1012

This is precisely why I lurk 99% of the time I come here and very rarely ever post. It's hard to know when someone is being sarcastic and when they are being serious. What do you mean by that, 1012...huh? Why don't you just come out and say what you really feel. ;) ***just to keep things on topic...the Banks is really exciting. Say what I really feel? Okay...Cincinnati sucks! LOL. Just kidding.

This is precisely why I lurk 99% of the time I come here and very rarely ever post. It's hard to know when someone is being sarcastic and when they are being serious.

Didn't P&G originally reject the idea of building a single tower when the twin towers were first proposed? What was the reason for that...and would that reason still hold true for them today?

It seems like a mystery but it's actually quite simple. See the crane is initially put together using other tall cranes like those that lift into the air off a truck. Then once it's gets high enough the crane is "self rising" meaning that once the crane attaches itself to the side of the building it's erecting, the tower crew will jack up the crawler crane section at the base or whereever it is to the bottom of the boom. The cage fits on the outisde of the pre-existing crane section-imagine a sock on your foot. They then insert permanent pieces through an opening into the cage, bolt it down to the last piece, then raise the crane for the next peice. In case none of this makes sense watch the video below: I'm sure you can imagine a reversal of this process for the lowering of the crane. That was exactly what I was looking for! Very interesting video. I somehow had this image in my head that they jacked the entire crane support up from the bottom. I always wondered how it wouldn't tip over in the process, but now I see it's done from the top while the rest of the crane is attached to the structure. Makes sense, now. I appreciate your help, friend!

This may sound like a strange question, but does anyone know of a website where I might find out how those cranes are lifted and lowered? Perhaps some sort of diagram or video...?

If people have been sarcastic, then I offer my apology. I'm just a little sensitive to this whole debate about the tower's height. I DO agree with LesterLyles, though. By and large, there is a pervasive mentality in Cincinnati which is very resistant to change. (At least there used to be.) I don't know if it exists in other cities, but during the 80s when there was first talk about building a tower taller than Carew Tower at Fountain Square West, you would always hear people complaining about how much CT should remain the tallest in the city. It really grated on my nerves. (I must like that phrase lately...been saying it a lot.) It has been my dream since the 70s to see a tower go up which would surpass Carew Tower in height. When plans for FSW fell through, it was disheartening for me. Perhaps that sounds strange or petty, I don't know. But it is how it is. So when I read these kinds of debates, it feels like someone trying to rain on my parade. Anyway, moving on.... P.S. I like the photos.

Quick, shield your eyes. I'm about to issue a quick rant to get this out of my system: I don't understand why people get so hung up on whether the flag pole makes Carew Tower "higher", "almost as high", "looks as high as QCS", etc. Can't we just drop it and accept the fact that Cincinnat's tallest building will no longer be Carew Tower? Isn't that the underlying issue here....people are hoping that it somehow remains the city's tallest building...or at least "tallest looking"? I don't see why people even consider including the flag pole in the height anyway, because historically it never was. The building, since the time it was built in the 30s, was never said to be higher than 574'....or can someone show me in record books and other new stories or documentation where, at any point in the city's past, CT was referred to as a building over 600' high? I don't think the flag pole adds enough "visual bulk" to Carew Tower to warrant any special reference to it as a "spire". So this whole subject is nonsense. Just drop it. Carew Tower, while a nice building, has seen it's run come to an end as the city's tallest building. Period. Rant over. I'll take a deep breath now. Sorry, but the whole issue grates on my nerves. I'm sure if and when the city were to ever construct a tower taller than 750-800', people will still be concocting ideas about how they can make sure Carew Tower remains, or LOOKS like, the city's tallest.

If you go to the Local12.com website and navigate to the article titled "Similarities Between New Skyscaper And Carew Tower", you can watch a video report about the building. In the video, Deborah Dixon said that she was on the 27th floor at a height of 332'. I don't know how many floors were above her, but it might help visualizing the scope of the final tower if you look on a diagram and find the 27th floor. :wink:

You're right, Cincy Rise - I thought it was a fate worse than innocent people being blown up. After all, that's exactly what I wrote in my post, right? And you were there, weren't you. I mean, you're what - 25? So you know first hand what the news was like about those projects, right? You were all of what - 1 year old when the idea for FSW was first proposed? Get real. As passionate as I was about seeing Fountain Square West go up, you would have thought I was a bigger die-hard fan of downtown Cincinnati than some of YOU guys are. I mean, this IS UrbanOhio, isn't it? Don't most of you post over at SSPage and SSC as it is? I mean, aren't those forums dedicated to the love of tall buildings? Is it really THAT unreasonable that I would be disappointed over what happened in the 80's and 90's? Yes, it was gut wrenching disappointment for me that we simply ended up with a 3-story department store. The city COMPLETELY wasted the potential for that site, and given Cincinnati's aversion to building a new tallest, there isn't a chance in the world I'm going to get excited about this "renewed" possibility for FSW to actually happen after all. I'm just expressing my thoughts. Somehow, it doesn't matter what I say on these boards. I just get trounced.

Oh sheesh. I am SO not holding my breath on this one. I went through all the hopes throughout the 80's, with one proposal after another, and ended up with gut-wrenching disappointment. I refuse to put myself through it again.

Personally, I think The Ascent is butt ugly. As always, though, my opinion is but one.

Keep in mind I'm not speaking for everyone. I'm speaking for myself. I would NOT be inspired to come downtown if the project looks like the renderings. But that doesn't mean other people won't come down there. It just means that MY dream for what The Banks should be would be quashed. Nothing new. I think Cincinnati wastes its potential, but I'm just one voice. Whatever. EDIT: One more thing.....I'm not opposed to the park being built. I'm opposed to the amount of land being incorporated into the park, when there are already TONS of park space along the river already. None of that has prompted me to drive downtown from West Chester. (ooooh, that was an ugly word, huh? West Chester. Blech. That IS the attitude of some people in here.)

Some of you are so set in your mind about what YOU think should go down there. The fact is, there are people that disagree with you. But some of you can't seem to see past that. Instead, you rag on those of us who disagree with you...people like myself and PhattyNati. And BTW, I AM a native of the area. You guys seem to think that your own vision trumps anyone else's. That's pretty sad. Not trying to make a judgement call, but that attitude gets on my nerves. I've put up with a lot of dogging from people on this site who don't agree with me, simply because I have a different opinion about what I think should happening downtown. Am I not entitled to an opinion? If someone doesn't like what I'm saying, then as I've said in the past, ban me. But sometimes what needs to be said, needs to be said.

THANK you! I absolutely agree with you. This IS Cincinnati's chance...something I've been trying to infer for a long time....to get something right, and move into the future. Something to tell the world that we aren't stuck in the past. The designs in those renderings are absolutely horrid, and I would be ashamed to see something like that at The Banks. It would NOT inspire me to come downtown.

Pretty sad that all the salt was wasted for nothing. People freak out over a piddly 1" snow forecast, and dump tons of salt on the roads and sidewalks, only for the snow to never materialize. I wish forecasters in this part of the country would get a clue, and realize that there has to be at least an 80% chance of 6-8" before we even see 1-2". I have absolutely NO faith whatsoever in forecasts for snow. I just laugh them off.

I've said it before, and my position remains the same....when the teams threatened to leave the city unless the stadiums were built, we should have told them "bye bye", and to make sure the door didn't hit them in the butt on the way out. I agree with jmecklenborg - I'll NEVER step foot into either stadium EVER.

Why not? Does Cincinnati need another park on the riverfront? Ummmm, nope.

There is significant work progressing behind the scenes!!! I have spoken with the Cincinnati Planning Commission chair multiple times on the topic and he has given me VERY encouraging news: -Since it is zoned a PD, any plan has to be approved by the Planning Commission...therefore AIG has been meeting with the PC on a regular basis to discuss the progressions of their site proposal. By the time this is all done...the passing of the plan will be a formality since the PC has already had their say and modifcations made. -Most recently he informed me that AIG wanted to increase the total square footage of the project. -PC is also very supportive of development (possibly along the street frontage) of the decking above FWW...this is not part of AIG's development area, but the idea of them collaborating with this is a possibility. *The only issue right now is still the parking situation, however, AIG is continuing work while the parking is worked out along the way (time is money). Be patient....you are going to get a QUALITY project out of this and will have something to be trully proud of (not like Newport's shit). If Newport has such "shit", then why is it pulling people across the river so much? You know what pisses me off about you, Rando? You rag on people who criticize Cincinnati, but then you turn right around and rag on other cities.

I didn't say you did, Inkaelin. But look at your attitude. Are you really going to fault me for asking that question? I mean, come on - in your previous post, you stated you weren't excited about the project anymore, simply because of the developer. At least something is getting built, instead of being delayed while a different developer is chosen. Your attitude indicates you'd prefer to see that simply because you don't like their style. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

....The 20- to 25-story condominium tower would be less than half the size of a 50-story tower Flaherty & Collins is building in Charlotte, N.C. There ya' go....we're inching up there. It was slated as 15-20 stories before, so maybe by the time they get the plans finalized, we'll see a 50-story structure and I won't have to be so jealous of Charlotte anymore (nor angry about why OUR project can't be that high to begin with. But I go on and on about skyscrapers, don't I? I should shut up.) Would you rather it remain an empty parking lot until they find another developer?

I know I'm going to get bashed for this, but oh well - it's par for the course. I have to say how I feel. I think it's GREAT that they are planning this project, but only 15-20 stories?? In my opinion, that's just another short squatty building on a prime piece of downtown real estate **coughFountainSquareWestcough** that could be used to build the city's new tallest....seeing as how QCS2 doesn't seem to be in the news too much anymore.

I'm just going to retract my comments. Believe me, it's for the best. One thing, however, before I leave this site...... It was NEVER my intention to sound racist in my comment about the Freedom Center.

Yes it does. Are people from all over the country going to flock to our riverfront because of it's wonderful array of condos and service retailers? Or have I been mistaken about what this project is all about, and in actuality this is simply supposed to be a local neighborhood that will do nothing more than fill up some empty riverfront space? If so, then why bother making it a world-class development? My whole impression from years ago, when the concept was first conceived, was that the "fabulous Banks project" was supposed to be Cincinnati's new front door - the place that was supposed to draw tourists from all over the country. I don't see how condos and a park are supposed to do that. Any entertainment idea that is mentioned will be zapped away by Kentucky and put in Ovation. You know it's true. If Hard Rock WERE to decide to come to the area, it would be wooed by Newport or Covington, and most likely be built there because Cincinnati would sit on it's hands, wasting time - and Kentucky would *snap* their fingers and work out a deal in no time flat. If an ESPN Zone were to look at the area, same thing would happen. Why? Because Kentucky knows how to get stuff done, and get it done fast. All Cincinnati knows how to do is dicker around and let opportunities pass it by. Remember the aquarium? Originally was proposed for the Banks. Same with the Hofbrauhaus. So yes, Cincinnati needs a major attraction at the Banks - something year round. Something unique that people all over the world could see, and think "Hey, that's in Cincinnati." So why hasn't it brought me down there? I could care less about going to the stadiums. First, I hate sports, so they hold no appeal to me. Second, the fact that the county was blackmailed by a bunch of spoiled crybaby millionaires who threatened to move the teams out of the city if new stadiums weren't built, kinda secured my attitude that I would never step foot inside either one. I haven't, and I won't. The Freedom Center is a great thing for the African-American community to have, but it doesn't interest me. And last I heard, they were having financial difficulties because attendance was nowhere what they projected it would be. The river does nothing for me anymore. What is the allure? It's water. But it's not a beachfront, and it's not a huge lake that you can go sailing on. All you basically do is watch it flow downstream, then look across the river at Kentucky, and watch barges go by. So the parks don't do anything for me, either. I've already been to Yeatman's Cove and Sawyer Point countless times. It's nice, sure - but not something I feel like driving 22 miles to see more than once or twice a year. Anyway, that's my two cents. It's a very unpopular opinion on these boards, and I've been blasted for it in the past. So I'll just shut up and let you guys carry on.

I know I'm going to get jack-slapped again for daring to open my mouth and expressing my opinion about this subject....but what the heck. I was under the impression that the Banks was supposed to be predominantly a destination place that gets people back down to the riverfront. So far, the stadiums and Freedom Center have not done that for me. If they want to put condos down there, that's fine. And if they want to put a smattering of service-based retailers down there, that's fine as well. But this is the most prime piece of real estate in the area, and they need to make sure that there are also unique attractions for everyone - not just sports fans and the people who live there. I can go to Sawyer Point whenever I want to visit a riverfront park - yet, I haven't done that in years. Now, build a couple of unique museums - perhaps a COSI and a Ripley's - throw in a Hard Rock cafe', a live-show theater, unique retailers, chic outdoor bistros, a truly top-notch hotel, and build a towering monument down there.....THEN I'll come down. THAT would truly be something the city could then be proud of. Or course, as long as the city keeps sitting on it's ass, there won't be any reason to build any of that stuff, because Ovation will probably be opened before the Banks even gets started. And of course, the park would be nice also - even though there are already mass acres of parkland along the riverfront. But I will NOT go down there for things that I can already find here in the suburbs.

As has been said already, Delhi's problem is that it lacks a main thoroughfare in and out of the heart of the township. If it had increased traffic flow from people cutting through it, it would spur business growth and create the customer base needed to sustain new development. I lived in Delhi for 14 years, and I've always thought that as far fetched as it may sound, the whole west side of Cincinnati would benefit greatly if they would build a bridge at Anderson Ferry, with a direct link up over the Kentucky hillside to the airport. That would spur traffic flow along Anderson Ferry Road, and likewise onto Delhi Pike, which would give the township the visibility it would need to make it a more attractive location to build offices and retail. Not only that, it would cut a heck of a lot of time off the commute to the airport for people on the west side of town.