^Dammit, Strap, you make some good points.  There are many examples of cities with relatively lifeless central business districts (you can add DC and Chicago to the list, although Chicago's trying) even though there are a lot of daytime workers.  So, does that mean adding office bldgs (and downtown workers to fill them) is a bad (or at least not particularly helpful) idea?  I'm still not sold - most of those other cities have pretty attractive urban neighborhoods to live in that aren't all that far away and have few housing options in their CBDs.  So maybe the answer is that adding an office bldg in downtown would help drive housing in the WHD?  Like you said, some urban economist probably has figured this out already, but in the absence of a real answer, it's more fun to just make stuff up... :-)

I think we need both new office towers and more importantly new housing downtwon to create a vibrant urban neighborhood. Poeple will feel safer if they came downtown and there were people down there. Now all i have to do is get a job that will allow me to afford on of these houses. They are pretty expensive.

^Dammit, Strap, you make some good points.  There are many examples of cities with relatively lifeless central business districts (you can add DC and Chicago to the list, although Chicago's trying) even though there are a lot of daytime workers.  So, does that mean adding office bldgs (and downtown workers to fill them) is a bad (or at least not particularly helpful) idea?  I'm still not sold - most of those other cities have pretty attractive urban neighborhoods to live in that aren't all that far away and have few housing options in their CBDs.  So maybe the answer is that adding an office bldg in downtown would help drive housing in the WHD?  Like you said, some urban economist probably has figured this out already, but in the absence of a real answer, it's more fun to just make stuff up... :-)

 

This is actually a pretty good discussion that might deserve a thread of its own: what do we envision Downtown to become?  A concentrated financial district surrounded by lively nabes (the traditional model, if you will), or a more integrated model where we try to grab hold of some sort of synergy between office worker dollars and neighborhood amenities/transportation accessibility [think Boston's Copley Square area or NY's Madison Square (not MSG)].

I'm just gonna post pictures of the tower until either somebody makes me stop, or we all agree that it needs to be saved. :-P

 

That is an awesome looking cheese grater!

 

 

 

 

MayDay-thanks for posting this photo. It makes me think of what might have been. I know architecture is very subjective-but I love this building and the impact it would have had on the skyline. I think it worked very well at the base and gave public square another building with a unique crown. Also the glass portion would have brightened up public square as it desperately needs. I can only hope that Jacobs will do something special with that property one day. Imagine how the skyline would look if this building and the Progressive building (which I think is a brilliant design) had been built. Very nice.

Found this shot of one of my favorite buildings on Flickr.

 

 

 

That is a nice looking moldy honeycomb

I'm on your side, Musky. Love that building. Definitely not my favorite downtown building (that honor goes to 75 Public Square ... a truly underappreciated little guy), probably doesn't crack my top five, but definitely worth renovating and preserving.

I like the honeycomb reference.

I can visualize all of the busy county worker bees buzzing into work.

Of course, when they are there, it will be cleaner and not so moldy looking.

 

 

If Jacobs or whomever decided to build this thing in the next year. How would you all respond? Do you think the tower still looks modern enough or do you think this design has lost its appeal in the 17 or so years since its been cancelled. Personally I think the larger granite (or whatever) part mixes with the glass to give it a nice modern feel while still blending in with the other tallest towers on the Square.

I didn't like it when it first came out. I still don't love the design, but I do like it in context with the other three towers.

It would really depend on the facade treatment - I also think the top could be tweaked. One thing I wouldn't change is the curved glass - so many people love the reflection of Terminal Tower in 55 Public Square and that curved glass would preserve that. I don't know that I'd care for the tower to be 1198' tall either - that could really overpower everything else in the skyline. As I've said before, I really like a similar KPF designed tower that was built in Montreal - I think something along these lines would work for the Ameritrust site:

I don't know that I'd care for the tower to be 1198' tall either - that could really overpower everything else in the skyline.

 

Would it be worse than what Key Tower does now?  Personally, I think that having it on Public Square would complement the cluster of very tall towers that are already there, rather than detracting from them.  It would be much different if the Ameritrust tower were to be elsewhere downtown.

SWEET!!!  So now I can start the rumor that this is going to be built....Mov2Ohio confirmed it!!! yay

I like the design of the tower.  The height may be a bit much, but I would definitely take it anyday!

^I wish, though with the the current declining vacancy rates and rumors swirling about huge tenants looking for space, coupled with Grubb & Ellis reporting new construction is 12 to 24 months off, we're probably closer to seeing this or some other sort of new office tower tbeing built han we have been since the late eighties.

 

I like that tower you showed Mayday that would look nice. I wouldn't be mad if they built a 1200' tower on Public square because its only 212 feet taller than Key, which is around 200 feet taller than the Terminal or 200 Public square. Plus you'd still have decent sitelines of the other towers from all directions. Like I've said before I hope what ever is built there exceeds 500', but really I'd like to see one 700' or taller.

 

If we do get a new tower how likely do you think it would be to have a hotel? I think its a strong possibility with the medicalmart/convention center potentially coming on line. But its all speculation at this point.

Does anyone know what (if anything) is going on with the alledged Baker and Hostetler search for new digs.  Last discussion of this I recall was on the Flats East Bank (Wolstein project) thread.  I am sure they would need 8 or 9 floors and would be an ideal tenant to assist a developer in obtaining financing for a new building where ever it might be.

I thought I read a blurb somewhere that Baker Hostetler was likely to take space in the BP building, aka 200 Public Square.

^They did, but before anything was signed they decided to keep looking.

I thought I read a blurb somewhere that Baker Hostetler was likely to take space in the BP building, aka 200 Public Square.

 

and 200 PS is currently only 20% vacant, without doing math, that's probably not enough space for Baker.....

If BH and Eaton teamed up for single building, I'm sure that we could see something significant on Public Square. Still, I'd rather see this make Stark's idea possible.

If BH and Eaton teamed up for single building, I'm sure that we could see something significant on Public Square. Still, I'd rather see this make Stark's idea possible.

 

speaking of eaton, i have a rumour!

^prove it.

If BH and Eaton teamed up for single building, I'm sure that we could see something significant on Public Square. Still, I'd rather see this make Stark's idea possible.

 

speaking of eaton, i have a rumour!

 

ok spill the beans.......

I like the original renderings.  It wouldn't be groundbreaking, but it's a perfectly serviceable design.  Still, I wouldn't mind seeing what a 2007 architect could come up with for that site.