr7rmj View Post
Great American tower would look so much better if it were about 15 stories higher. That's my biggest complaint with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinciFan View Post
Don't get me wrong, I love Great American Tower from certain angles. I think it's a very distinctive design and very classy, but it looks way to fat from some angles. I agree that 10-15 more stories would have made it look a lot better.
As just expressed by two other posters, I think it can be surmised that the overall consensus of Great American Tower is one of disappointment. The building could have risen to 800-900 ft. instead of being the unimpressive squat structure it is. What an opportunity to erect a dazzling, beautiful spire; what an opportunity lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2012, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Mason, OH
9,259 posts, read 16,799,024 times
Reputation: 1956
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorman View Post
As just expressed by two other posters, I think it can be surmised that the overall consensus of Great American Tower is one of disappointment. The building could have risen to 800-900 ft. instead of being the unimpressive squat structure it is. What an opportunity to erect a dazzling, beautiful spire; what an opportunity lost.
It is my understanding Great American Tower is devoid of internal support columns. This is one of the attractive features when it comes to subdividing the floorspace for offices, etc. The space can be subdivided as desired using free standing office partitions without having to work around support columns. I am sure there is a limit as to how high such as design can go without internal support columns for the load. This may be a reason why it is not higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2012, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati (Norwood)
3,530 posts, read 5,023,338 times
Reputation: 1930
^ Thanks for this information--such a major structural design would probably explain why the Great American Tower goes outward rather than upward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2012, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Mason, OH
9,259 posts, read 16,799,024 times
Reputation: 1956
The new 1 World Trade Center in NYC at the site of the 9/11 catastrophe seems to take the cake for design. It will have over double the number of floors of the Great American Tower. It will be the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere when finished. But the reality is its roof at 1368 feet which dictates the usable interior space will be the same height as the original North Tower of the World Trade Center. The top of its extension will be 1776 feet. That means there will be 408 ft of antenna, etc on top. That is 23% of the buildings height. Sorry, I cannot accept that as part of the building unless they will have an observation platform at the 1700 foot level.

I am having trouble finding data, but I believe the original twin towers had at least 3 times the capacity of this new building. I am judging this based on the fact they were rectangular, box designs. It may be a sign of recovery, but a replacement for the original twin towers no way.

My question is what is this designed to indicate? That we can put something at the 9/11 site? That has always been a given. Why were the twin towers not replaced with the triple towers? That would have been a statement of resolve and determination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 01:07 AM
 
865 posts, read 1,472,669 times
Reputation: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill View Post
I am having trouble finding data, but I believe the original twin towers had at least 3 times the capacity of this new building. I am judging this based on the fact they were rectangular, box designs. It may be a sign of recovery, but a replacement for the original twin towers no way.

My question is what is this designed to indicate? That we can put something at the 9/11 site? That has always been a given. Why were the twin towers not replaced with the triple towers? That would have been a statement of resolve and determination.
I see where you are coming from, but keep in mind that 1WTC is only the main building in the complex. There will still be two more towers built that are over 1,100ft. 4WTC is topped out at 977ft, 7WTC is already finished at 741ft, and there will be a 5WTC and 6WTC at some point down the road.

Personally, I'm glad that they didn't rebuild the twins as they originally were. It would be like New York pretending nothing ever happened. Plus, the twins weren't exactly the most visually appealing buildings. I would much prefer that the twins were still standing, but I think the new complex will look great.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 08:01 AM
 
203 posts, read 326,511 times
Reputation: 108
1WTC has a certain classic simplicity to it, while adding a few modern touches like the facade at the base, and the original design for the "spire" which gives it the official pinnacle height of 1776'. Officials discern between antennae and what 1WTC plans for depending on the a criteria of form over function. The Spire was originally supposed to have a decorative and permanent "cladding" around it making it an aesthetic feature, and part of the tower itself. Thus giving it an actual pinnacle height of 1787'. But they have changed the plans because maintenance of the cladding would be difficult and expensive, so the "official" height might only be 1373' (shorter than Willis Tower fka Sears tower).

As For HOK, and Great American Tower... I think its a pretty good design for Cincy and helped modernize its skyline a bit from where it was. It is a good transition design between the prominent 1930's-60's towers that dominate the skyline, and future modern towers that ought to come along in the next few decades, while matching a few of the 80's and 90's towers that are there.

Gensler has potential to do some really cool stuff with 5th and Race, or they could lay an office park style terd. It could go either way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 08:21 AM
 
Location: East End of Pittsburgh
747 posts, read 1,232,054 times
Reputation: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasomm View Post
1WTC has a certain classic simplicity to it, while adding a few modern touches like the facade at the base, and the original design for the "spire" which gives it the official pinnacle height of 1776'. Officials discern between antennae and what 1WTC plans for depending on the a criteria of form over function. The Spire was originally supposed to have a decorative and permanent "cladding" around it making it an aesthetic feature, and part of the tower itself. Thus giving it an actual pinnacle height of 1787'. But they have changed the plans because maintenance of the cladding would be difficult and expensive, so the "official" height might only be 1373' (shorter than Willis Tower fka Sears tower).

As For HOK, and Great American Tower... I think its a pretty good design for Cincy and helped modernize its skyline a bit from where it was. It is a good transition design between the prominent 1930's-60's towers that dominate the skyline, and future modern towers that ought to come along in the next few decades, while matching a few of the 80's and 90's towers that are there.

Gensler has potential to do some really cool stuff with 5th and Race, or they could lay an office park style terd. It could go either way.
I really like most of Gensler's design. In downtown Pittsburgh, Gensler designed the newly constructed 3 PNC Plaza and the new Tower @ PNC Plaza. The new Tower @ PNC Plaza will rise 600 ft and will be the greenest tower built to date. Both towers are in a two block area and will greatly compliment one another. Oxford development will construct another 600 ft tower in the same block as the Tower @ PNC Plaza. Pittsburgh will finally fill in the gap that is seen from Mt. Washington.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,336 posts, read 6,942,354 times
Reputation: 2084
well from the look of the pittsburgh towers and the google searches, i'm guessing we'll see glass...lots of glass...at 5th & race
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 09:02 AM
 
2,491 posts, read 4,469,504 times
Reputation: 1415
Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac View Post
well from the look of the pittsburgh towers and the google searches, i'm guessing we'll see glass...lots of glass...at 5th & race
That'll be a nice contrast from the all-brick Carew Tower and Hilton hotel just across the street. And if Fifth Third ever decides to exercise its air rights over Macy's and completes the long-awaited tower at Fifth and Race, those three blocks will really be something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top