Well 303 Broadway (aka phase 1) totally screwed the pooch on the pedestrian orientation at street-level...so hopefully the big dog of this overall project makes a MUCH better attempt at street-level.

Well 303 Broadway (aka phase 1) totally screwed the pooch on the pedestrian orientation at street-level...so hopefully the big dog of this overall project makes a MUCH better attempt at street-level.

 

Hopeful they will put some ground floor retail space in, that is accessible from the outside. These types of projects don't come along very often, so hopefully they will get it right.

Yeah...and maybe move the loading docks and parking garage entrance to the backside of the building.  Right now that is what dominates the street-level for 303 Broadway.  There is a tiny lobby entrance, that isn't all that visible...then a bunch of junk that belongs hidden out of sight.  Blank walls would probably be better.

Yeah...and maybe move the loading docks and parking garage entrance to the backside of the building.  Right now that is what dominates the street-level for 303 Broadway.  There is a tiny lobby entrance, that isn't all that visible...then a bunch of junk that belongs hidden out of sight.  Blank walls would probably be better.

 

The loading docks and parking entrance will stay on 3rd.  The main entrance to the retail and lobby will be at 4th and sycamore, which i mentioned in an earlier post.  I think a 4th street "main" entrance is much more relevant anyway. 

 

Still working on the actual schedule, but whomever mentioned 2 years is out of their mind.  Think 2010-2011.

Why couldn't an alley have been developed between Broadway and Sycamore.  It could run behind both towers and be used for the service sides of the buildings...thus removing the loading docks from an area where a good amount of people walk to get to baseball games and events at US Bank Arena.  A couple of restaurants and/or sports bars I would imagine to be a big hit for that locale (see Inbetween Tavern).

construction will start in 2010-2011???? or it will be finished....(hopefully, fingers crossed)

This project I would assume, will take some time.  They will have to demo the existing structures on site, then prep the site for construction...and finally after all that is said and done they can start construction.  That is of course once they have received all of their proper permits and received necessary approval from the city on the project.

 

So my thoughts are that if they had the building fully pre-leased today, it would still be another 3-4 years before the building is complete.

I think John Barrett of Western Southern finally figured it out: be less conservative in business practices, and be willing to take some risks (in regard to QCS Phase II)

(gleaned from his comments in recent Enquirer article)

Start demo June 2008

 

Topped Out April 2010

 

100% September 2011

June of '08????????          Can't we get it down quicker than that?    I got a sledge hammer back at the house.  Give me 45 min and I'll meet you at the site.    We can have this biotch down by fri. :whip:

June 2008 is less than a year away.  I think this sounds great!

whos the tenant(s)???

2008?  Mark Twain was right!

That's an aggressive timeline actually.  They're going to have to get a ton of demo permit, plus they'll have to give proper time to relocate any tenants, plus they have to make sure they are careful with an already structurally iffy building that is the parking garage.

 

In addition to all of that they'll have to get ROW permits to work in the ROW and demo the structure.  Like I said it takes some time, but June of '08 is pretty good.  All in all a 3 year time frame is VERY good!

Where did you hear or read about the demo date?!!!

Where did you hear or read about the demo date?!!!

 

He is evidently an "insider source" on this project.  There has been nothing to either prove or disprove what he has said thus far as relating to specifics.

2008?  Mark Twain was right!

 

yea i agree, this seems to be an aggressive time frame.  I was expecting much later....but we will see if this time line holds. 

Nicker66, who is the tenant?

 

... and when should we expect a news release?

Rando, there aren't any tenants on the site unless you count whoever owns the vending machines next to the parking garage elevators.  There was one solitary row building that faced 4th St. for many years but it was demolished around 2001.  I think the other buildings on the north half of the site were demolished around 1983 but I'm not totally sure.  I remember when they were building the glass atrium connection between the two Atrium buildings around 1986 somebody saying that site was going to be Atrium III, I don't know if that's true or not.   

 

 

 

 

664'-8"??

The original plans called for 689' didn't it?

And the Enquirer story they ran on it (which didn't really have much to say) said it would now be taller than the original spec...

 

So is that complete misinformation then?

 

And is QCS still 37 floors, and won't the Carew still have the highest occupied floor in the city by quite a bit after all is said and done?

 

I'm extremely excited that there is any Class A highrise going up in Cincy, I love this city, but isn't it a bit much to call QCS the new tallest when only decorative crown is actually taller?  I really hope they slip in a few more floors in and actually beat the Carew in every spec (that would really be something). I'd be fine with anything over 629' though, there's no reason a small town like Columbus should have a higher tower...  It would be nice to get something official, hopefully the stalling means they are waiting to see if they can't make the project bigger.  They better get something done though before Covington or Newport decides to build it.

Rando, there aren't any tenants on the site unless you count whoever owns the vending machines next to the parking garage elevators.  There was one solitary row building that faced 4th St. for many years but it was demolished around 2001.  I think the other buildings on the north half of the site were demolished around 1983 but I'm not totally sure.  I remember when they were building the glass atrium connection between the two Atrium buildings around 1986 somebody saying that site was going to be Atrium III, I don't know if that's true or not.

 

That's true...I was mixing up this block with the block east of this.  There are a few active buildings on Broadway, which was what I was thinking of.  This will just require the demo of the existing garage, the ROW permits and the demo of that crappy plaza thingy on the north end of the block.  I would presume they would get rid of the plaza first to have more room to work for demolishing the garage.

I hope Nicker66 is for real.  I'm looking forward to the first verification of some of the things reported.

 

Xdes, Columbus is anything but a small town, and the height of a city's buildings don't necessarily say much about its size.

 

I wouldn't be too concerned with Newport or Covington building a 700 ft office building.  Not unless they let them hang that bell in it.

Ok, Columbus is a smaller city, but it has an impressive skyline for it's size...keep in mind when looking at pop. statistics that they annexed their entire county, if Cincy did that, they'd be the "13th biggest city in the US" and that is to say nothing of the N.Kentucky population which is economically more connected to Downtown than most of Hamilton county. 

 

Louisville is building a nice new tallest building, 703ft.  Wikipedia says, "it will also be taller than any building in Cincinnati, Nashville, Memphis, Kansas City, or St. Louis." hmm...we can't let that happen can we? Nashville isn't...Signature Tower will be 1052ft...  But high-rises aren't really about any height competition are they...

 

Hey, a guy can dream can't he?  After all, Cincinnati did once have the 5th tallest building in the world (only buildings in New York were taller).

I feel like this happens every time a new forumer interested in the Cincy area joins to forum.  And once again....the height of buildings in a city DOES NOT matter.  If it did, cities like D.C, to a lesser extent Portland, and almost every European city would be in the shitter. 

^ Do'h!

664'-8"??

The original plans called for 689' didn't it?

And the Enquirer story they ran on it (which didn't really have much to say) said it would now be taller than the original spec...

 

So is that complete misinformation then?

 

And is QCS still 37 floors, and won't the Carew still have the highest occupied floor in the city by quite a bit after all is said and done?

 

I'm extremely excited that there is any Class A highrise going up in Cincy, I love this city, but isn't it a bit much to call QCS the new tallest when only decorative crown is actually taller?  I really hope they slip in a few more floors in and actually beat the Carew in every spec (that would really be something). I'd be fine with anything over 629' though, there's no reason a small town like Columbus should have a higher tower...  It would be nice to get something official, hopefully the stalling means they are waiting to see if they can't make the project bigger.  They better get something done though before Covington or Newport decides to build it.

 

...where to begin?

 

It has 39 floors.  There are less floors than the Carew because the individual floor height of QCS is much taller.  This is listed as a benefit or "bonus" for leasing.

 

My source is the project schedule from the construction documents.  We all know those can sometimes (i mean nearly always) run longer than expected, but the fact that a schedule has even been established is a giant step forward.

 

As far as the building height, it is the height from the third street sidewalk to the top of the crown.  There are a few levels of underground parking, but I don't think those count!

 

I am a fan of this message board and just want to contribute where I can.  Speculate all you want, but I don't appreciate being accused of "misinformation." 

 

 

^No one is really accusing you of misinformation...you are fairly new here, and I don't know if anyone knows you personally yet.  In addition your comments have not been verified yet.  So when that happens then the talk will go away, but it should be somewhat expected that people are wanting more verification than just some random guy on a message board.

^No Problem. 

 

I would expect "official" word in October-November this year.

Thanks, nicker66!  I look forward to hearing an announcement.  :)

 

I am a fan of this message board and just want to contribute where I can.  Speculate all you want, but I don't appreciate being accused of "misinformation." 

 

 

 

Don't take it to heart. Most of the people on these boards are armchair enthusiasts, and tend to get overexcited. People "on the inside" and many who are just here observing know that these things tend to sit for ages, then move fast, then sit again, then change overnight, etc, etc.

I think variety of the "crowns" of skyscrapers is a much more important thing for a city to consider and take an active interest in than building height.  The fact that Queen City Square has a pyramidal (loosely speaking) crown rather than a flat top adds to the variety of the downtown buildings.  I think the skyline as a whole is a more important aesthetic consideration than height.  The only other pyramidal downtown buildings I can think of are CG&E, 800 Broadway (Times Star) and PNC Bank.  Not paying attention to this detail can result in the unfortunate skyline that Boston currently sports.  And since QCSII lies more on the edge of downtown I think it is better that it not be of grandiose height.

^I agree. I love the crown, very classic. Rectangular, flat roofed skyscrapers are generally nothing special. The Carew pulls it off with its setbacks.

664'-8"??

The original plans called for 689' didn't it?

And the Enquirer story they ran on it (which didn't really have much to say) said it would now be taller than the original spec...

 

So is that complete misinformation then?

 

...where to begin?

 

It has 39 floors.  There are less floors than the Carew because the individual floor height of QCS is much taller.  This is listed as a benefit or "bonus" for leasing.

 

I am a fan of this message board and just want to contribute where I can.  Speculate all you want, but I don't appreciate being accused of "misinformation."

 

 

I would never accuse you of misinformation, why would you lie? I was talking about the Enquirer, and I will admit that maybe "misinformation" isn't the word I'm really looking for... I meant that the Enquirer's information must have more speculation than tangible or reliable when they claimed that the building would be higher.

 

On a side note, I've heard time and time again that I'm new and height doesn't matter usually followed by references to London and other European cities... But I have to dissagree, London went big on what was relevant then, and height is still relevant now (Chicago, Philadephia, Nashville, Louisville, Miami, Baltimore, New York, Las Vegas, and Toronto to name a few are all at work on a tallest highrise - and that's not to mention other world cities)... I agree that Cincinnati's skyline is beautiful and one shouldn't build an awkward behemoth next to it to muddle it up... However I did like the Nashville building rendered with our skyline, someone mentioned it was a bit like New York or Chicago creating 2 points of interest, and I would agree... Personally I don't think this will be the last big project but will spark more and possibly one even bigger than QCS.  When the original World Trade Centers where built the surrounding structures weren't as impressive as they are now.

^and again, the height of their buildings has nothing to do with the success of their cities...its just a small dick syndrome that most our cities and the people that live there suffer from.  Whats most important in a city is street level, not 1,000 ft. up in the air. 

completely agree w/ Atlas. I always felt one of the reasons that Europrean cities were so vibrant and livable is b/c they don't have such a concentration of commercial businnes in one area w or few buildings.  They have widespread commercial areas and a nice density to their cities..  Instead of 1 mega tower, how about four  or 5 seven story buildings, either new or rennovated? To me it mamkes a lot more sense. Unfortunately, this has never been the American way.

I've been to London, Paris, Rome, Naples and Athens, only a fraction of European cities to be sure, but I can't recall one of them NOT having a central business district that had highrises in the 40 story plus range. That siad they still don't make or break a city, but they certainly do give passersby an impression of it.

I usually think small but as far as buildings go I say build them as big as needed. New Tokyo Tower will be the largest Radio tower in the world.

 

I've been to London, Paris, Rome, Naples and Athens, only a fraction of European cities to be sure, but I can't recall one of them NOT having a central business district that had highrises in the 40 story plus range. That siad they still don't make or break a city, but they certainly do give passersby an impression of it.

 

Uuuuhhhh Rome doesn't and Paris's isn't actually in Paris...its in the burbs.

To say that the height of a building has nothing to do with a city's success is as ignorant as saying that height is the only thing that matters... which is not true either.  I love tall buildings, I don't think height alone makes a building or a skyline, but I think it is very significant... not everybody is as in to height as I am so to each his own...and in building a skyscraper one should recognize the importance of its street level appearance, but from a distance, a 1000 foot building soaring above a skyline is much more impressive than another 500 foot building.  I also fail to see how 5 seven story buildings makes more sense...with height there is more space to lease relative to land costs and a higher return...even so, how is it not an American way to build buildings of this scale, most of the construction downtown is for 5 - 14 floor structures, but what is the harm in having a tallest in city building built or for that matter pride in such a new structure?  London has 3 new tallest buildings planned, and I think thats great... ignoring current trends is living in the past...American cities grew up during the skyscraper era hence the importance placed on them, London and other European cities had already boomed, but they build them too now.  Why should Cincinnati go back and try to pretend it's something it's not, which is Rome and Paris...Cincinnati grew up with skyscrapers and they are here to stay...most people are excited to hear of new buildings like this, and it's not because they have small dicks.

I wouldn't say that Cincinnati grew up with skyscrapers.  Cincinnati developed before architecture and structural engineering allowed for skyscrapers.  Cincinnati (and most of the east coast) developed like Europe in those days...why because it was Europeans that were building these cities.  I took some time to shed that and take on a unique American ideology when it comes to built environment.

Ok back on topic.

^werent we right on topic......talking about how important building height is when Cincy is going to build a new tallest???

:whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip:

Actually an "American ideology" and unique American form was present here almost from the very get-go, for sure after the Land Ordinance of 1787 (The Philadelphia and New Orleans grids predated this but they are each built to very different geometries).  The grid as it exists on a large scale is a uniquely American invention born out of the need to subdivide vast unseen (uncharted) areas of frontier land.  The city grid exists here for a very different reason that it existed in ancient China and various early civilizations.  And the township grid is totally unique to this country. 

 

Certainly identical 4-way intersections are a major feature of the American landscape, as is the 90 degree street corner.  So much of the complaint about American cities is the lack of crooked streets yet most European cities have cut major straight streets through their premodern areas.       

If we don't have the tallest, we'll always have the First:  aboriginal, ahead, antecedent, anterior, basic, beginning, cardinal, early, elementary, first off, front, fundamental, head, headmost, inaugural, inceptive, incipient, initial, introductory, key, lead off, leading, maiden, number one, numero uno, opening, original, pioneer, premier, primary, prime, primeval, primitive, primogenial, primordial, pristine, rudimentary, slightest, virgin...  And nobody can ever take that title!! It belongs to Cincinnati forever:  always, durably, endlessly, enduringly, eternally, ever, everlastingly, evermore, for always, for good, for keeps, for life, forevermore, immortally, in perpetuity, in perpetuum, infinitely, interminably, lastingly, permanently, perpetually, till Doomsday, unchangingly.  :wink:

what is the harm in having a tallest in city building built or for that matter pride in such a new structure? 

I am all for a new tallest, Cincinnati was booming in the 30's even during the depression this city really achieved greatness with it's Art Deco buildings and Viaducts.  Downtown is in another boom and this might top the 80's in which many of our skyscrapers were built. Cincinnati is conservative and  this discussion of new buildings shows.  (god forbid we change the PYRAMID!!)  Granted a Burg Dubai might not look right, but there IMO there is nothing wrong with a building that is taller than carew.

IMO there is nothing wrong with a building that is taller than carew.

 

I agree - I see nothing wrong with building something taller than Carew.  I think Carew will still be a landmark.  :)

I also agree.

Will QCSII appear taller than the Carew?  I know the actual height numbers clearly show QCS taller, but QCSII's height begins on 3rd street, while Carew starts out at a much higher elevation on 5th.  When viewing the entire skyline, I am not so sure that QCSII will be taller than Carew.

^

I was thinking the same thing.  The the north side of 3rd and sycamore is about 475 ft. above sea level and 5th and vine is about 575 ft. above sea level.  So from a distance it QCS may not look as tall as the Carew.