Eigth and State

So do you think Vine Street is feasible at all, or should we rule it out based on grades? Is there a maximum grade that you are comfortable with?

For all that are in favor of tunnels under the square, I would advise to check minimum grades, as this is likely to be a controlling factor. How long is the square? What distance do we have to work with? Superior would have to transition from level to a downgrade, then transition from a downgrade to upgrade, and back to level. This takes a lot of distance, and may not fit in the square.

The former CL&N right of way is the least steep route between downtown and uptown. The grade is 4%. The CL&N has other drawbacks, but any other route is going to have a slope of more than 4% except a new tunnel. The corner of McMillian and Clifton or thereabouts is the highest point in the area. Any grade to this corner is necessarily going to be not only steep, but long. A Vine Street route is slightly shorter in elevation difference, and a short tunnel under Taft would reduce this even more. John, in your opinion, what is the maximum slope that will work? Various vehicles can make the grade at 7, 8, or 9%, but you seem to be saying that the grade is controlled by comfort of the passengers rather than by the capability of the vehicle. Is that correct?

I want a Wonder Dog.

^---"Why can't we isolate public square roads to the perimeter?" That is perhaps an option, but may I caution you that pedestrian traffic to the center may be restricted. Think of the Arch de Triumph in Paris. It is a giant traffic circle. They had to build a pedestrian tunnel to the center, because traffic is to heavy to cross at grade. Public Square of course will not be that big, but you can see the concept. There is not a simple solution, which makes this project so interesting.

Almost every line in Cincinnati's old streetcar system was two-way on a single street, with some odd exceptions and allowances for one-way streets. Also, most of the turn-around points were tight balloon-loops, with a wye or two where conditions warranted. However, in other cities looping one-way tracks are fairly common. I saw one in Germany that was well used. Think of the zoo train. Of course, it has only one stop, but it has model-railroad simplicity.

Still has 4 bends, but covers more area. I find it interesting. As I understand it, the real reason for the couplet one block apart is to keep streetcar traffic coordinated with one-way streets. Using the standard 3 block catchment area, that is, a passenger will walk no farther than 3 blocks, the real catchment area is 2 blocks west of the southbound track, the block between the track, and 2 blocks east of the northbound track, for a total of 5 blocks. However, when you consider that the passenger has the option to ride around the loop, the catchment becomes 6 blocks. If the tracks are more than 6 blocks apart, the catchment is a full 12 blocks! Of course, this is 12 blocks for 2 tracks, or 6 blocks for one track. Since riding around the loop invariably adds distance to the trip, fewer people will use it. So, you have to make an assumption about the sensitivity to trip length to see which is better: more coverage with a smaller ridership percentage, or less coverage with a higher ridership percentage. I guess it would take a detailed analysis of trip times between each pair of stops. I don't have time to do that tonight... In any case, the assumptions are just a guess, and we will never really know if we made the correct choice.

Here's the Metro bus route map from their website, www.go-metro.com: There are 11 bus routes that go to the U.C. area. Some of these bypass U.C. during rush hour. There are 67 total routes, plus 26 more operated by TANK, and almost all of them go to downtown Cincinnati. So, only 11 of 93 routes, or roughly 11% of the bus system goes to U.C. without a transfer. A fast link to downtown will expand the usable system to almost all 93 routes with access to U.C. and uptown. My point is that the traffic between downtown and U.C. may not be that great, but the traffic from all points on those 93 routes and U.C. might be significant.

To be sure, the red area is larger than the blue. But there's got to be something said about the purple area being about 6 blocks closer to U.C. and 2 blocks closer to downtown with the McMicken alignment. The shorter the trip time is, the more people will use it.

I've been meaning to do this for a while. Special thanks to David Cole for permission to modify his excellent map. This alignment is the same except it follows Main and Walnut all the way to McMicken instead of Elm and Race. This alignment eliminates 10 right angle turns and two crossings compared to the other alignment, and it still covers almost the same amount of area. I think this one is superior from an operations point of view. The drawback is that it is 3 blocks farther from Music Hall and one block farther from Findley Market. The track length is about 12 blocks shorter, with a corresponding shorter running time. Short tunnels under MLK and Taft would improve running time. The turn-around at the zoo will have to be a larger loop than what is shown, but that's a detail that can be worked out later. I know the reason for the Elm and Race alignment was to maximize development potential, but this route has a lot of development potential also.

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I think the people who do the renderings get carried away. Prior to reconstruction of Cincinnati's fountain square, one of the renderings showed Fifth Street with traffic westbound with on-street parking. Fifth street is actually one-way eastbound with no on-street parking in either the previous or new arrangement. Also, one of the renderings showed the proposed improvements along with the Government Building that was demolished around 1930. Evidently, the renderer used an old postcard for the background image. In any case, I think that re-engineering the flow of traffic could go a long way toward improving Public Square. Does anyone have an idea of the typical daytime population of Public Square? The reason I ask is that the ideal population density of public open space seems to be about 300 square feet per person. Any more, and the space seems crowded; any less, and it feels dead. Various accounts have said that it feels dead, so maybe it is too large. The solution is to either reduce the size or add more people. If the present site is 11 acres, of which about 4 acres is used by vehicles, that leaves about 6 acres for people. The ideal population for this space is about 900 people.

None of the three proposals modify the automobile traffic aspects of the square. The driving lanes are not touched. I wonder why they chose to constrain themselves this way.

Very nice, David! You do good work.

Depends on the economy and the need for local office space. In Cincinnati, I can imagine that all of the current skyscrapers will last for some time. I can't imagine the need for any new ones, especially since QCS will add so much space, so I don't think any of the taller buildings will be torn down for a taller one. We don't have any large scale abandonments downtown yet. About the Eighth and Linn Street area, and the PNC tower in Bond Hill I don't feel quite as good.

"It is a criticism of larger transportation policies." Larger transportation policies have favored automobiles since about 1930. There is an entire generation of suburban commuters that has never been on a city bus or transit of any kind, barring a few exotics like Riverfest specials or a trip to Europe. The fact that Queen City Metro is still operating at all shows how deep the transit culture is in Cincinnati.

^--- The purpose of the study was to figure out how many people are driving to U.C. now. This study was not intended to critisize the transit authority. Transit in the U.C. area is really not that bad. Bus stops are well marked, well lighted, and many of them have shelters. Service is frequent. The trouble is that service declines the farther from the core. In general, transit in Cincinnati is limited by lack of coverage. Most of the students and faculty who go to U.C. do not live within walking distance of a bus route. And since the farther from the core, the less frequent the service is, even fewer live withing walking distance of an effective bus route. Finally, the bus routes are arranged in such a way that rush hour service to U.C. takes longer than regular service because express routes bypass U.C. in favor of downtown commuters. Obviously, if service were expanded, more people would ride the bus. Right now, 65% have to drive. In round numbers, the City of Cincinnati urban core has a population of 300,000, while the metro area has a population of 1.5 million or more, depending on where you draw the boundaries. So, roughly 20% of the population has access to decent transit. This is the heart of the problem.

Of course the proposed QCS is taller. No argument there. Cheers.

I borrowed this photo from the UO galleries. This was the clearest photo that I could find. Then, in photoshop I drew a line from the roof of the building to the top of the flagpole. I copied that line to the side of the building, and found that the flagpole is about the same height as 6 stories. Granted, the flagpole is a little farther away from the side of the building. Next, I calculated the average story height. Yes, I know that story heights vary. 49 stories, 574' tall. Average story height = 11.7 feet. The flagpole is the equivalent of 6 stories. Height of flagpole = 6 x 11.7 = 70.2 feet. Updated calcs Carew Ground 550' M.S.L. 574 ' building, to roof 1124' M.S.L Flagpole 70' +/-, 1194' M.S.L. QCS Ground 514' M.S.L 660' building to top of tiara, 1174' M.S.L The top of the flagpole will apparently remain the highest point, by about 20 feet. I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade. I just was just curious. I would still like to get a better measurement.

35% of the U.C. student population is able to travel to campus without an automobile. http://www.eng.uc.edu/sue/white%20paper%20is%20UC%20a%20commuter%20campus.pdf This study considered students only. Assume that the faculty follow the same proportion. The U.C. east and west campus contains a daytime population of some 50,000 in round numbers. 35%, or 17,500 either live on campus, live near campus and walk, or take the bus. The other 65%, or 32,500, drive.

The phase I and II designations have me confused as well. At one time, the uptown connection was called phase II, correct? Here are some facts about the University of Cincinnati from their website. Enrollment (2009-2010): 39,667 Full Time 26,800 Part-Time 10,272 On-Campus Residents 3,121 Personnel Data (December 2009): Faculty Full Time 2,627 Faculty Part Time 3,072 Staff Full Time 3,581 Staff Part Time 418 Total (Without students) 9,698 Student Workers and Graduate Assistants 7,049 Grand Total 16,747 What is disheartening is that the majority commute to U.C. by automobile.

For the record I talked to the project manager who did some restoration work on the Central Trust and he told me that the exterior masonry was load bearing. The tower of course has a steel skeleton but the exterior masonry is load bearing for the entire height. This is not typical; hence the obscure record. The Monadnock Building is 100% load bearing masonry, with no steel. The tallest 100% masonry load bearing structure anywhere is the Washington Monument. For a long time there was actually a city ordinance that said that no building could be taller than Carew. That ordinance had an expiration date, which has finally come. Come to think of it, AT&T used to have a microwave antenea on top of Carew that depended on line-of-sight communication with other towers. Maybe that was the reason for the ordinance. That technology is no longer used. The little discussed tower in White Oak was part of that system.

The Central Trust Tower and Chrysler Building are connected only in that they are of the same era, approximately the same shape, and were both the tallest in their cities at one time. Also, they are both remarkable structures, and have extensive detailing even at the top. The connection doesn't go any deeper that I know of. But enough of that. Back to QCS.

Wrote it myself just now. Hope you enjoyed.

For many years the Carew Tower held an obscure record: it was the tallest building in the world that was also the tallest building in its city and built before WWII. When the World Trade Center collapsed, Carew lost that title to the Empire State Building. The effect of Carew is striking because it shows that Cincinnati has such depth of architecture. How many cities have skylines full of steel and glass? Carew is a statement that Cincinnati is solid, well-built, and lasting. Incidently, the Central Trust tower also holds an obscure record: it is the tallest building in the world with a load bearing masonry curtain wall. It was the ninth tallest building in the world at one time, and the tallest outside of New York. Finally, the Roebling Bridge was a record holder until it was superceded by the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. Those three structures have been photographed so many times that they have become Cincinnati icons. The fact that the three of them can be photographed in one view makes the effect even greater. These three structures are the baby brothers of the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, and the Brooklyn Bridge, which of course are icons of New York and American in general. This is the reason why I asked about the elevation difference. I had seen the renderings of QCS, and heard so many times that it would be taller than Carew. I saw the renderings in the Enquirer. I saw the renderings on SkyscraperPage. Then, I realized that the renderings showed the two side by side on level ground, and considering the flagpole, realized that the renderings are NOT meant to represent the skyline view that so many are familiar with. I had a picture in my mind of what the new skyline would look like, and that picture was found to be incorrect. In my humble opinion, filling up Cincinnati's parking lots with 4 story buildings will be more effective than construction of a single tall skyscraper in bringing more vitality to Cincinnati's streets. So, therefore I am not particularly excited about a new skyscraper. We don't need an icon - we already have three of them. Nevertheless, business interests have decided to invest in a skyscraper taller than Carew. I wish them well. I hope it doesn't result in more parking lots, and I hope it doesn't make our skyline look awkward. So far, it looks better than expected. It is some distance from Carew, and I think that Carew will still look taller from many angles. Which brings up another point: monumental structures are used as landmarks for wayfinding. Fountain Square is one of those points. I can ask you to meet at Fountain Square, or 5 blocks north of Fountain Square, and you know exactly what I am talking about. In Cleveland, the primary reference point is Public Square; in Columbus, it's the Statehouse. Many smaller towns have a monument, or courthouse. In the same way, the tallest building marks the center of downtown from a distance. It helps if the tallest building comes to a point. The Central Trust tower was Cincinnati's old tallest; it was superceded by Carew. The fact that the Carew Tower has a flagpole is significant, because it draws the eye to a single point. This is why we build church steeples and spires. This is why lighthouses have points on the top. In Cincinnati, the fact that our tallest, Carew, and our old tallest, Central Trust, are right next to fountain square reinforces the fact that fountain square is the center of the city. Did you know that 5th and Walnut was once the 6th busiest traffic intersection in the United States? (Old postcards claimed this.) All of these items leave no question where the center is. No building has ever superceded Carew, until now. None have even come close. With a rounded top, it does NOT mark the high point as distinctly as a flagpole. Plus, the top of QCS is going to be really close to the top of the Carew flagpole in elevation. I don't know which will actually be higher. My calculations show that it's too close to tell without better measurements. In any case, QCS will NOT be the dominant structure, even if it is taller. It does not come to a point, it is a few blocks from Fountain Square, it will not fit into the frame with the Roebling Bridge in the same way that Carew and Central Trust do, and it will be only slightly higher than Carew. It will pull the center of mass eastward, away from Fountain Square. Cleveland used to have a single point, Terminal Tower, that marked the center and was the city icon. However, it was superceded. At least Key has a pointed top, but how many discussions have you seen that the Cleveland skyline looks fragmented? Cincinnati is going to lose a little bit of something special. That said, if you are a skyscraper fan, I am happy for you, and I wish for the best. Thanks for reading, and sorry about the rant. Maybe next time I'll post some photos. :-)

Note that Taft between Reading and Jefferson was widened from the original, and modified to carry high speed traffic. Calhoun and McMicken were not. Building height, setbacks, sidewalk width, lighting, parking, and amount of traffic are all factors that determine how a street functions. That section of Taft, along with the adjacent Kroger shopping center, was designed in typical suburban fashion, and it does not function very well. If it were two-way, it still wouldn't function very well.