It just ocurred to me that Fifth Street is about 30 feet higher than 3rd street.

 

  Anyone know the elevation of the top of the Carew Tower, and the proposed elevation of the top of QCS?

 

    According to Skyscraperpage.com, the roof of the Carew Tower is 175 m high, while the "spire," which I assume is the flagpole, is 201 m. The roof of QCS is 201.2 m. Thus, QCS will be taller, whether measured from the roof or spire, than Carew.

 

  But assuming these measurements are taken from the curb, the top of the flagpole of Carew will still be higher in elevation.

 

    Am I missing something?  :?

i would love for this to be discussed more thoroughly

^ If that was the case wouldn't one of the hi-rises on a hills be higher? lol

 

  It just ocurred to me that Fifth Street is about 30 feet higher than 3rd street.

 

  Anyone know the elevation of the top of the Carew Tower, and the proposed elevation of the top of QCS?

 

    According to Skyscraperpage.com, the roof of the Carew Tower is 175 m high, while the "spire," which I assume is the flagpole, is 201 m. The roof of QCS is 201.2 m. Thus, QCS will be taller, whether measured from the roof or spire, than Carew.

 

  But assuming these measurements are taken from the curb, the top of the flagpole of Carew will still be higher in elevation.

 

    Am I missing something?  :?

 

I do not know the official height of Carew's flag pole, but I do not believe it's quite 50 feet, which is the difference in height after elevation is taken into account, which it absolutely shouldn't be anyways because if that were the case Christ Hospital or Crosley Tower at UC would be our tallest building... Here's what we've concluded a few times already:

 

That is a good point.  You're right there is a big hill maybe 50-100ft lower.

 

We've covered this a few times already:

 

What will be the total height of QCSII with elevation?  Will it really be taller than Carew Tower if you take elevation above sea level into account?  For some odd reason this building is actually shorter than Carew tower because Carew tower has 49 floors, this building will have 8 fewer floors; but it's listed at 660ft?  That tiara isn't that tall is it?  I think this building is an illusion and Carew Tower will still be Cincinnati's true tallest building.

 

Carew sits at 550 feet above sea level, while QCSII is at 514 feet above sea level.  That's only 36 feet higher, elevation wise. (Got these numbers from CAGIS)

 

QCSII is supposed to be 660 feet to the top of the tiara, while Carew is 574 to the top of the roof.  QCSII is about 86 feet taller.

 

Accounting for the change in elevation, QCSII will still appear to be 50 feet taller than Carew.

 

The spire is supposed to be 160 feet, and that's pretty much what it looks like in the renderings.

i would love for this to be discussed more thoroughly

 

Now that was funny.

A pic from today.....

 

Any chance you got any more pics of different angles?

There needs to be a new thread for actual news regarding this project. 

There needs to be a new thread for actual news regarding this project.

 

I think there also needs to be a "Cincinnati: Wiremobile News and Developments" thread

 

    Carew

    Ground 550' M.S.L.

    574 ' building, to roof 1124' M.S.L

    Flagpole 50' +/-, 1174 M.S.L.

 

    QCS

    Ground 514' M.S.L

    660' building to top of tiara, 1174 M.S.L

 

    I don't know exactly how tall the flagpole is, but is appears that the top of the flagpole and the top of the proposed tiara are pretty close in elevation - a lot closer than I imagined it.

 

    This is NOT to say that QCS will not be the taller building. Of course it's taller. But from the perspective of say, Devou Park, from where the base of the Carew Tower will not be seen, it will appear that the top of the flagpole will be about the same elevation as the top of the tiara. The ground elevation makes a difference in the skyline view, but not in building height bragging rights.

 

    Am I missing something? Just asking.

 

   

^ More of a reason to get an 800 footer in here.

Quote from: The_Cincinnati_Kid on Yesterday at 09:05:37 PM

 

    A pic from today.....

 

 

Any chance you got any more pics of different angles?

 

Sadly no, I got a rock star street spot right on Main while taking the kids downtown to see the trains, Santa, and the Square, not time for more pics.  This one just happened to be right where we parked.

That pic is sweet!

I believe they are topping off the core now.  It should be complete! WOOT! :clap:

I believe they are topping off the core now. It should be complete! WOOT! :clap:

 

Does that mean it's now taller than the webcam? Or does the flagpole not count?

I believe they are topping off the core now. It should be complete! WOOT! :clap:

 

Yes! No more nagging questions! :D

Well we still have to wait for the tiara so we can decide if it *actually* looks taller than Carew's flag pole from every possible vantage point.  Then it should be settled.

I believe they are topping off the core now.  It should be complete! WOOT! :clap:

 

Does that mean it's now taller than the webcam? Or does the flagpole not count?

 

It is almost taller than the sitesight cam, you can't really see the crane in the pic.  The curtainwall has got a long way to go, and so does the steel.  I'd say they got another month or so before the steel reaches the core's height.  That building is no where near Carew Tower's height right now.  The Tiara is what will make it "tall".

They are finally putting on the facade at the bottom of QCS! :lol: So now she won't look like a "fat beauty queen with no socks." LOL

Quick, shield your eyes.  I'm about to issue a quick rant to get this out of my system:

 

I don't understand why people get so hung up on whether the flag pole makes Carew Tower "higher", "almost as high", "looks as high as QCS", etc.  Can't we just drop it and accept the fact that Cincinnat's tallest building will no longer be Carew Tower?  Isn't that the underlying issue here....people are hoping that it somehow remains the city's tallest building...or at least "tallest looking"?  I don't see why people even consider including the flag pole in the height anyway, because historically it never was.  The building, since the time it was built in the 30s, was never said to be higher than 574'....or can someone show me in record books and other new stories or documentation where, at any point in the city's past, CT was referred to as a building over 600' high?  I don't think the flag pole adds enough "visual bulk" to Carew Tower to warrant any special reference to it as a "spire".  So this whole subject is nonsense.  Just drop it.  Carew Tower, while a nice building, has seen it's run come to an end as the city's tallest building.  Period.

 

Rant over.  I'll take a deep breath now.  Sorry, but the whole issue grates on my nerves.  I'm sure if and when the city were to ever construct a tower taller than 750-800', people will still be concocting ideas about how they can make sure Carew Tower remains, or LOOKS like, the city's tallest.

I think it was sarcasm on Ram23's part, in reply to the neverending comments on its status, height, etc.

Yeah, and aside from the neverending debate, I think there's a rant like 1012's on every page for the last 30 pages too.

Trying to hang on to Carew being the tallest is very emblamatic of the "resistance to change" mentality that is so pervasive in Cincinnati.  Despite the many asstes that exist here and the many great young and talented people exist, this city is screwed as long as the old Cincinnati mentality exists. 

Trying to hang on to Carew being the tallest is very emblamatic of the "resistance to change" mentality that is so pervasive in Cincinnati. Despite the many asstes that exist here and the many great young and talented people exist, this city is screwed as long as the old Cincinnati mentality exists.

 

Yeah, isn't it a good thing to have a new tallest tower?

I love the fact of a new taller building.  But Lester, you're definitely right.  Old fogies around here absolutely can't stand change.  It freaks them out.  The thought of new skyscrapers and foot traffic causes them to hermit themselves.  But, as we all know, our downtown is changing and QCS will only hold the record as tallest for so long until something else comes along an tops it.  We might not have to wait 60 or so years but hey, progressivness!

hopefully 5th and race.

 

  For many years the Carew Tower held an obscure record: it was the tallest building in the world that was also the tallest building in its city and built before WWII. When the World Trade Center collapsed, Carew lost that title to the Empire State Building. The effect of Carew is striking because it shows that Cincinnati has such depth of architecture. How many cities have skylines full of steel and glass? Carew is a statement that Cincinnati is solid, well-built, and lasting.

 

  Incidently, the Central Trust tower also holds an obscure record: it is the tallest building in the world with a load bearing masonry curtain wall. It was the ninth tallest building in the world at one time, and the tallest outside of New York.

 

  Finally, the Roebling Bridge was a record holder until it was superceded by the Brooklyn Bridge in New York.

 

  Those three structures have been photographed so many times that they have become Cincinnati icons. The fact that the three of them can be photographed in one view makes the effect even greater. These three structures are the baby brothers of the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, and the Brooklyn Bridge, which of course are icons of New York and American in general.

 

    This is the reason why I asked about the elevation difference. I had seen the renderings of QCS, and heard so many times that it would be taller than Carew. I saw the renderings in the Enquirer. I saw the renderings on SkyscraperPage. Then, I realized that the renderings showed the two side by side on level ground, and considering the flagpole, realized that the renderings are NOT meant to represent the skyline view that so many are familiar with. I had a picture in my mind of what the new skyline would look like, and that picture was found to be incorrect.

 

    In my humble opinion, filling up Cincinnati's parking lots with 4 story buildings will be more effective than construction of a single tall skyscraper in bringing more vitality to Cincinnati's streets. So, therefore I am not particularly excited about a new skyscraper. We don't need an icon - we already have three of them.

 

    Nevertheless, business interests have decided to invest in a skyscraper taller than Carew. I wish them well. I hope it doesn't result in more parking lots, and I hope it doesn't make our skyline look awkward. So far, it looks better than expected. It is some distance from Carew, and I think that Carew will still look taller from many angles.

 

    Which brings up another point: monumental structures are used as landmarks for wayfinding. Fountain Square is one of those points. I can ask you to meet at Fountain Square, or 5 blocks north of Fountain Square, and you know exactly what I am talking about. In Cleveland, the primary reference point is Public Square; in Columbus, it's the Statehouse. Many smaller towns have a monument, or courthouse.

 

    In the same way, the tallest building marks the center of downtown from a distance. It helps if the tallest building comes to a point. The Central Trust tower was Cincinnati's old tallest; it was superceded by Carew. The fact that the Carew Tower has a flagpole is significant, because it draws the eye to a single point. This is why we build church steeples and spires. This is why lighthouses have points on the top.

 

    In Cincinnati, the fact that our tallest, Carew, and our old tallest, Central Trust, are right next to fountain square reinforces the fact that fountain square is the center of the city. Did you know that 5th and Walnut was once the 6th busiest traffic intersection in the United States? (Old postcards claimed this.) All of these items leave no question where the center is. No building has ever superceded Carew, until now. None have even come close.

 

    With a rounded top, it does NOT mark the high point as distinctly as a flagpole. Plus, the top of QCS is going to be really close to the top of the Carew flagpole in elevation. I don't know which will actually be higher. My calculations show that it's too close to tell without better measurements. In any case, QCS will NOT be the dominant structure, even if it is taller. It does not come to a point, it is a few blocks from Fountain Square, it will not fit into the frame with the Roebling Bridge in the same way that Carew and Central Trust do, and it will be only slightly higher than Carew. It will pull the center of mass eastward, away from Fountain Square.

 

    Cleveland used to have a single point, Terminal Tower, that marked the center and was the city icon. However, it was superceded. At least Key has a pointed top, but how many discussions have you seen that the Cleveland skyline looks fragmented?

 

    Cincinnati is going to lose a little bit of something special.

 

    That said, if you are a skyscraper fan, I am happy for you, and I wish for the best. Thanks for reading, and sorry about the rant.  Maybe next time I'll post some photos.

 

    :-)

 

   

 

For many years the Carew Tower held an obscure record: it was the tallest building in the world that was also the tallest building in its city and built before WWII. When the World Trade Center collapsed, Carew lost that title to the Empire State Building. The effect of Carew is striking because it shows that Cincinnati has such depth of architecture. How many cities have skylines full of steel and glass? Carew is a statement that Cincinnati is solid, well-built, and lasting.

.....

 

 

OMG!!!! :-o Did you really write an 850 word esssay about this? LOL!

 

Seriously though, I liked the novel.  It was very good.

 

 

  Wrote it myself just now. Hope you enjoyed.

  Those three structures have been photographed so many times that they have become Cincinnati icons. The fact that the three of them can be photographed in one view makes the effect even greater. These three structures are the baby brothers of the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, and the Brooklyn Bridge, which of course are icons of New York and American in general.

 

Really?  There's a connection between the Central Trust Tower (the Union Central Life building for old farts) and The Chrysler building? I've never heard that one, and have a hard time seeing it architecturally.  Is that something I've missed?

 

    The Central Trust Tower and Chrysler Building are connected only in that they are of the same era, approximately the same shape, and were both the tallest in their cities at one time. Also, they are both remarkable structures, and have extensive detailing even at the top. The connection doesn't go any deeper that I know of.

 

    But enough of that. Back to QCS.

 

 

Lesterlyles, 1012;

 

I could be wrong, but I think 99% of the folks commenting on keeping the Carew the tallest are being sarcastic.

I hope so Cincinnatus but nothing would surprise me. In July 2008, the evening news ran a story of how that the new buildibng is coming at a cost becasue the partially destroyed parking garage was such an eyesore. They interviewed 2 or 3 peeple that questioned the new tower.  I couldn't believe it. 

Incidently, the Central Trust tower also holds an obscure record: it is the tallest building in the world with a load bearing masonry curtain wall.

 

I don't think that's accurate. The tallest load-bearing masonry office building is Chicago's 16-story Monadnock Building, whose walls are over six feet thick at the ground floor. A curtain wall, by definition, carries no structural load but hangs off the frame like a curtain (hence the name). Central Trust is entirely supported by a steel frame, despite the appearance of heavy masonry at the ground floor.

 

These three structures are the baby brothers of the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, and the Brooklyn Bridge, which of course are icons of New York and American in general.

 

As Johio points out, Central Trust's NYC connection is to the Woolworth Building, as both were designed by Cass Gilbert.

 

To my knowledge, the Carew Tower has no such formal connection to any New York skyscrapers. The closest comparison would be the Rockefeller Center, as both projects are early examples of urban mixed-use developments. Chicago's Hotel Intercontinental, though, was designed by the same architect as the Carew, albeit in a somewhat different style.

 

I agree with your point about the three landmarks, though. Seen together, they form a distinctive composition that is very uniquely Cincinnati.

 

I don't mind seeing the Carew being surpassed as Cincinnati's tallest building, as it was bound to happen sooner or later. I was just hoping that when it finally did happen, the building to surpass it would be of better design quality than QCSII.

^wasn't there also some never built "Big Brother" of the Carew Tower slated for Chicago?

I hope so Cincinnatus but nothing would surprise me. In July 2008, the evening news ran a story of how that the new buildibng is coming at a cost becasue the partially destroyed parking garage was such an eyesore. They interviewed 2 or 3 peeple that questioned the new tower. I couldn't believe it.

 

I think people commenting on this board are mostly being sarcastic, but it doesn't surprise me if people outside of UO are being serious.  It seems to me that Cincinnatians love to complain about lack of progress and about the city in general, but they also complain about change and many proposed projects that are good for the city.  I don't think it's just the old fogies, either.

 

 

In my humble opinion, filling up Cincinnati's parking lots with 4 story buildings will be more effective than construction of a single tall skyscraper in bringing more vitality to Cincinnati's streets. So, therefore I am not particularly excited about a new skyscraper. We don't need an icon - we already have three of them.

 

Four story buildings may sound fine, but I doubt that is enough room for a major corporation to locate their headquarters.  It is inefficient for a company to be spread among many, many buildings. 

^That is true to an extent, but really it's more a function of land costs and corporate ego. Bank of America is no exception (they have their Cesar Pelli e-peen), BUT their back offices in Charlotte are in an enormous mixed use development on the west side of downtown that is only 7 stories. It's pretty cool, feels kind of European.

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=35.233553,-80.849515&spn=0,359.993032&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.232966,-80.849825&panoid=QHRDVlos-rJsWIeQUzlD3g&cbp=12,335.74,,0,-12.04

 

This is exactly the kind of thing that would look nice in those Broadway parking lots.

^wasn't there also some never built "Big Brother" of the Carew Tower slated for Chicago?

 

Yes there was, it was about 75 stories I think, there used to be a kiosk in the Carew Tower lobby with info on it.

 

Here is a link to a photo and info on ssp.com:  http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=151366

There were all sorts of grandiose plans that got killed by the Great Depression. I have a book at home about Chicago skyscrapers, and it has a section about unbuilt projects. I'll have to look that one up this evening and see if it's mentioned.

I've always viewed Carew to Rockefeller as well.  I could care less who has the title of the tallest, I just want to see some sneaky sh!t like we saw with Empire/Chrysler.  Secretly raising moorings/masts/antennas at night.  It would make it more fun from a spectater POV and invite media to report on something that today's media has a hard time reporting on.....something positive!

 

I don't find anything wrong with an ever changing skyline.  Even Cincy's has evolved over the decades albeit slower than I would've like to seen. 

I don't think they were going to be taller, they were going to be right about the same height.  The drawings I saw at the "Unbuilt Cincinnati" exhibit at the CAC in 1998 were in the style of Terminal Tower or LeVique(sp?) in Columbus. 

From today:

 

 

 

See larger versions & more angles

If people have been sarcastic, then I offer my apology.  I'm just a little sensitive to this whole debate about the tower's height.  I DO agree with LesterLyles, though.  By and large, there is a pervasive mentality in Cincinnati which is very resistant to change.  (At least there used to be.)  I don't know if it exists in other cities, but during the 80s when there was first talk about building a tower taller than Carew Tower at Fountain Square West, you would always hear people complaining about how much CT should remain the tallest in the city.  It really grated on my nerves.  (I must like that phrase lately...been saying it a lot.)  It has been my dream since the 70s to see a tower go up which would surpass Carew Tower in height.  When plans for FSW fell through, it was disheartening for me.  Perhaps that sounds strange or petty, I don't know.  But it is how it is.  So when I read these kinds of debates, it feels like someone trying to rain on my parade.

 

Anyway, moving on....

 

P.S.  I like the photos.

I don't think they were going to be taller, they were going to be right about the same height.  The drawings I saw at the "Unbuilt Cincinnati" exhibit at the CAC in 1998 were in the style of Terminal Tower or LeVique(sp?) in Columbus.

 

I remember that one too, it was similar to Leveque, but stockier.  I believe it had some sort of religious owner or main tenant, like an archdiocese or something.

 

  For the record I talked to the project manager who did some restoration work on the Central Trust and he told me that the exterior masonry was load bearing.

 

  The tower of course has a steel skeleton but the exterior masonry is load bearing for the entire height. This is not typical; hence the obscure record. The Monadnock Building is 100% load bearing masonry, with no steel. The tallest 100% masonry load bearing structure anywhere is the Washington Monument. 

 

    For a long time there was actually a city ordinance that said that no building could be taller than Carew. That ordinance had an expiration date, which has finally come. Come to think of it, AT&T used to have a microwave antenea on top of Carew that depended on line-of-sight communication with other towers. Maybe that was the reason for the ordinance. That technology is no longer used. The little discussed tower in White Oak was part of that system.

 

 

 

 

The project manager is incorrect, since load-bearing masonry walls for a 30+story tower would need be dozens of feet thick at the ground floor, and almost completely devoid of windows or openings. It's simply not physically possible for Central Trust's masonry to be load-bearing. I have several books about Cincinnati architecture, and none of them mention anything about Central Trust having load-bearing masonry. Perhaps only the first couple floors of the building have load-bearing masonry, but certainly not the entire facade.

 

The Monadnock Building actually does have some steel (or cast iron) components, especially in the newer south half of the building. However, the majority of the building's weight is supported by masonry. Completed in 1891, it is widely considered to be the last high-rise building to use masonry as a major structural component. Central Trust wasn't built until over 20 years later, by which time structural steel frames were in widespread use throughout the country.

 

For a Cincinnati high-rise that actually does hold an important structural engineering record, the Ingalls Building (diagonally across 4th Street from Central Trust) was the world's first skyscraper to use a reinforced concrete frame instead of steel. When it was completed, one local newspaper reporter was convinced it would collapse, and camped out all night on Fourth Street waiting for it to happen. The building still stands today.

 

As for the Carew's never-built big brother in Chicago, I can't find anything about it in my library, but that doesn't necessarily mean nothing was proposed, as there were tons of projects on the boards before the stock market crashed in 1929.

 

However, I did find out that the Carew has a half-brother on Wall Street in addition to its sibling on Michigan Avenue. Carew was designed by Walter W. Ahlschlager, who designed the Medina Athletic Club (now Hotel Inter-Continental) on Chicago's Michigan Avenue and a number of movie palaces in New York and Chicago. Assisting Ahlschlager on the Carew Tower project was the New York firm Delano & Aldrich, who had recently completed the Brown Brothers Building on Wall Street, now known as the Wall and Hanover Building, which has a number of similarities to the Carew Tower. John J. Emery Jr., who developed the Carew Tower complex, was a friend of Delano's and was likely familiar with the Brown Brothers building and thought of it as a prototype for Carew Tower. Carew was originally to be clad in limestone, but given the bad economy, yellow brick was chosen as a cost-saving measure. The Emery Family also developed the Cincinnatian Hotel, the Terrace Plaza, and the Village of Mariemont.

^Wow that is like a cousin of Carew! Funny stuff!

As for the Carew's never-built big brother in Chicago, I can't find anything about it in my library, but that doesn't necessarily mean nothing was proposed, as there were tons of projects on the boards before the stock market crashed in 1929.]As for the Carew's never-built big brother in Chicago, I can't find anything about it in my library, but that doesn't necessarily mean nothing was proposed, as there were tons of projects on the boards before the stock market crashed in 1929.

 

See my post above, I added a link to the project on SSP.

What's that building's formal connection to Carew, aside from being of a similar architectural style? It certainly would have been impressive if built.

Just the architect I believe, an addition to some design elements probably.

The Apparel Mart project was designed by the Chicago firm Holabird and Roche, who did a number of other notable buildings in Chicago. Carew was designed by William Ahlschlager, with Delano & Aldrich.