i went to architecture school

 

Which completely explains your argument.  Most architecture programs espouse the modernist/postmodernist dogma, which aside from very, very, very few instances, produces loathable buildings at worst and forgettable buildings at best in the real world.  What began with Gropius has resulted in a complete erasure of timeless design principles.  As Don mentioned, the idea that we should throw away thousands of years of human achievement in the name of progress is ridiculous.

 

The only thing faux about those renderings is that I'm afraid they don't represent what will actually be built there.

 

My point is, while the neighborhood would be great, and the architecture would be timeless...it is not the right thing to do.

 

This must be the strangest quote I've ever seen on urbanohio.

... The modernist ideology tries to undercut historic styles by saying that they are merely a relic of a less enlightened past, hobbled by various technological limitations...

 

That's modernist ideology, which was current in the 1920s and 30s, and maybe the 40s, but is long dead.

 

In my architectural school there was a little saying (actually it was a graffitti): "An architect without history is a day without sunshine". 

 

But,yeah, the problem is that there is an internal aesthetic language or languages that high-design or theoretical architecture talks that doesnt translate well to the public at large.  A good example is that convention center in Columbus that everyone hates but I like... because I can discern the architects design intentions as I learned that language, or know how to read the language to some extent. 

 

To show my hand, I was trained in that "Texas Rangers" aesthetic approach Texas Rangers

 

Challenging the anti-intellectual tendencies both of the pragmatic, regionalist American tradition and of the modernist pedagogy inspired by the Bauhaus, the new curriculum proposed that a workable, useful body of architectural theory could be derived from an ongoing critique of significant buildings and projects across history and cultures. Visualization and organization of architectural space was emphasized over the shaping of mass, along with the recognition and development of the architectural idea. Gestalt psychological concepts for evaluating and describing architectural form and space were encouraged, and the value of historical precedent in the design process recognized.

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

Getting back to some of what Rando said about the former riverfront...from what I recall of vintage photos of the area right in front of downtown, it was at a pretty intimate scale.  As I said, sort of like the westernmost edge of Fourth of parts of Main...in fact there are some relic buildings on Main, just south of Fourth, as you drop down the slope to the second or third bottom of the Ohio. 

 

That is what that rendering Monte posted is trying to pick up on..that one sees the variety of different building styles or ways of doing facades, but there are some commonalities too, as pretty much the same roof line is maintained.  The whole ersatz aspect of it is that these type of city streetscapes are not done up by one developer but by a whole bunch..thats one thing that  gives old city streets their variety and visual interest.

 

If the Banks is going to be done by just one developer that is a possible pitfall...that it might look to much "the same".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, many of us have wished that multiple developers would have been included in this massive project.  This may have made the project easier to get off the ground, and it likely would have prevented a monolithic design scheme.  As you say, one of the great things about dense cities is the layering of architectural styles, where you can have a historic vernacular building standing next to a deconstructivist experiment by Peter Eisenman.

Now maybe I have been exposed to more discussions, books, lectures, articles etc. than you regarding this topic because i went to architecture school, and thats fine.

My point is, while the neighborhood would be great, and the architecture would be timeless...it is not the right thing to do.

 

Just because you have a degree doesn't really make you an expert or genius. Your opinion on this project confirms that. You think it's not the right thing to do even though it would be great and timeless? :?

 

I have a problem with brick buildings that replicate a buildings built over 100 years ago (in styles that were a direct physical manifestation of the the technilogical limitations of that time).

:bang:

 

The most beautiful buildings, not only in this city, but in the world today and throughout history have been build with these so called technological limitations. What do they build now with all of our technology? Oh yeah, big box retail stores and Newport on the Levee.

 

Architectural wonders were build thousands of years ago in Rome, Greece and Egypt with technological limitations and they looked much better than most of the buildings being constructed today.

 

And oh yeah, they all did it without Architectural degrees.

 

 

Can we stop comparing these "architectural wonders" with what is being constructed today? There are many, like myself, who appreciate what these developers are trying to do: revive downtowns across the nation where others have either failed or not paid any attention to. You can make a quicker buck out in the suburbs and often generate a better return on your investment at a far cheaper cost in a shorter time frame, but there are some developers that want to take a crack at doing something positive for this nation. An investment if you will while many others just sit idle, twiddling their thumbs or raking in the cash.

 

Not to say that gives them the full authority to put something cheap or ugly up. Give it time, and some character, and many of the complaints will die down. A building's style, or appearant 'cheapness' is not a valid reason to put down an entire project. For instance, many complain that the designs look too 'fake' -- but have you seen how empty the cityscapes of the past looked? Treeless streets, unadorned storefronts, little attention to detail outside of initial construction. What was added on over the years -- awnings, window treatments, decorative paint, and the like -- added needed character. Give it 20 years, and The Banks will look more mature and will have a more distinctive character.

 

This reminds me of the AEGON Building complaints. Constructed as an avant-garde building in the 1980s, it featured distinctive architectural styles and pink marble for the exterior. MANY complained that it was the 'pink elephant', an eyesore that stuck out of downtown Louisville. Fast forward to its 25th anniversary. It has been hailed one of the 150 favorite buildings in the U.S. by the American Institute of Architects'. It has been named an 'Icon of Architecture'. And the building has grown upon people. It has added character and only jumpstarted the development of the downtown that is leading to such projects like the avant-garde Museum Plaza.

The Ohio River is muddy and filthy (trashy) which wouldn't be good for the majority of recreational usage.  It'll get cleaned up once the park is completed but I don't surmise it'll make a great leap forward.

Wow.

 

Do you live anywhere near the Ohio River, per chance?

 

"Lets get one thing straight, contemporary doesn't equate to progressive."  That very statement paints you as conservative...at least architecturally speaking.  Contemporary absolutely equates to progressive.  Now maybe I have been exposed to more discussions, books, lectures, articles etc. than you regarding this topic because i went to architecture school, and thats fine.  But you could NEVER validate your argument that Contemporary architecture is not a sign of progress. 

 

Now maybe the disconnect here is that i dont fully understand what you mean when you say "classy" and maybe you dont understand what i mean when i say "contemporary".  I agree that a nieghborhood build ENTIRELY of "ultra modern" buildings would be terrible.  There are many contemporary projects that i do not like at all...just as there are many traditional buildings that i like a lot. 

 

I dont have a single problem with brick buildings.  I have a problem with brick buildings that replicate a buildings built over 100 years ago (in styles that were a direct physical manifestation of the the technilogical limitations of that time).  If the architecture of those renderings come to fruition, all we will be doing is building a neighborhood that is exactly the same as OTR.  Maybe the buildings will be a little taller and the streets will be wider...but that would be the only difference.  Is that not the definition of "faux"?  My point is, while the neighborhood would be great, and the architecture would be timeless...it is not the right thing to do.  Why build something we already have...that is authentic.  If constructed, these buildings would only demonstrate a fraction of the detail which would adorne a similiar period building because it is expensive.

 

The reason i love this city as much as i do is because of its storied past, its wonderful historic architecture, and the diversity of its people.  This is Cincinnati's chance...its one and only...to prove to the country and the world that while we cherish it, we have moved beyond our past.  This neighborhood needs to be about what we will be, not what we were. 

 

THANK you!  I absolutely agree with you.  This IS Cincinnati's chance...something I've been trying to infer for a long time....to get something right, and move into the future.  Something to tell the world that we aren't stuck in the past.

 

The designs in those renderings are absolutely horrid, and I would be ashamed to see something like that at The Banks.  It would NOT inspire me to come downtown.

Some of you are so set in your mind about what YOU think should go down there.  The fact is, there are people that disagree with you.  But some of you can't seem to see past that.  Instead, you rag on those of us who disagree with you...people like myself and PhattyNati.  And BTW, I AM a native of the area.  You guys seem to think that your own vision trumps anyone else's.  That's pretty sad.  Not trying to make a judgement call, but that attitude gets on my nerves.  I've put up with a lot of dogging from people on this site who don't agree with me, simply because I have a different opinion about what I think should happening downtown.  Am I not entitled to an opinion?  If someone doesn't like what I'm saying, then as I've said in the past, ban me.  But sometimes what needs to be said, needs to be said.

^ I think you are seriously overreacting to this. We all hold our own opinions on the architectural style, but others have the right to state that you would be wrong on your assessment that "no one would come downtown" if the "horrid" Banks was built based upon the renderings. Your analogy that the design would not inspire you to come downtown is flawed; people will still come, based upon the entertainment, restaurant and other commercial offerings. Placed upon that are the residential units, which will guarantee that The Banks will be utilised.

 

I for one would not be ashamed to see this built. It's far more useful to have a tax-generating district than vacant parking lots or holes in the ground. The added parkland (which some have critised as well) would diversify the landscape, and provide an excellent gateway to the city, as previously stated.

^ I think you are seriously overreacting to this. We all hold our own opinions on the architectural style, but others have the right to state that you would be wrong on your assessment that "no one would come downtown" if the "horrid" Banks was built based upon the renderings. Your analogy that the design would not inspire you to come downtown is flawed; people will still come, based upon the entertainment, restaurant and other commercial offerings. Placed upon that are the residential units, which will guarantee that The Banks will be utilised.

 

I for one would not be ashamed to see this built. It's far more useful to have a tax-generating district than vacant parking lots or holes in the ground. The added parkland (which some have critised as well) would diversify the landscape, and provide an excellent gateway to the city, as previously stated.

 

Keep in mind I'm not speaking for everyone.  I'm speaking for myself.  I would NOT be inspired to come downtown if the project looks like the renderings.  But that doesn't mean other people won't come down there.  It just means that MY dream for what The Banks should be would be quashed.  Nothing new.  I think Cincinnati wastes its potential, but I'm just one voice.  Whatever.

 

EDIT:  One more thing.....I'm not opposed to the park being built.  I'm opposed to the amount of land being incorporated into the park, when there are already TONS of park space along the river already.  None of that has prompted me to drive downtown from West Chester.  (ooooh, that was an ugly word, huh?  West Chester.  Blech.  That IS the attitude of some people in here.)

I live in Avondale.  Work in Covington.  Went to school at Walnut Hills High School.  Go to Sawyer Point as often as I can.  Travelling the world right now (writing from Chiang Mai Thailand) doing adventure/outdoorsy stuff and looking forward to being back in Cincinnati in 5 weeks.

What would you propose they do with the land instead? Don't forget its on the flood plain. And with the Banks residential units being there, the park will be utilized. It's unfortunate that you can't come down from West Chester, but you have your own back yard and community parks to go to. The Banks and the park shouldn't try to accommodate people from the suburbs, but rather the people who will be using it-the people who live downtown and at the banks.

we need an icon...something the US will recognize because of its uniqueness and beauty

When Jack Rouse was at the port authority, and they were coming up with the Master Plan for The Banks, he said that the icon of the riverfront was the Roebling Suspension Bridge.  It is the centerpiece of the development.

 

I think that the way the park has been designed by Sasaki Associates is awesome and will be a major attraction towards getting people to live downtown.  Unlike Yeatman's Cove or Sawyer Point, it will be tied directly into downtown.  And by looking at Sasaki's renderings, the park really connects to the the riverfront and the Roebling Suspension Bridge at its center.

I think that all the people who have responded lately (in exception of the last two)have been thinking incredibly selfishly. Why build it for people downtown? Because they are going to have to see it all the time. Why build it for people in the suburbs? Because they are going to bring their kids down and their dogs down and their $$$$ down. Why build it for the exurbanites? Because we just want to SEE it, it'll give us some other reason to come to Cincinnati other than a Bengals or a Reds game... and we have kids and dogs and $$$$ too! Why build it for all those people who have never been to Cincinnati? Because how many times do you hear people say on other boards "Whats the deal with that big hole in between the stadiums?"

 

So, don't think about what YOU want... because everyone wants something. Think about what CINCINNATI NEEDS. Because theres a lot more to downtown cincinnati than the 7,000 people who live there. Theres that 2.whatever million that lives in the entire metro too and the Banks is being built for ALL of us.

 

(EDIT and earlier I wasnt implying that downtowners wont bring money downtown... its just that the suburbs and exurbs will bring money downtown that is not downtown)

like i said, we need a monument...NYC has the empire state building, st louis has the arch, dc has everything, chicago has the sears...we need something the US will hear and automatically say, Thats cincinnati.  nobody knows that the roebling bridge was the prototype for the brooklyn bridge, nobody knows the carew tower. 

Wow!!!  This sure has turned into a full blown shit storm over nothing!  We haven't seen any designs or renderings yet, they will be out on the 23rd (just a week or so away)...and at that time we can then release the hounds and start picking it to pieces.  Right now it all seems a little preemptive.

It hasn't turned into a sh*t storm, it is just 1012 voicing his ignorant opinions.  Feel free to search for all his previous posts and you will see the ignorance he spews.  He lives in Fairfield and never goes downtown and does nothing but whine about the city.  He is a hypocrite.  People like him think the city owes him a reason to visit the city and come downtown. 

The city has monuments, the city has icons, people that complain that the city needs a new one are missing the point.  The city doesn't need a new landmark, it needs to better market the ones it already has.  We do not need some knockoff Stratosphere, Space Needle, CN Tower garbage to make a name for ourselves.  Tell me what landmark comes to mind when you think of Portland?  Yet Portland is a vibrant city full of energy.  The Banks should be a neighborhood, an urban neighborhood.  For people that think the city needs something like the Gateway Arch, have you been to the St. Louis riverfront?  It is one of the biggest embarrassments of all river cities.  Sure they have a world renown landmark, but the park grounds are a waste and can't be used for local events because it is federal property.  They hold one yearly event during 4th of July weekend and then the park land goes unused for the rest of the year.  I hardly think St. Louis is an example of how to build up a riverfront.  Even with parking lots, Cincinnati already has one of the best riverfronts in the nation because of Yeatman's Cove, Sawyer's Point and Newport & Covington.

 

When you go to Wrigleyville in Chicago, you go there to experience this great urban neighborhood.  It is a destination because it is a hip urban neighborhood that is vibrant and at the same time very local.  The Banks should not be anything that resembles Atlantic Station or Newport on the Levee.  The previous renderings of the Banks are not about living in the past.  The brick architecture displayed in those renderings are beautiful and would make a gorgeous gateway to the city.  People are too busy envisioning other cities when they think of this project but if it is done right people will look to Cincinnati and how they properly integrated a neighborhood between the two stadiums and managed to keep it local.  That is if they follow their original plans...

 

 

The city has monuments, the city has icons, people that complain that the city needs a new one are missing the point.  The city doesn't need a new landmark, it needs to better market the ones it already has.  We do not need some knockoff Stratosphere, Space Needle, CN Tower garbage to make a name for ourselves.  Tell me what landmark comes to mind when you think of Portland?  Yet Portland is a vibrant city full of energy.  The Banks should be a neighborhood, an urban neighborhood.  For people that think the city needs something like the Gateway Arch, have you been to the St. Louis riverfront?  It is one of the biggest embarrassments of all river cities.  Sure they have a world renown landmark, but the park grounds are a waste and can't be used for local events because it is federal property.  They hold one yearly event during 4th of July weekend and then the park land goes unused for the rest of the year.  I hardly think St. Louis is an example of how to build up a riverfront.  Even with parking lots, Cincinnati already has one of the best riverfronts in the nation because of Yeatman's Cove, Sawyer's Point and Newport & Covington.

 

I agree completely.  I have been saying that the city needs to quit focusing on what the perceived desires of the suburbanites are...and focus on creating a high-quality product that gives city living a comparative advantage over the suburbs.  We can build as many landmarks as we want, but until we have a high-quality housing stock of both new and old, good schools and a safer environment to raise a family...the city will only attract those 'urban pioneers', the retired and singles.  These are good to have, but in order to make city living truly great you also need that family component.

 

The Banks can give us a great collection of new housing stock, a clean/safe urban neighborhood (or perceived at least) and a vibrant urban neighborhood.  This is an important project for the city (obviously), we shouldn't waste this opportunity on building some glitzy attraction that does nothing more than build up our ego.  We need to think long-term and how we can create a sustainable urban lifestyle that is attractive to all groups.

i have to respectfully disagree...Coming from another city, Most people from where i'm from and where i've traveled to have heard of cincinnati, but don't know anything of it.  When I show them pictures, they are like "oh wow, I thought it was a little town"  I know in the San Fernando Valley area where my family's from, everyone heard cincinnati and thought ohio (pretty much means countryside in the rest of the nation). Or they say "oh ya, the riots."  The perceived and incorrect idea is that ohio/midwest minus chicago is 10 years behind the rest of the country.  I kind of agree to a certain extent.  Do i think building a national and unique landmark will wipe away this view?  not at all, but its a start.  A landmark would symbolize cincinnati's step into the "future" and it would be a universal symbol for the cincinnati area and It would cap off the great ideas of the banks, putting an exclamation point on the city...Just my opinion

Your comments prove my point.  The city doesn't need another landmark, it needs to better market itself.  The residents need to have more pride, they seem to be their worst enemy. 

Build a landmark Brent Spence and everyone wins!

I tend to agree with UncleRando on this topic, but can see Nbow's point about "putting an exclamation point on the city." I think if the Banks project is done right, along with the Riverfront Park thing, it definitely has the potential to be that exclamation point.

 

However, once the proper things are in place to bring families DT along with other YPs (ie. better schools, improved housing stock, etc) the city will be in a better place to attract developers who will want to build a "landmark building."

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't put the cart before the horse. Make sense?

Ink hit the nail on the head.  If you want a landmark, then the new Brent Spence Bridge is the place to do it.  Undoubtedly, the best man to design it is Santiago Calatrava, an architect that produces iconic structures almost at will:

 

Sundial Bridge

 

Path Station

 

Milwaukee Art Museum

 

More on Calatrava:

Google: Santiago Calatrava

I agree with inkaelin and Last Don.

Monte, your right.  the city needs to market itself better...and what better way then having a landmark the city can market itself around...what better way to say to the country that were a proud, growing city that is looking to the future

Monte, your right.  the city needs to market itself better...and what better way then having a landmark the city can market itself around...what better way to say to the country that were a proud, growing city that is looking to the future

 

I think the city already has several landmarks, such as the Tyler Davidson Fountain, the suspension bridge, and Carew Tower.

... Music Hall, Union Terminal, 2nd oldest zoo in the nation and one of the largest, great architecture (UC, CAC), largest stock of italianate houses in the nation ...

example, final four logos

 

Cincinnati

 

 

cleveland

 

 

st. louis

 

 

indy

 

 

atlanta

 

 

san antonio

 

^ Looks like Indianapolis is in more of a need for a landmark. ;)

We do seem to do that same logo thingy all the time.  We keep it pretty consistent I guess, and I have never had a problem with it.  But are we just consistently doing a bad job, I think that they are highlighting some key bldgs but do outsiders recognize those bldgs....probably not.  Do they know the history and importance of them....again probably not.

 

I don't know what else to say, but I just thought I would share those thoughts...for what they're worth.

Also, funding is in place for the first phase of a proposed $65 million, 36-acre riverfront park adjacent to The Banks. Ground will be broken in October, and that portion could be done in 18 months, Portune says. Further, he expects decks to cover Fort Washington Way could be installed within the next 18 months, creating a Lytle Park-like space designed to better connect the riverfront to downtown.

 

so they are back to the decking?

 

^ Looks like Indianapolis is in more of a need for a landmark. ;)

 

If you look closely you can see the basketball in Indianapolis' is going around a race track, hence Indy 500.

^ Looks like Indianapolis is in more of a need for a landmark. ;)

 

If you look closely you can see the basketball in Indianapolis' is going around a race track, hence Indy 500.

 

maybe, or it could just be in orbit

 

 

I think the city already has several landmarks, such as the Tyler Davidson Fountain, the suspension bridge, and Carew Tower.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you...but in the long time that they've been here, they are relatively unheard of outside the metro area...i'm just playing devil's advocate, but there are some legitimate points.  How do we get the riots stigma and the "crime" stigma off our reputation.  were taking steps to doing it now, but i'm telling you from my experience in los angeles, nobody knows what the tyler davidson fountain is or the carew tower...

I like our flying pigs. Nobody else really has flying pigs.

I personally don't care that people don't know a lot about or care much about my home town.  It's always a sign of immaturity when someone ignores or puts down a place they don't know about.  So it's their fault, not Cincinnati's.  Everyone's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with an event, trip, place, product, or whatever has entirely to do with their expectations going in.  They measure a place as being better or less than their expectations and considering few people have done any independent research on anywhere or anything (such as their home town) they're just reacting to things in a knee-jerk, emotional way.  They just want to get the opinion over with and go back to watching Oprah.  People go to cities with landmarks and historic districts, take a 10 minute walk, maybe take a photo and buy an ice cream cone, and go home happy.  When they go to New Orleans they ignore the vast ghettos or the soggy suburban strips outside Savannah.  And people definitely don't care about urban continuity -- it's all about individual landmarks and buildings for most people.  They go to places to confirm their prior beliefs.     

 

 

I personally don't care that people don't know a lot about or care much about my home town.  It's always a sign of immaturity when someone ignores or puts down a place they don't know about.  So it's their fault, not Cincinnati's.  Everyone's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with an event, trip, place, product, or whatever has entirely to do with their expectations going in.  They measure a place as being better or less than their expectations and considering few people have done any independent research on anywhere or anything (such as their home town) they're just reacting to things in a knee-jerk, emotional way.  They just want to get the opinion over with and go back to watching Oprah.  People go to cities with landmarks and historic districts, take a 10 minute walk, maybe take a photo and buy an ice cream cone, and go home happy.  When they go to New Orleans they ignore the vast ghettos or the soggy suburban strips outside Savannah.  And people definitely don't care about urban continuity -- it's all about individual landmarks and buildings for most people.  They go to places to confirm their prior beliefs.     

 

 

 

in most situations i agree..but the city has had a lot of bad press lately with the riots, crime, bengals arrests, census news..I thought mallory's bad pitch was a great thing to happen to the city cause he could tell the US that were looking to the future and our downtown is in the midst of a makeover.  I think the more publicity the city gets and the more good news and the more media coverage will benefit the city in the long run. and it needs to start with an icon that puts us on the map.  an exclamation point on the banks project that new and old professionals as well as multi ethnic people would be proud to move into.  A better marketable city in our media dominated society bodes well in the 21st century

Port Authority likely to end up managing the Banks Project

By Maryanne Zeleznik 4/16/2007 1:58:16 PM

 

 

The Port Authority could be in charge of managing the Banks when the Banks Working Group is done with the project. Cincinnati City Council and the Hamilton County commission will vote on a resolution which would change the make up of the group and put the members in charge of economic development in all of Hamilton county. Cincinnati council member Chris Bortz spoke at today’s Hamilton County Commission meeting and said it’s important for the two elected bodies to work together. The change would reduce the size of the Port Authority to eight members-- four from the city and four from the county. Bortz says he will bring the matter before the city’s economic development committee. All three commissioners have indicated they support the change. They will vote on the resolution later this month after the city has acted.

 

Between all the mess, I'm unsure if this has been posted. If it has already, please accept my apologies.

 

Port Authority to be reorganized

THE ENQUIRER

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

 

The reorganization of Hamilton County's port authority is expected be approved next week.

 

Full story text is available at

http://port-authority-news.newslib.com/story/5920-3236961/

Mayor Mallory has seen Banks drawings

By Jay Hanselman 4/17/2007 4:47:17 PM

 

 

The proposed developer for the Banks riverfront project is apparently showing renderings of the development to selected people including Cincinnati’s Mayor. Mark Mallory says he has seen the drawings. He says he's excited about what he's seen.

 

Original publisher unknown. Full story text may be available at

http://www.wnku.org

http://www.wvxu.org

Folks sorry about the interuption.  The previous comments by our resident troll have been removed and the follow-up comments were removed too.  All MLB All Star game discussion talk was moved over to the sports section to an existing thread about that topic.

 

Keep this topic related to "Banks specific discussion".

 

Thank you,

Urban Ohio Staff

Select few see Banks plans

April 19, 2007 | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

 

DOWNTOWN - New renderings of the proposed Banks riverfront development are being quietly shared with some elected city and county leaders as the deadline for a development deal draws near.

 

There is no word yet on when those plans will be shared with the public. County officials have said they expect a fall groundbreaking on at least part of the project.

 

Full story text is available at

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070419/NEWS01/304190048

Portune asks county board to pay for Banks platform park

BY DAN MONK | [email protected]

April 19, 2007

 

CINCINNATI - Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune is asking Hamilton County's Park Board to pick up the tab for a $20 million park that would be constructed on a platform over Fort Washington Way, one block north of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center.

 

Full story text is available at

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2007/04/16/daily50.html

interesting that Crowley said the new designs look "more modest."  The designs before were definitely not at a large scale at all so I can only assume he doesnt know what he is talking about, ha!  ANd I am disappointed to hear that the architectural style has changed.  I was in love with the original, but would have liked to see bigger buildings, not more modest ones.  Hopefully they develop the caps over FWW, that would make up for the lost blocks to the park and the ridiculous Freedom Center lawn. 

Agree atlas, since I voiced my opinions about my love for the original ones several times now in this thread I guess everyone knows where I stand.  At this point though I am feel pessimistic about this project.

Lindbergh City Center project in Atlanta, which Pepper said was similar.

 

http://www.carterusa.com/flyersHTML/Lindbergh.html

 

http://www.carterusa.com/flyersPDF/LindberghBrochure.pdf

Cmon Banks, its been so long! what do u think would be good restaurants/bars in the banks area??  I personally think an ESPNZone would THRIVE in between the stadiums.  I wrote them an email suggesting this and they said they "don't know enough about the market."    Skyline and other local stuff would be successful too. 

Cmon Banks, its been so long! what do u think would be good restaurants/bars in the banks area??  I personally think an ESPNZone would THRIVE in between the stadiums.  I wrote them an email suggesting this and they said they "don't know enough about the market."    Skyline and other local stuff would be successful too.

 

I personally hate places like that, and you can already go to the Machine Room Restaurant at the stadium if you want that packaged sports bar feel.  If you want a skuzzy sports bar, there are plenty on Third Street.

 

But maybe I'm lame.

 

That project also includes a Taco Mac restaurant that has 100 different beers on tap, a concept that Bob Castellini, the Banks Working Group’s chairman, thought would work well in Cincinnati.

 

I've hung out in Atlanta, and this is a stupid local chain bar/eatery.  I'd rather they'd put in a Willy's.  I can't help but get the feeling they are trying to build this thing like an amusement park, rather than let it grow organically, you know, like a city.  But aside from the parking garages I don't consider the Banks project high on the priority list.