9 minutes ago, JYP said:

I love how that giant cell tower pole stays and is so prominent in the rendering! 

 

That means the stadium will have crystal clear 5G reception for everyone's selfie-posting needs.

Really horrendous impact on street  and sidewalk activity along Central. 

-looks like no street interaction by the stadium at all except for the staircase 

-even the team store is separated from Central Parkway by a parking lot squeezed in there

-looks like the buildings on the south side of Wade are goners 

-the website mentions in more the one place that the stadium is “blocks” from OTR and not right across the street from OTR. Makes it seem like they are not familiar with the area 

-The “fin” concept sort of reminds me of Oculus in NYC

 

I'm guessing that surface lot at the north east corner of the stadium is going to remain there until the ballet moves.  

Yikes. What a sad outcome. That thing needs to be stopped. 

Lens flare..... check

Search Lights.... check

Iridescent glow.... check

 

What we have here is Vapotecture at its finest !!

Welcome to the big leagues Cincinnati.

1 minute ago, atlas said:

Yikes. What a sad outcome. That thing needs to be stopped. 

Yeah let's not build one of the nicest soccer stadiums in the country because some people don't like the way it looks from the outside ?. 

 

Do I love the way the exterior looks?  No.  Do I really care what the outside looks like?  No, I care about what the inside looks like.  The reason it's being built is to house soccer matches, not look good from the sidewalk.  This stadium looks like it's going to have a great atmosphere with the huge safe standing area for the bailey, the full bowl of seats and the roof covering fans from rain/keeping in the crowd noise.  That stuff is much more important to me as a fan then then what it looks like from the outside.  

UGH so disappointing. There is still time to object on lighting and sound issues - wonder how Music Hall tenants and ballet are feeling about the new design.

9 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

Yeah let's not build one of the nicest soccer stadiums in the country because some people don't like the way it looks from the outside ?. 

 

Do I love the way the exterior looks?  No.  Do I really care what the outside looks like?  No, I care about what the inside looks like.  The reason it's being built is to house soccer matches, not look good from the sidewalk.  This stadium looks like it's going to have a great atmosphere with the huge safe standing area for the bailey, the full bowl of seats and the roof covering fans from rain/keeping in the crowd noise.  That stuff is much more important to me as a fan then then what it looks like from the outside.  

 

Agreed.

1 hour ago, tonyt3524 said:

Surprise surprise, all the development around it has disappeared into surface lots. 

 

This video was mainly meant to showcase Populous stadium redesign...

1 minute ago, troeros said:

 

This video was mainly meant to showcase Populous stadium redesign...

 

That''s fair, but it does seem like some of the stuff within the design (team store) won't have things blocking it. But maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

The stadium looks great! The only thing that needs to be worked on is the landscaping around the Grand Staircase. The inside of this place is going to be magnificent, they are putting in almost 60 Suites WOW.

8 minutes ago, breakground said:

UGH so disappointing. There is still time to object on lighting and sound issues - wonder how Music Hall tenants and ballet are feeling about the new design.

They both have already gotten their shake down/hush money.  I doubt either makes any additional complaints.  

I’m sure there will eventually be development around the stadium, think they are just trying to appease the residents for now until they gain more control of the land around it. I personally think it’s the best design they have released. 

Welp, so much for the whole "we already know what the stadium is going to look like" conversation from a month ago. No need to dig up the old posts, but feeling pretty vindicated over that whole discussion ?

 

This is really about what I was envisioning we'd get with this stadium. Pretty much right off the shelf, with very little in the way of interesting or unique features. Bland, gray materials, surface lots, very little street interaction. It's not bad looking, but certainly not great. Given their location adjacent to one of the largest historic districts in the country which happens to be almost entirely brick, can someone explain why brick wasn't incorporated into this design? The rendering for Columbus' new stadium incorporated a lot of brick and looks fantastic. This looks like it was designed in 20 minutes for anywhere, USA and then plopped into some renderings in Cincinnati. It's a bit of a bummer, but fairly predictable. 

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by edale

6 minutes ago, edale said:

Welp, so much for the whole "we already know what the stadium is going to look like" conversation from a month ago. No need to dig up the old posts, but feeling pretty vindicated over that whole discussion ?

 

This is really about what I was envisioning we'd get with this stadium. Pretty much right off the shelf, with very little in the way of interesting or unique features. Bland, gray materials, surface lots, very little street interaction. It's not bad looking, but certainly not great. Given their location adjacent to one of the largest historic districts in the country which happens to be almost entirely brick, can someone explain why brick wasn't incorporated into this design? The rendering for Columbus' new stadium incorporated a lot of brick and looks fantastic. This looks like it was designed in 20 minutes for anywhere, USA and then plopped into some renderings in Cincinnati. It's a bit of a bummer, but fairly predictable. 

I like ours much better, the crews design reminds me of a Kroger marketplace. FCC has a uniqueness about its design.

1 hour ago, cincydave8 said:

 

.

 

.

 

Is that an aviary at center-right?  Or a marijuana grow operation?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Cincy513 said:

I'm guessing that surface lot at the north east corner of the stadium is going to remain there until the ballet moves.  

 

The ownership will probably develop all of the lots to the north and east of the stadium as a later phase, probably after the ballet leaves and after they can acquire that cell phone tower site. There is the potential to build some really nice infill between the stadium and Central Parkway, and I don't care too much that the base of the stadium is pretty borning, since it will be mostly hidden from view after infill is built. Let's just hope that our country doesn't enter a recession in the early 2020s and put all of those infill plans on hold for a decade.

18 minutes ago, edale said:

Welp, so much for the whole "we already know what the stadium is going to look like" conversation from a month ago. No need to dig up the old posts, but feeling pretty vindicated over that whole discussion ?

 

This is really about what I was envisioning we'd get with this stadium. Pretty much right off the shelf, with very little in the way of interesting or unique features. Bland, gray materials, surface lots, very little street interaction. It's not bad looking, but certainly not great. Given their location adjacent to one of the largest historic districts in the country which happens to be almost entirely brick, can someone explain why brick wasn't incorporated into this design? The rendering for Columbus' new stadium incorporated a lot of brick and looks fantastic. This looks like it was designed in 20 minutes for anywhere, USA and then plopped into some renderings in Cincinnati. It's a bit of a bummer, but fairly predictable. 

You really think it changed that much?

 

 

vs

 

 

 

honestly they just need some trees in the new renderings

12 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Is that an aviary at center-right?  Or a marijuana grow operation?

 

 

 

Yeah I was trying to figure out what the heck that thing is.  None of the pictures they put out really show what is in there.  

4 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

The ownership will probably develop all of the lots to the north and east of the stadium as a later phase, probably after the ballet leaves and after they can acquire that cell phone tower site. There is the potential to build some really nice infill between the stadium and Central Parkway, and I don't care too much that the base of the stadium is pretty borning, since it will be mostly hidden from view after infill is built. Let's just hope that our country doesn't enter a recession in the early 2020s and put all of those infill plans on hold for a decade.

I think the ballet has a pretty long term lease on their building so it's probably going to take a big check from the team to get them to move.  Hopefully it happens sooner then later.  And yeah let's please get that cell phone tower moved as well.  

I think it looks great and will be a great atmosphere inside with the new Bailey. Exciting times. Looking forward to hosting some CONCACAF Nations League matches, Gold Cup matches and World Cup Qualifiers. Doesn't look too dramatically different from renderings we already saw....I sure feel vindicated ?

 

That being said, not sure what the ramp building is next to the staircase. Also would have rather had the team shop up on the road and I saw on twitter somebody stated a cut out on the SE corner would be a nice to see downtown from the pitch. 

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by cincydave8

Skeptical at first but looking through, I like the stadium itself. The 513 lighting will be an interesting game night feature. Also, it looks like they are generically branding it as "West End Stadium" until naming rights come through.

Wishful thinking but is the glass ramp/aviary looking building located where the underground laggering tunnels are located? That could be a really cool space or more likely it's just a skylight into the parking garage. 

34 minutes ago, seaswan said:

honestly they just need some trees in the new renderings

 

This would go a long way on the pedestrian scale side.

 

I'm not a fan of how close the stairs are to the sidewalk, from the rendering the sidewalk looks pretty narrow but that could just be the scale of how its drawn. Will be interesting to see more details when it goes to Planning Commission.

 

As for the exterior design I am not a huge fan. Cincinnati had an opportunity to do better and we blew it. We shouldn't be building civic buildings that we are compelled to hide amongst neighboring infill. Given enough time there is room for improvement after construction. I like the light patterns on the crown and the inside is nice. It get a C/C+ IMO.

My biggest complaint is the base of the structure. I personally like the lighting and shape of the stadium. I've long argued that brick would look terrible because it's surrounded by such a huge, beautiful historic district. The brick just wouldn't compare and it would look out of place. I just think there is a lot of metallic silver siding type stuff that needs to be broken up.

 

I agree that trees would go a long way to making it more inviting and pedestrian friendly. Hopefully the parking lots at the northeast will be developed sooner rather than later. Parking lots are always a bummer. I also hope the stadium will acquire the 1-story warehouse buildings and cell tower on the southeast of the stadium and demo them. They could really utilize that space for a large plaza like they have at Sheakley Lawn right now outside of Nippert.

It just looks too gray, all of it. Designing a building to look good at night only is a strange choice unless all their games are in the evening (are MLS games typically at night or afternoon?). There needs to be some color, some warmer materials, plantings, or literally anything to provide shade on the stairs and plaza facing east.

 

For as open and airy as the stadium itself is, the base is very heavy and opaque, almost brutalist, especially if everything on the base ends up as concrete as it appears to be. There isn't a floodplain to get out of so what's the point of having a base like that? Keeping above the riffraff?

1 hour ago, Cincy513 said:

Yeah let's not build one of the nicest soccer stadiums in the country because some people don't like the way it looks from the outside ?. 

 

Do I love the way the exterior looks?  No.  Do I really care what the outside looks like?  No, I care about what the inside looks like.  The reason it's being built is to house soccer matches, not look good from the sidewalk.  This stadium looks like it's going to have a great atmosphere with the huge safe standing area for the bailey, the full bowl of seats and the roof covering fans from rain/keeping in the crowd noise.  That stuff is much more important to me as a fan then then what it looks like from the outside.  

This is a ludicrous argument. The way the inside looks doesn't affect the urban environment. Your argument is basically the same as the brutalist architects from decades ago that destroyed streetscapes with massive stark, blank walls. Beyond just that, the majority of people that see this thing from the outside are NEVER stepping foot inside. Do you think that the residents of West End that live in poverty are really attending FCC games? They have to deal with the adverse urban effects of this poorly designed stadium, but get none of the benefits that you've described.

I'll also add that the design of the stadium piece is nice as an object in my opinion. I like the way the fins break up the mass and make it appear light, while still holding the form of the overall massing. That being said, it really is only nice as an object or sculpture, not as a piece of urban design being integral to the overall health of the community. The amount of asphalt, open areas, and surface lots are appalling. Coupled with the fact that it still looks like a spaceship landed in a place it clearly doesn't belong, I don't see how anyone can ignore the poor design of the stadium. Some forumers seem satisfied that entities are finally developing big projects in the area, but that isn't all that matters. You can still have good design that will positively impact the urban environment. You don't have to choose between one or the other...

4 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

It just looks too gray, all of it. Designing a building to look good at night only is a strange choice unless all their games are in the evening (are MLS games typically at night or afternoon?). There needs to be some color, some warmer materials, plantings, or literally anything to provide shade on the stairs and plaza facing east.

 

For as open and airy as the stadium itself is, the base is very heavy and opaque, almost brutalist, especially if everything on the base ends up as concrete as it appears to be. There isn't a floodplain to get out of so what's the point of having a base like that? Keeping above the riffraff?

There is going to be a parking garage below the stadium so I think that is the reason for the concrete base.  I agree though that it wouldn't hurt to have some of that concrete painted orange and blue to add some color.  Hopefully some signage, banners, ribbons or something is added to the steps and plaza area to also add some team colors and branding.  One thing I really hate about Paul Brown is that there is barely any Bengals signage or orange coloring outside the stadium.  You can barely tell it's the home of the Bengals when compared to how many Reds references there are outside GABP.  

1 hour ago, Cincy513 said:

Do I really care what the outside looks like?  No, I care about what the inside looks like.

Many more people will see the outside, much more often. (People who are funding this thing with their tax dollars.) If Music Hall looked bad from the outside but great on the inside, Washington Park and OTR in general would be missing their centerpiece.

2 hours ago, Cincy513 said:

Do I really care what the outside looks like?  No, I care about what the inside looks like.  The reason it's being built is to house soccer matches, not look good from the sidewalk.

 

Just because *you* don't care what the outside looks like, that doesn't make it not matter.  If this was in Mason in some cornfield, fine, but it's not.  Civics matter, especially so when you're a literal stone's throw from the largest historic district in the country. 

How good a building looks will almost always be debatable. The negativity by some on this forum is not surprising. Meanwhile from what I'm seeing on Twitter and Reddit most people seem to love the building. PBS is always so interesting to me because it's won architecture awards yet tons of people hate the building. 

Stade Louis II Stadium - Monaco

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by oakiehigh

Counterpoint....football stadiums in Paris, France.

 

Of course these while being completely different architecture than the surrounding buildings squeeze in because of the lack of parking obsession in Europe. 

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by cincydave8

9 minutes ago, cincydave8 said:

How good a building looks will almost always be debatable. The negativity by some on this forum is not surprising. Meanwhile from what I'm seeing on Twitter and Reddit most people seem to love the building. PBS is always so interesting to me because it's won architecture awards yet tons of people hate the building. 

 

I’ve also been reading comments on different sites and social media and it seems that most people love the design.

FC Cincinnati reveals design plan for new stadium

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/07/16/fc-cincinnati-reveals-design-planfor-new-stadium.html?iana=hpmvp_cinci_news_headline

 

• A Grand Staircase (French steps) rising 30 feet from Central Parkway, with stairs 150 feet wide, to serve as a “regal entrance” into the stadium and give the fan’s supporters a dramatic entry into the stadium following their pregame supporters march.

• LED lighting on 513 vertical fins that form a wavelike external structure surrounding the stadium.

• A one-of-a-kind lighting feature on the fins that allows unique motion sequences to be shown on the east-facing façade.

• A 360-degree canopy roof covering all of the seats.

• The Mercy Health Plaza at the southeast corner of the stadium to provide community programming space.

• A total of 59 suites, including two-party suites and three field-level suites, the most in MLS for a soccer-specific venue. A total of 4,500 premium club seats.

• The Bailey, the team's designated supporters section behind one of the goals, will feature 3,100 seats where fans can stand safely. That section, twice the size of the current Bailey at Nippert Stadium, covers nearly the entire north end of the stadium.

 

The stadium won’t have a beer garden, a feature Berding suggested during the Business Courier Power Breakfast event April 30. “I do not expect there will be a public-facing beer hall baked into the walls of the stadium,” he said. But the team is working with commercial real estate developers to decide if a beer hall makes sense in the mixed-use developments surrounding the stadium.

 

Parking will be available in a variety of places. Hamilton County has committed to building a 1,000 parking spaces nearby. The team is building a 400-space garage on the east side of the stadium and building a surface lot on the west side that would hold about 100 vehicles. Berding also said a lot of fans arrive at games through ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft. The team plans to create spaces so fans can easily find their ride home. And the stadium is two blocks away from a streetcar stop on Elm Street near Music Hall. “Our hope is that some folks will park at the Banks or under Fountain Square and take the streetcar up,” Berding said

6 minutes ago, cincydave8 said:

Parking will be available in a variety of places. Hamilton County has committed to building a 1,000 parking spaces nearby. The team is building a 400-space garage on the east side of the stadium and building a surface lot on the west side that would hold about 100 vehicles. Berding also said a lot of fans arrive at games through ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft. The team plans to create spaces so fans can easily find their ride home. And the stadium is two blocks away from a streetcar stop on Elm Street near Music Hall. “Our hope is that some folks will park at the Banks or under Fountain Square and take the streetcar up,” Berding said

 

There is also a subway station.  

 

27 minutes ago, cincydave8 said:

How good a building looks will almost always be debatable. The negativity by some on this forum is not surprising. Meanwhile from what I'm seeing on Twitter and Reddit most people seem to love the building. PBS is always so interesting to me because it's won architecture awards yet tons of people hate the building. 

 

Yes, looks are debatable. But you're using a straw-man argument. Most aren't as concerned with the aesthetics of the design as they are with the way the design interfaces in the urban context. This is not at all a debatable or subjective issue. There are huge bodies of OBJECTIVE research and case studies that outline what does and doesn't work in urban design. Architecture is a meeting of art and science. While many of the artistic aspects are subjective, the science and research are not. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_planning_journals

 

The list linked above are all peer-reviewed journals. Feel free to hit up the public library and check some out. Then decide for yourself if all of urban design is subjective or debatable.

A building can be pretty or ugly, it can win design awards or not, but that's independent of whether it's good urbanism or not.  In fact, the projects that win design awards are usually bad urbanism because they retreat from their surroundings in order to be an objet d'art in isolation. 

6 minutes ago, Largue said:

 

Yes, looks are debatable. But you're using a straw-man argument. Most aren't as concerned with the aesthetics of the design as they are with the way the design interfaces in the urban context. This is not at all a debatable or subjective issue. There are huge bodies of OBJECTIVE research and case studies that outline what does and doesn't work in urban design. Architecture is a meeting of art and science. While many of the artistic aspects are subjective, the science and research are not. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_planning_journals

 

The list linked above are all peer-reviewed journals. Feel free to hit up the public library and check some out. Then decide for yourself if all of urban design is subjective or debatable.

Okey dokey. I minored in Urban and Community Planning in college, so I don't plan to hit up the library as you condescendingly stated. I never said it fits or doesn't fit the urban fabric. I just stated that a lot people seem like it, myself included. You do not, you've made that point quite clear. 

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by cincydave8

6 hours ago, cincydave8 said:

Okey dokey. I minored in Urban and Community Planning in college, so I don't plan to hit up the library as you condescendingly stated. I never said it fits or doesn't fit the urban fabric. I just stated that a lot people seem like it, myself included. You do not, you've made that point quite clear. 

 
I thought I was still in the same argument as before with Cincy513. All these Cincy names are confusing me... My bad cincydave.

Edited July 17, 20195 yr by richNcincy
Language

Don't make me recite the "get avatars, people" haiku

These are beautiful renderings. One can only hope the overall design looks good 20 years from now. I love the central staircase, the glass looking indoor/outdoor beer hall restaurant. People will flock to this facility for the next 10 years. Maybe by then the city will declare the ballet barn derelict property and raze it. I hope everyone is aware that ballet doesn't actually put of shows at the ballet building as it stands. They practice there and it looks horrible. It reminds me of the movie Amadeus. The king declares no music and dancing at the same time. So Mozart shows him dancers without music. That is what the ballet building will look like once the stadium is up.

49 minutes ago, cincydave8 said:

Counterpoint....football stadiums in Paris, France.

 

Of course these while being completely different architecture than the surrounding buildings squeeze in because of the lack of parking obsession in Europe. 

 

The larger of the two stadiums is a disaster at street level.  It eschews the street grid and is surrounded by a fence with literal spikes on top.  It's also of gargantuan scale because of the huge ribs and gaping openness.  It doesn't seem like a building.  https://goo.gl/maps/nhZ59Kbjtm4rReqV6

 

The smaller stadium actually maintains some street walls and has doors and windows along its entire perimeter.  It's also of a scale similar to the buildings around it, and in fact is even a bit shorter.  It feels like a building.  https://goo.gl/maps/GbgH4ZVWCwV5nKCq5 

 

Which of these two would you want to live near, or walk next to?  https://goo.gl/maps/Ut5BPKwsQ3YwuiAW6 

 

58 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Don't make me recite the "get avatars, people" haiku

 

1 hour ago, RJohnson said:

Maybe by then the city will declare the ballet barn derelict property and raze it.

 

You're not a fan of personal property rights, I take it?

9 hours ago, Cincy513 said:

You really think it changed that much?

 

 

vs

 

 

 

I like the idea of the staircase, but it would be better if it ran the entire length of the front.

Looks like the opening got a lot bigger than what was shown in the last drawing. Anyone have those overhead shots for comparison?