Actually, it's most likely just a cooling tower.  The chillers themselves would be inside somewhere.  That is pretty small, and probably only for the last few upper floors.

Thanks for the great pics!!!

I'm no expert on HVAC systems that's my dad. So I'll yield to whatever you guys have to say about that. Thanks for the input!

 

I just noticed they added another piece of the tiara on the north end. Check out the webcam!!!

There is a new QCS website along with rendering. 

 

www.queencitysquare.com

 

 

Main Entry

 

Promenade

 

Lobby

 

4th Street plan

 

Street level plan

Ooo sundries

Ooh pretty drawings!

The 4th Street side kind of has a similar vibe to the Chemed Tower.

^Hopefully GAT's revolving doors won't be as difficult to use...

Of course it could have been taller so it felt less overweight, but I still think it's a beautiful tower.  :clap:

this building should habe been built on 4th street.  the retail area is way too short and doesn't fit into the current building canyon.  and oh yea, the building is way too FAT.  sorry.  this just depresses me. 

Perhaps Cincy will get lucky and get a residential high rise in the next 2-4 years, a modern one on a diet! The thing that I most welcome this tower for is the amount of glass it is placing into the skyline. I think it is very refreshing against all the muted tones currently in the skyline.

 

 

Brandon Quigley

www.theqstyle.com

A beautiful rendering of the building! Also like the color.

this building should habe been built on 4th street.  the retail area is way too short and doesn't fit into the current building canyon.  and oh yea, the building is way too FAT.  sorry.  this just depresses me. 

 

Agreed. This building is all about the ego of the developer, and not about good design for the city.

Say what you will but other cities in our region (Columbus, Dayton, Louisville, Indianapolis, Lexington, etc.) wish they had something this beautiful to compliment their skylines. QCSII places our skyline light years ahead of these cities. The only city with a more dynamic skyline would be Pittsburgh. We are very fortunate to have a new skyscraper built in this economy and I, for one, am thankful to W&S for making it happen.

www.queencitysquare.com/ has updated their website.  It has some good new renders.  Although the link to the webcam is gone.  Does anyone have that link to the webcam from the North side?

Jvarney... you said it well.. i couldn't agree more.

I'm all in favor of new construction downtown, and I'm glad Cincinnati is able to support a project this size even in a down economy, but just because it's big and shiny doesn't mean it's good architecture.

I really don't see what is so bad about this building.  Could it be thinner? Yes, but to make the project economically feasible in this market, it probably made more sense to make the floors larger.  Companies want to keep their costs down, and if they can operate on one floor as opposed to two or three, they'll do just that- hence the wider building.  The tiara will lengthen the building a bit when it is completed, and I think the building will look just fine.  QCS1 was built along 3rd Street because there is already a building occupying the north east portion of the block.  If QCS2 was built along 4th, it would have looked weird from almost all angles except from 4th street.  The lobby/retail areas will engage fine with the street, and will open that corner up for potential restaurant/retail tenants in a way that having the highrise portion right on 4th. 

 

All the criticism of this building seems a bit unfair, especially when the critiques are that the building is "fat" :roll:.  To have a 665 foot building built in Cincinnati during a recession is pretty amazing, and I think we should appreciate that a little more.

Should have moved the vertical height mass of the building to the middle of the block to alleviate scale issues and turned it so it faces east west instead of north south.  That way the thin side faces the river and the fat side is obscured by the rest of the skyline or hills.  Everyone would have won...except webcam viewers and flagpole fanatics. :P

www.queencitysquare.com/ has updated their website.  It has some good new renders.  Although the link to the webcam is gone.  Does anyone have that link to the webcam from the North side?

 

http://www.queencitysquare.com/construction.php

 

It's on the main page under Key Information.

This building if it were a woman would be a BBW. Some men just can't handle the extra width these beauties provide. I personally think once the tiara is built it will look taller. Standing next to it downtown you don't even notice the extra "girth". The webcam pic has it looking pretty tall to me.

Say what you will but other cities in our region (Columbus, Dayton, Louisville, Indianapolis, Lexington, etc.) wish they had something this beautiful to compliment their skylines. QCSII places our skyline light years ahead of these cities. The only city with a more dynamic skyline would be Pittsburgh. We are very fortunate to have a new skyscraper built in this economy and I, for one, am thankful to W&S for making it happen.

  Amen!!

www.queencitysquare.com/ has updated their website. It has some good new renders. Although the link to the webcam is gone. Does anyone have that link to the webcam from the North side?

The webcam is right there on the page, as new construction

Should have moved the vertical height mass of the building to the middle of the block to alleviate scale issues and turned it so it faces east west instead of north south. That way the thin side faces the river and the fat side is obscured by the rest of the skyline or hills. Everyone would have won...except webcam viewers and flagpole fanatics. :P

 

You're joking, right? 

To have a 665 foot building built in Cincinnati during a recession is pretty amazing, and I think we should appreciate that a little more.

There's one problem with this thinking: the building will last much longer than the recession. No one looks at a building in a skyline and thinks "oh, that one's not so nice, but considering it was built during a recession, it's pretty good looking."

 

Either way, I'm not complaining. It could look way, way, wayyyyy worse! It has some nice features. Overall, it improves the skyline. A net positive is never anything to shake a stick at, and experiencing such an improvement during a recession is really nice.

Same thing going on in the Banks thread.  Nobody is ever satisfied.

 

I'm satisfied by projects I see all the time. Here's five that are great:

 

 

 

 

 

Same thing going on in the Banks thread. Nobody is ever satisfied.

 

I'm satisfied by projects I see all the time. Here's five that are great:

I recognize a couple of these, but where are they all from?

 

 

 

 

 

I think people are getting their panties all up in a bunch about the height of this building, "fatness" etc.  Bottom line is we all need to shut up and realise that QCS too will not look fat once the crown is added.  Le's step back and look at it.  Sure it's not a 700 or 800 footer but for terd's sake, it's a beast and a pretty one at that!

The only ones I like out of those pictures is picture #5 and maybe #3.  The others are pretty bad.

^ I suppose I must accede to Dan. Some people really are never satisfied. Have you seen any of these in person, other than perhaps number 3? I have.

To have a 665 foot building built in Cincinnati during a recession is pretty amazing, and I think we should appreciate that a little more.

There's one problem with this thinking: the building will last much longer than the recession. No one looks at a building in a skyline and thinks "oh, that one's not so nice, but considering it was built during a recession, it's pretty good looking."

 

Not to be contrary, but I hear people say exactly that about Carew Tower all the time.

^ I suppose I must accede to Dan. Some people really are never satisfied. Have you seen any of these in person, other than perhaps number 3? I have.

 

Not sure where all those pictures are so can't say if I've seen any of them in person.  Have I seen very similar structures in a bunch of cities across America?  Yes, and they pretty much all look the same.  But, that doesn't mean I'm not satisfied, but it also doesn't me I don't want the best.

^ But you say they're "pretty bad." By any definition, they are not bad. By many definitions, they are award-winning.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you in particular. And I know this is going off-topic. But I think it's important because there should be a minimally informed intellectual realm in which we judge things. For example when I say The Banks is "bad," I don't make an offensive claim like that because I simply don't care for it. It's bad because it fails certain minimum standards like variety of facades and materials, articulation, and regional appropriateness.

 

QCS on the other hand, isn't really bad, I imagine it's just not very sophisticated by some people's standards. No, I don't mean it has to be avant-garde. It's just very straightforward in how it achieved whatever the client wanted. "I want to be on the river!" "I want to be special and have a pretty top!" At its worst, you could say it's kind of an expensive glass clubhouse for the lucky neighborhood kids at Great American. Awkward gestures, it means well, but not even close to sublime. I think a good example of a corporate e-peen that achieves both ego and sublime design is Two Prudential Plaza in Chicago.

 

 

I find it very interesting that people like me are getting attacked for asking for and demanding better architecture and urban design.  The City deserves better and the fact that all of you people (those bitching about us bitching) have settled on this at best mediocre building and urban design really goes to show what you expect out of your city and of yourselves.   

 

Great cities never settle, great cities believe they can do better.  In this case, Cincy could have done WAY better and there is nothing wrong with bringing attention to that fact. 

^ But you say they're "pretty bad." By any definition, they are not bad. By many definitions, they are award-winning.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you in particular. And I know this is going off-topic. But I think it's important because there should be a minimally informed intellectual realm in which we judge things. For example when I say The Banks is "bad," I don't make an offensive claim like that because I simply don't care for it. It's bad because it fails certain minimum standards like variety of facades and materials, articulation, and regional appropriateness.

 

QCS on the other hand, isn't really bad, I imagine it's just not very sophisticated by some people's standards. No, I don't mean it has to be avant-garde. It's just very straightforward in how it achieved whatever the client wanted. "I want to be on the river!" "I want to be special and have a pretty top!" At its worst, you could say it's kind of an expensive glass clubhouse for the lucky neighborhood kids at Great American. Awkward gestures, it means well, but not even close to sublime. I think a good example of a corporate e-peen that achieves both ego and sublime design is Two Prudential Plaza in Chicago.

 

 

 

Bad is subjective.  Maybe it was the wrong term to use.  They don't impress me, how is that?  They look like just about every new development I see popping up.  Looks just like the Banks design, looks just like the new building on Calhoun, looks just like every new development down in Florida and out in California that I've recently seen.  Do I think the Banks could have been better designed from an architectural point of view?  Yes, but I am still pumped that the Banks is popping out of the ground and can't wait to go there and enjoy it.  I'll also point out that I'm not an architecture so I could be way wrong, I'm just going by the eye test.

 

also, just out of curiosity, what awards did those buildings win?

I find it very interesting that people like me are getting attacked for asking for and demanding better architecture and urban design. The City deserves better and the fact that all of you people (those bitching about us bitching) have settled on this at best mediocre building and urban design really goes to show what you expect out of your city and of yourselves.

 

Great cities never settle, great cities believe they can do better. In this case, Cincy could have done WAY better and there is nothing wrong with bringing attention to that fact.

 

I'll agree with you that the City deserves better, but in this case I think people are resigning to the fact that it's already almost built.  It's time to accept QCS, in all her girth, as part of the Queen City and to embrace her for all her quirks.  Now we can move onto the next big development and demand better.

I find it very interesting that people like me are getting attacked for asking for and demanding better architecture and urban design. The City deserves better and the fact that all of you people (those bitching about us bitching) have settled on this at best mediocre building and urban design really goes to show what you expect out of your city and of yourselves.

 

Great cities never settle, great cities believe they can do better. In this case, Cincy could have done WAY better and there is nothing wrong with bringing attention to that fact.

 

What you deem ugly or bad architecture is not what other people necessarily think. Architecture and design taste is subjective.  Just because I think QCS looks good does not mean I am settling or that I have low expectations for Cincinnati.  Given the site, and the nature of the building, QCS looks pretty good.  Could you maybe show some examples of office buildings being built now that you do like?

Isn't the tiara going to add 130 more feet to the height plus the focal point of the entire structure?    While we can all agree to disagree on retail and exterior materials, I think the height/width criticism is a little premature.  Does anyone criticize a speech before it's given??? (Besides Fox News)

^ But you say they're "pretty bad." By any definition, they are not bad. By many definitions, they are award-winning.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you in particular. And I know this is going off-topic. But I think it's important because there should be a minimally informed intellectual realm in which we judge things. For example when I say The Banks is "bad," I don't make an offensive claim like that because I simply don't care for it. It's bad because it fails certain minimum standards like variety of facades and materials, articulation, and regional appropriateness.

 

QCS on the other hand, isn't really bad, I imagine it's just not very sophisticated by some people's standards. No, I don't mean it has to be avant-garde. It's just very straightforward in how it achieved whatever the client wanted. "I want to be on the river!" "I want to be special and have a pretty top!" At its worst, you could say it's kind of an expensive glass clubhouse for the lucky neighborhood kids at Great American. Awkward gestures, it means well, but not even close to sublime. I think a good example of a corporate e-peen that achieves both ego and sublime design is Two Prudential Plaza in Chicago.

 

 

 

Bad is subjective.  Maybe it was the wrong term to use.  They don't impress me, how is that?  They look like just about every new development I see popping up.  Looks just like the Banks design, looks just like the new building on Calhoun, looks just like every new development down in Florida and out in California that I've recently seen.  Do I think the Banks could have been better designed from an architectural point of view?  Yes, but I am still pumped that the Banks is popping out of the ground and can't wait to go there and enjoy it.  I'll also point out that I'm not an architecture so I could be way wrong, I'm just going by the eye test.

 

also, just out of curiosity, what awards did those buildings win?

 

Number one is Ratcliffe On The Green, Charlotte

It was nominated for a best public space award from Project for Public Spaces

 

Two is just the recent condo development in Mariemont

 

Three is in fill in Over the Rhine, just completed

 

Four is Atlantic Station in Atlanta

It's won numerous awards, including NAHB, Aurora, EPA, etc

 

Number five is Downtown Woodstock, Georgia

2006 Atlanta Regional Commission Development of Excellence Award

2008 Congress for the New Urbanism Charter Award

I'm not inclined to the all-too-common 'grass is greener' talk but FYI here is Ratcliffe on the Green:

I'm not inclined to the all-too-common 'grass is greener' talk but FYI here is Ratcliffe on the Green:

 

That's what I posted. "Number one" refers to the order of the picture in my original post.

Right. Lo siento.

I'll think about forgiving you, but I make no promises.

I believe many have qualms with the girth of the building because our downtown is actually filled in enough to support an 800 footer without much awkwardness, so our almost-700 footer doesn't pop out as the Babylonian tower some are looking for.  I personally love the addition of color and glass to downtown, and the fact that it really exposes the areas around Walnut as in need of a taller presence.  Hopefully that would influence a future project's location and scale.

It's looking pretty good, honestly. The tiara is coming together faster than I thought it would.

Watching them put this together is knee weakening

The good news is, this building is the tallest in our area for miles. The closest tallest building would be in Indianapolis. Obviously Cleveland would be next as well as Chicago. So I'm quite proud of that! However, if this building was just 40 feet taller she would have made wikipedia's tallest buildings in America list. It seems they start at 700' +! That would have been nice! Anyway, I love Great American Tower. It's beautiful and unique to our area. I love the blue/glass facade. I think once it's built people will warm up to it.

 

p.s. I think the tiara is definately adding the overall feel of a ~700 footer. Without the tiara it looked short, but now it's starting to dawn on me the true might of this beast of a building.

Who knows...within 30 years, downtown might get an 800 footer to overlook the entire region;) Hmm how cool.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143078&page=10

Check out the pics added toward the bottom of page 10. Tiara is going up quick.