zsnyder

what about the Future Former Crosley Tower site? You could see Sanders Hall from 71 back in the day...your easternmost site would do the same if tall enough.

Ndukwe is a scourge on Cincinnati Development.

The site's only selling point continues to be looking away from it.

why does this typology have to be all about the cornice playing weird games with what would otherwise be a pretty desirable massing?

The Ascent is the exception to the Corporex rule. Everything else looks exactly like Corporex sounds.

Kind of sad to lose the landmark beside the highway, but I'm sure a big project will replace it. This section of 71 should be capped. Reconnecting Walnut Hills with Avondale/UC would be so good for the city.

With the massing being the single biggest issue, I'm not sure that's possible.

I welcome Dayton, the second-best place to live in Ohio.

Erm, the Hamilton area's...

Would be interesting if they brought SOM back in to update it. That being said, it would be more interesting with a whole host of other architects...but either way, I really hope whatever happens adds value to its stature, as well as its functionality.

Not a big fan of all this land being gobbled up for seasonal, restricted use, but no complaints about hilltop leaving.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but that was what drove my comment. Too many of the good Hannaford buildings have been destroyed that buildings like this, which wouldn't have been so bad to otherwise lose, still sting.

that's on point. Views are an asset that Cincinnati has, in abundance, and barely leverages. I'm hoping these buildings bring that issue to light.

the spot from the photo is between Digital futures II and UC Digital Futures

It wasn't one of of the Hannafords' best, but far too many of the good ones have been destroyed for me to be anything but disappointed in this morbid offering. I wonder if the person who designed the dismantled front elevation into a triumphal arch did it as an act of irony...or pride.

wow, that area around the new traffic cirle in Montgomery is really coming along!

pompi...dou it.

Plenty of grand buildings like the Pantheon framed by street walls. Plenty not. It's a strange claim that this is always the winning answer. That being said, the framing can be accomplished by building on ezzard charles, and it would likely be much more interesting, given how the space in front of Union Terminal would open up as you approach it. The front lawn of Union Terminal shouldn't be altered spatially.

if you wanted to build the park today, yes, which is why I suggested it was something that makes sense in the future if the area is developed. Again, though, that entire lot is a part of Union Terminal's design. I'd wager that you won't have any success suggesting that it gets built upon for anything but its original intended purpose...green space.

This is an awful idea. Union terminal is not Union terminal without that space in front of it, terminating the axis of Ezzard Charles It should be returned to its original function, as a park, but only when the area around it gets developed and a park makes sense. Before doing so, they could excavate the present lot (which is actually a mound that was built for Union Terminal) and put a parking garage below it.

Please do not put a dome on Paul Brown. Outdoor Football is nice.

I'm not advocating that all murals be preserved, and I understand why they shouldn't in many cases, but I don't understand removing the mural based upon some implied rule of impermanence. If you can do something interesting with a building that responds to context, it's that much more interesting a building, and that much more interesting a city. This will be pretty cool.

A large new residential building in Cincinnati that embraces repetition, rather than reorganizing it into some schizoid cosplay of a building? Let's do it.

I love me some Cuboid Cornices. What a time to be alive.

Did you ever go to tiny town?