wholtone

jmicha, I can sum up your post as follows. "I haven't seen it, have no clue what it looks like, but someone who has seen it, who I won't name, told me everyone will like it." Sure. Maybe it will be "middle ground," maybe it won't. We'll see. But I don't think we don't need anymore hype built around this project. All you have to say is, "I haven't seen the renderings, so I don't know what it will look like."

You're right, it's not a choice between A and B. Let's add more options here. 1. Outrageously expensive 2. Really expensive 3. "Cincinnati deserves better" 4. What were they thinking? 5. Boston City Hall, redux Again, which is a businessman going to choose? There are people at Dunnhumby who have already seen the renderings. They're just not sharing them with the public. People need to lower their expectations on this one.

Wow are you going to be disappointed. Obviously, if it was a great building they would have proudly presented the rendering by now. The only reason to keep it secret is because it's a real turd of a building, a real embarrassment to architecture everywhere. The CEO himself said his options were "outrageously expensive" or "Cincinnati is going to hate me." He's a business man. Which do you honestly think he is going to pick? Come back down to Earth, folks.

jjakucyk, while I don't necessarily disagree with your last post, as it's obvious to anyone that U Square could be better, your previous assertion that the architecture of U Square is mentally harmful to college students is, well, laughable. You have no real evidence at all to support this claim, and my observation of students around campus is exactly the opposite. They are excited. Sorry! Not everyone shares your hatred of this project. neilworms, while I prefer the craftsmanship of 19th century architecture, I also acknowledge that we simply live in a completely different world. The labor costs, the availability of skilled craftsmen, natural resources, population density, energy costs, modern living requirements of electric/plumbing/etc. are all so different from the 1870s. I'm not sure what you expect. I sometimes wonder if anything could be built that would satisfy all the critics. Heck, even the Parthenon, probably the most copied building of all time, had its ancient Greek critics.

^^Unless you can empirically prove the effect U Square architecture has on people's mood, you really don't have any evidence to support your opinion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, as I know humans are incredibly irrational and easily manipulated, but I don't really see how you can tie what you're saying to U Square specifically. Unless, you're complaining that the rooms in U Square are blue, of course. ^I don't recall anyone writing that architecture was only about aesthetics. :?

Since aesthetics are completely subjective, you can only state how U Square will affect you, but projecting your opinion upon the student population isn't a very strong argument. I, as another poster has noted, have noticed a air of excitement around U Square. I don't think anyone expects everyone to like it, but I also don't buy that the "aesthetics" of U Square are so bad that they are harmful to public health. If the aesthetics are really that bad, without exaggeration, then U Square will be a failure. If not, it will succeed.

Most of the old buildings people love here were built during a boom period, but also in a way that was quick and cheap to build at the time. Of course, there are always exceptions. Developers still build cheap, but the nature of where the costs go are different, and that's reflected in the buildings. I don't think its anything to get upset about. While some things could obviously be better, U Square will fit the needs of students, few of whom can tell good architecture from bad, and I think that's ultimately what matters.

I heard the developers said if Christy's stays then no deal. I wonder why they don't build it at the Stop-and-Go or Pomodori's instead? There isn't crap to look at at those corners.

The casino's design makes me think of.... Egypt. Maybe that was intentional?

I think one problem with 180 Walnut (the office building) is that it's... so... boring. It's a giant glass box! I think the solution would be to bring Daniel Libeskind in to make the office building look like it's eating The Banks, or look like a bunch of boxes falling onto the Freedom Center. That would get the spot some publicity! :laugh: http://www.180walnut.com/

I'm not too worried about U Square. I think it looks fine, not great at this point, but it will be successful, which is ultimately what matters. I know some people hate it, but every building project has had its critics, including great buildings like the Eiffel Tower and the Parthenon. I admit the parking garage by Shell doesn't look too hot thus far, but I'll wait until its complete before giving it my final verdict. "Only fools and women criticize unfinished work." -Frank Lloyd Wright :laugh:

What's going on at the northwest corner of Elm and 15th? There used to be a home for the blind there, but now there's a giant hole in the ground.

I'm a firm believer that the success of an area depends on its vibe, not its architecture. Broadripple in Indianapolis proved that to me. Absolute crap architecture, yet people flock to it. The reality is, for most people the buildings aren't important at all. What's important is the feeling that get when they go there, and how much fun they have.

^Woah there! You're on urbanohio.com. Here, only anger and disappoint are permitted when describing new construction. :police: :wink:

Checked out WG today. No wine bottles adorning the walls. Just looks like a restaurant... maybe with a slightly Italian-ish vibe.