I'm okay with 660'.  Cincinnati has a gorgeous skyline.  I think this new tower will enhance that.  A ~700' tower might ruin it.

The big difference between this new building and the Carew Tower is that the Carew Tower was right in the middle of downtown, included a department store, a hotel, an innovative elevator parking garage, and a very active relationship with the street on all sides.  By comparison QCS will change the skyline but not the character of downtown.  QCS will be "New South" not just in its appearance but with a huge parking garage and its relative isolation from the street.  It won't have much retail or any reason to enter unless you work there.     

I have seven business days until my camera is fixed, then I'll have some pictures up.

It was too cold last weekend to walk down there with my wife's craptastic camera.

I can't remember what the exact figure was but it seemed to me the cost of each floor above a certain level was squared, adds up fast.

And I agree with CincyIntheKnow, I'm happy Cincinnati is getting another tower, we'll never have the tallest so why worry about it?

The height changes come from two places... design and architectural standards and financial realities.  The fact that it's "Cin-cin-nati" has little to do with it.  It costs more to build a taller building - what a concept.  In this economic climate and with financing being as difficult as it is, we should be thrilled that any building at all is getting built.

 

We're the largest city in the country with no new tallest skyscraper built since WWII, and we're griping about 40 feet.

 

Maybe if we just stack 40 puppies on top of the building...

 

Are buildings hard to build tall, or to build period?  Is it 40 feet not being a big deal, or 80 years representing monumental change in Cincinnati?  That's called disqualification.

 

thomasbw, funny thing is, Pittsburgh has two buildings over 700 feet AND light rail in a very comparable metro.  Nice try.

 

 

Has anyone read (a little off the subject) about plans for a mile high building in the mideast?

The height changes come from two places... design and architectural standards and financial realities. The fact that it's "Cin-cin-nati" has little to do with it. It costs more to build a taller building - what a concept. In this economic climate and with financing being as difficult as it is, we should be thrilled that any building at all is getting built.

 

We're the largest city in the country with no new tallest skyscraper built since WWII, and we're griping about 40 feet.

 

Maybe if we just stack 40 puppies on top of the building...

 

Are buildings hard to build tall, or to build period? Is it 40 feet not being a big deal, or 80 years representing monumental change in Cincinnati? That's called disqualification.

 

thomasbw, funny thing is, Pittsburgh has two buildings over 700 feet AND light rail in a very comparable metro. Nice try.

 

 

 

This is just too funny, on the tallest building in Pittsburgh "In the planning stages, U.S. Steel executives considered making the building the world's tallest, but settled on 840-ft (256-m) and the distinction of being the tallest building outside New York City and Chicago"

 

 

 

I didn't even know that, I just picked a random city

The height changes come from two places... design and architectural standards and financial realities.  The fact that it's "Cin-cin-nati" has little to do with it.  It costs more to build a taller building - what a concept.  In this economic climate and with financing being as difficult as it is, we should be thrilled that any building at all is getting built.

 

We're the largest city in the country with no new tallest skyscraper built since WWII, and we're griping about 40 feet.

 

Maybe if we just stack 40 puppies on top of the building...

 

Are buildings hard to build tall, or to build period?  Is it 40 feet not being a big deal, or 80 years representing monumental change in Cincinnati?  That's called disqualification.

 

thomasbw, funny thing is, Pittsburgh has two buildings over 700 feet AND light rail in a very comparable metro.  Nice try.

 

 

 

This is just too funny, on the tallest building in Pittsburgh "In the planning stages, U.S. Steel executives considered making the building the world's tallest, but settled on 840-ft (256-m) and the distinction of being the tallest building outside New York City and Chicago"

 

 

 

 

Cincinnati is achieving a personal goal of eclipsing Carew, and unfortunately that's it.  I could see a large building going up after the economy settles, but I do question why they broke the story as a 210 meter building that could only get taller, then shortly thereafter shortened it to 201 meters.  If they were able to acquire that much information on the spiraling financial crisis that quickly, they should pack up and be flown to Washington.

Are buildings hard to build tall, or to build period?  Is it 40 feet not being a big deal, or 80 years representing monumental change in Cincinnati?  That's called disqualification.

 

I think that 5chw4r7z is right.  You hit a point of diminishing returns somewhere, and every floor above that raises costs astronomically.  The higher you go, the more difficult things like elevators, water pressure, and evacuation becomes.  Anyone know the specifics on what height that is?  I'm sure I've heard that before.  Eventually, it doesn't make economic sense and it's cheaper to just build 2 smaller towers instead of 1 taller one.  Assuming that's true (which I believe it is), that's why places like Chicago and Manhattan continually get taller while cities like Cincinnati don't have to; the land value just isn't high enough to push the buildings skyward.  Building taller just for the sake of doing so would be pure ego at that point.

 

And I agree with CincyIntheKnow, I'm happy Cincinnati is getting another tower, we'll never have the tallest so why worry about it?

 

The big difference between this new building and the Carew Tower is that the Carew Tower was right in the middle of downtown, included a department store, a hotel, an innovative elevator parking garage, and a very active relationship with the street on all sides.  By comparison QCS will change the skyline but not the character of downtown.  QCS will be "New South" not just in its appearance but with a huge parking garage and its relative isolation from the street.  It won't have much retail or any reason to enter unless you work there.     

 

Good points!

>Assuming that's true (which I believe it is), that's why places like Chicago and Manhattan continually get taller while cities like Cincinnati don't have to; the land value just isn't high enough to push the buildings skyward

 

Here you have to build on-site parking to be Class A office space, and lots of it.  With every additional floor of office space, the parking garage must be larger.  There doesn't have to be one spot for each projected worker because...

 

1. some ride the bus or carpool

2. large buildings like this are almost never 100% leased, meaning the max number of workers is never achieved

3. large buildings like this will have at least some workers who work nights or overnight. 

 

...but this new tower will have an incredible 1,700 parking spaces and I believe the existing QCS phase II tower has 600 spaces. 

 

By comparison, office towers can be built in Manhattan with ZERO parking because of 15 subway lines, dozens of commuter rail lines, walking, and taxis.  The new Bank of America tower on Bryant Park has TWICE the office space as QCS and ZERO parking.  It's something you want to scream at rail opponents, but they'll never get it.     

I hope this ends up looking really "serious". I like the simplicity of the design. I like that it isn't flashy. We aren't flashy people. I think the story of Cincinnatus has prevailed here. Also, I was delighted to know that it isn't going to be super-tall. We need to respect our heritage as much as possible, and I think this building does that. It may not be an architectural masterpiece, but it is very Cincinnati.

 

I am, however, worried about construction methods. Have they done anything at all to limit waste or to make the building slightly sustainable?

I hope this ends up looking really "serious". I like the simplicity of the design. I like that it isn't flashy. We aren't flashy people. I think the story of Cincinnatus has prevailed here. Also, I was delighted to know that it isn't going to be super-tall. We need to respect our heritage as much as possible, and I think this building does that. It may not be an architectural masterpiece, but it is very Cincinnati.

 

I am, however, worried about construction methods. Have they done anything at all to limit waste or to make the building slightly sustainable?

 

It is supposed to achieve LEED certification on some level, and it will likely never be announced what they are attempting.  LEED 2.2 is a bit of a joke when applied to this project, however, especially if just aiming for certification level.  The site itself gets you a third of the way there. 

LEED is silly.  Most architects take care when they design a building.  "Sustainable" design is a trend.  Architects are becoming more responsible, however.  So long as a design isn't wasteful it will be energy efficient.  A design that doesn't make the best use of energy is just a bad design - of course what "good" uses of energy are are always open to debate.

^ Architects are responsible, obviously, but building owners dont always tend to be since "responsible design" can sometimes mean more costs upfront.  LEED and Sustainability are little more than a trend, for sure.  At least at some level its getting people to take notice.   

Jimmy James your right about the height thing.  Another thing is cities like Chicago and NYC have always had height competitions.  The Empire State Building and Chrysler tower started that trend in NYC.  Then it became "hey, we can build taller" so another company came along.  The prestige of both cities alone drew a lot of companies wanting to move there so money was never really an issue.  Cincinnati doesn't have to worry about height.  We're more of a "filler" city lol.  We got a crap load of potential to fill our gaps with what "could" be.  We're moving on up!

The second tower crane is being assembled today.

Cincinnati doesn't have to worry about height. We're more of a "filler" city lol.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head, and while I think QCS is a worthwhile project and I'll be glad to see it get built, I think we are preoccupied with height a little too much. A healthy city doesn't have to have dozens of new star-scrapers. The city should be looking for developers who are willing to develop smaller 8-10 story buildings to fill in some of the gaps in our business district. Buildings like the first phase of QCS.

 

While I applaud the coming of Cincy's newest tall, I also look forward to seeing some more modest buildings going up in the future.

There isn't very many gaps left. Columbus is the city that shouldn't be preoccupied with height.

I must be thinking of some other city that has dozens of undeveloped surface lots, river banks and Broadway Commons.

 

There are plenty of gaps left.

Cincinnati has off-street parking and loading requirements as recommended by the planning commission. They're not going to develop every single parking lot.

 

Underground garages are a luxury. That costs a lot of $$.

I'd rather us fill our empty downtown lots with mid-rise buildings than focus on supertall skyscrapers

There are really only a few spots dt that are over-lotted - the area around StX, Fifth and Race, and along the Central Parkway. If we start filling that in we'll go along way toward piecing dt back together. Maybe PG could build our next mega tower over the gardens in ten or 20 years, they can pay for it when they convince us we need 28 blades to shave three times a day.

Has anyone read (a little off the subject) about plans for a mile high building in the mideast?

 

Heard it stalled?

^Yea it stalled because there's going to be wind force problems because it's so damn high.  Anyone got pics of the cement poor for qcs?

^ last i saw it was covered

From towering garage to reusable materials

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/02/02/story14.html

 

Eagle Realty’s commitment to building its Queen City Square building according to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards meant recycling more than 95 percent of the parking garage it tore down. The concrete was converted to gravel used in road construction; the rebar melted at a steel mill into raw material.

 

That's cool!

I just hate that everyone always cites LEED as the reason for doing things.  Just do it because it makes sense economically and environmentally.  I can't wait for the day that the flawed LEED system dies out.  There are too many alternative interests on the board of directors at USGBC that affect the points-based system.

 

Anyways, I'm glad they decided to spend a bit more up front in order to save down the road.  Some of the design aspects that save energy will take 15-20 years to pay themselves off via utility savings, but a building like this that will be around for as long as any of us live is a perfect place for these things.

 

 

One of the problems with LEED is how some companies game the system. Did you know you get X amount of points for every bike rack? I think there are a few other silly things like that in there.

LEED isn't perfect but it's a lot better to have than not have and has led to a lot more sustainable buildings. They've been able to sell it, and that's what you need, great ideas aren't great unless they can be put to use.

They've made a ton of progress down in the pit.  They've begun the first deck of parking and what I think is some sort of big utility space for the elevators and maybe backup generators. 

One of the problems with LEED is how some companies game the system. Did you know you get X amount of points for every bike rack? I think there are a few other silly things like that in there.

 

speaking of that, where do people keep their bikes at parker flats?

Good question, we need to address that because there are people with bikes here.

Good question, we need to address that because there are people with bikes here.

 

and I need a place to keep my bike that isn't a 4 story walkup

New Pictures guys.  I decided to drive downtown today to see what's going on.  Here are some pics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cranes!!! I'm excited...I was surprised it wasn't many people working down there today.

 

Great!!  Thanks for the amazing pictures!

Yeah, I wonder what is it their building now down there?

Wow, it's flyin

You know it's amazing...they have been building on this thing for about 5 months and they are about to catch up with the New York City Freedom tower, and they've had almost 8 years to build that damn thing.  Ridiculous I say.  But I'm sure money was the problem.  Although the south core of the tower is 35ft above grade. 

Awesome pics! Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for the update...these are great pics.

There was a lot more restraints with that freedom tower too.  Money is always the issue but I agree, qcs is flying.  There was a rumor that the top would have an observation deck inside the tiara.  This true?

and they didn't have to rebuild subway stations or make infinate additional infrastructure repairs at qcs

There was a lot more restraints with that freedom tower too.  Money is always the issue but I agree, qcs is flying.  There was a rumor that the top would have an observation deck inside the tiara.  This true?

 

Don't we wish it were true? It has been suggested to them in the past, with no reply.

 

EDIT: Fixed quote box

I would love an observation deck in QCS!  As for the name, I am noticing more and more media outlets calling Queen City Square, Great American Tower.  Do you see yourself calling it by the new name or are you gonna keep with "Queen City Square" when referring to the building?

I would love an observation deck in QCS! As for the name, I am noticing more and more media outlets calling Queen City Square, Great American Tower. Do you see yourself calling it by the new name or are you gonna keep with "Queen City Square" when referring to the building?

 

QCS "The Duce"

I am waiting for "The Ocho"

another tower crane is on its way up

Oh wow, for what they already have two?