atlas

That's not the vibe of Clay I remember. Isn't there a small park across the street from these proposed townhomes? And isn't this the location of that building torn down...with the mural, maybe. Google streetview confirms most of the rest of Clay just south of here all have first floor walk up homes with a scattering of vacant lots that will eventually see development that will likely respond to the Melindy townhomes.

Well I don't hate this - it has a lot of pros in terms of massing and address to major streets. But I think people are overlooking the problems with the Melindy townhomes. I would argue that the side streets are just as, if not more important to ensure good design be carried out. These are the human scaled spaces, the spaces that make urban environments special. To simply toss them aside and accept garages on the first floor would be unacceptable in my book. For years cities turned their backs on alleys and laneways and now realise their inherent value and are looking to activate these places. I understand Cincinnati isn't there yet but there is no reason why it shouldn't be.

Put some rooftop dining/activity on that thing - will help activate upper floors without there actually being upper floors.

This is a podium+tower I like - the SLS Hotel + Residences currently under construction in Philly. And I'd say it's still fairly safe/conservative. Not that this is entirely appropriate for a residential only building, but I much prefer material use, how the podium doesn't come off as just another box plopped on a site and the generous height of the first floor retail.

By "lands" I mean how it meets the street. I'd like to see a close up rendering to see how it meets the street and how the first floor is articulated, if at all. I am concerned with how the corner (at 8th and Sycamore) is articulated and that massive blank wall that appears to flank the south side of the corner. The tower portion looks ok, but that base....oooohh that base. The cladding looks like something out of the 1980s. Just not my taste. As for the scale of the podium - it seems to be the verticality of it could be broke down more. Right now the window framing make for giant windows that look larger than they really are and seem a bit....big....for an otherwise smaller podium.

Wait. What's to like here? We can't even see how the building lands. From the looks of it and how that corner is articulated it looks like it potentially lands pretty poorly. And the scale of the podium base...almost as dreadful as the look of the material. :)

They chose Mason for the design and The Banks for the location. Oakley is still left out here.

Cincinnati needs an architecture critic writing for the Enquirer much like Inga Saffron for the Phila. Inquirer. She's pretty great. is always calling for increased attention to design, and recently won a Pulitzer. She would have a FIELD DAY with this GE building. http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/inga_saffron/

Is this really what is going to be built?!? I'm glad they chose the Banks over Mason but not exactly happy about the Mason-esque design shown here.

Condos are still a relatively new product. They didn't really exist in large numbers until the 1980s. But now we're seeing the value of that era's condos erode in many cases. People traded one set of risks for another. The extreme circumstances since 2008 really exposed the cracks in subdivision and condo HOA's. The other big problem is that a one bedroom room condo, and certainly a studio, makes zero sense whatsoever long-term. A couple won't stay a couple for very long that is constantly stuck in one another's immediate presence. You need to at the very least have two bedrooms if not two floors. You need a man-cave. My dad's man-cave is in his detached garage. He very well might be in there right now. Good luck making that happen in Westfallen. Disagree. I don't mind living in close proximity with my significant other in an urban environment, because, if I am sick of him, I don't feel a desire to retreat to a 'man cave;' I'd want to go to the bar down the street.

Some fun trivia for everyone. On top of the current Comcast building there is a small replica of City Hall so William penn continues to be on top of the city's skyline. And if you want even more Philly goodness: the last time the Phillies won the World Series was right before liberty place was built. They hand won again because "Penn wasn't on top of the city's skyline anymore" until Comcast was built and they put that little statue on top of the building. Sure enough the year they finished Comcast and Penn once again dominated the skyline (2008) the phillies won the World Series.

You weren't allowed to build above William Penn atop City Hall (562 ft) until the mid-1980s when they lifted the gentleman's agreement and built one and two Liberty Place.

The building is heinous. It's like the urban designer did an FSR massing study and then the architect just added windows and called it a day. No design.

I actually like the height restrictions for The Banks. The CBD has more than enough space to grow vertically without having to take over the waterfront with skyscrapers. San Francisco -arguably one of the most space starved cities in North America- recently rejected a proposal that would have allowed high rise development along the bay because of concerns over views of the bay from the city, and vice versa. More than preserving views, though, I think the height restriction encourages density in the core. Sure, to keep away buildings over 500'. But a 20-story building is hardly tall, and certainly shouldn't be stopped, considering it is a mere blocks away from the centre of the metropolitan region.

Philly has something like 20 buildings over 300' either being built or about to get built, in the Center City/neighborhing Univ. City. This includes 4 at or above 600'. It's happening all at once. Cranes galore!

When will 3CDC push a modern aesthetic? The architecture is so...pedestrian and boring. Can we please start to push the envelope, and get something that actually represents 'now.' These are two of my favorite, small scale, new builds in my old 'hood in Philly (and they're right next to each other): http://hiddencityphila.org/2012/09/the-anti-toll-bloc-23-approved-by-zba-breaks-ground-in-early-2013/bainbridge-project_night02/ http://blog.philadelphiarealestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/24st_evening_View02_new_01.jpg And these are in Philly, where one could argue preservation and worry of 'sensitive infill' runs almost too rampant!

Lord. I think we've found Randy's #1 fanboy in Jake.

So on Instagram recently, I posted a photo of myself in the Blue Mountains in Australia. I was hiking a bit and had some water in hand, naturally. Upon seeing the photo, Randy comments on the photo: "Nice water bottle." My partner sees this and says, "Who is this guy talking about your 'water bottle?'" I said, "That's just Randy, he's straight and harmless." To which my partner says, "Oh, well one look through his instagram and I just assumed he was gay." Hehe.

the lack of collective will, above all, is what keeps Cincinnati behind

Saying what? That the costs of going uptown have to be considered. And the benefits of going Uptown.

The fact is Downtown Cincinnati and OTR are what should be looked at as 'Global Cincinnati.' It is the city's global hub, its global brand, and people ought to start treating it like that and stop pitting it against regional and neighborhood centers like Westwood and Hyde Park. If the region is to have a chance in the 21st Century, it needs to improve the core with global amenities, with things other global cities already have, like first class transit. And despite how great its 'bones' are, in this regard downtown Cincinnati is doing poorly compared to American/global counterparts. So as far as I am concerned, we aren't close in terms of 'what is enough' for downtown/OTR.

Out of curiosity. What exactly are you referencing when you say you're trying to build bridges? How's that working out?

Yea, it's a shame, considering Mariemont was meant to be for the working class.

What also makes buildings urban is their massing and scale, and in my opinion above all their flexibility to differing demands. That's why I think all buildings with large footprints like this should strive to be as mixed use as possible - office, residential, commercial, and civic, etc. Otherwise even the best ground floor fenestration won't activate a part of town like a good mix of uses does. Above all, that's why this building is a disappointment; what a large swath of land devoted mostly to 8-5ers.

Say what you want, settle how you want, rationalize your way to mediocrity. I've seen a better Holiday Inn in Pikeville, Kentucky (actually it was a Hampton Inn, but same hotel type). So it still doesn't take away from the fact that it is cheap and boring. In fact, it is hard pressed to remember the last big infill project in DT/Uptown that wasn't cheap and boring. So while you say 'every building can't be a star' it seems to me that no building has been a star in semi-recent memory. Nothing Uptown. Nothing at The Banks. Certainly not the casino, which is a huge embarrassment. Nothing being proposed downtown. Nothing in OTR. At least not yet.