Yeah big companies are all about saving money right now, and I doubt they would want invest millions to improve an image locally.  Though maybe in the future it won't be a bad idea.  Working from home, wow how are they ever gonna get anything done! LOL  :-P

I do think that this building could motivate P&G to step it up with their own tower at some point. As an executive for one of the world's largest companies, it will be difficult to drive to work every day with this monster looming over your previously high profile buildings.

 

Didn't P&G originally reject the idea of building a single tower when the twin towers were first proposed?  What was the reason for that...and would that reason still hold true for them today?

I'm not that informed on P&G's needs but I think someone mentioned in another thread that they are allowing a portion of their workforce to work from home now. This, to me, would not bode well for requirements of +500,000 sq ft of space that would be generated from a signature tower. Thoughts?

 

From a friend who knows:

 

P&G did a huge study of its downtown facilities and realized they are only at about 60% of possible occupancy on most days.  That led to the decision of closing the Governor's Hill operations center and moving those employees downtown.

 

Long story short, they won't be building anything anytime soon.  Which is fine with me since I think they do more for Cincy than any other company (except build a giant skyscraper).

^Agree.  For as short as the twin towers are, they are still very recognizable and well known around the world. 

I'd rather have two medium-sized towers than one big tower.  Outside of ego, there is really no need to build mega tall high rises in most cities.

The Enquirer has twice reported in recent days that the height of the tower will be 665 ft. instead of 660 ft. I wonder if this is true, although 5 additional feet is nothing to write home about.

I don't know, 665 makes QCSII officially taller than the Trump Tower in New York and the Penobscot Building in Detroit, but who's keeping track.  :-D

There is an interesting twin skylines effect from Dead Mans Hill now QCS is topping off.  There is the old "Edge of Night" skyline peaked by Carew & Central Trust, and then the "new skyline" to the right (east) peaked by QCS.  Sort of a twin peaks effect.

can we get a webcam picture of the flagpole?

There is an interesting twin skylines effect from Dead Mans Hill now QCS is topping off. There is the old "Edge of Night" skyline peaked by Carew & Central Trust, and then the "new skyline" to the right (east) peaked by QCS. Sort of a twin peaks effect.

 

Not sure where Deadmans' Hill is but WLWT's Citicam gives a good image of this twin skyline.  It is clear that one end is old and the other is new.

Not to bring up an inane topic, but does anyone else find it odd that the curtainwall divisions on QCS I and QCS II do not match up?  I work in Atrium II, and the fact that the curtainwall on one building is just a little off from the other is really noticeable. 

 

I assume this is because the floors on each building simply don't match up?

Not to bring up an inane topic, but does anyone else find it odd that the curtainwall divisions on QCS I and QCS II do not match up? I work in Atrium II, and the fact that the curtainwall on one building is just a little off from the other is really noticeable.

 

The materials are the same, but there may be a slight difference to account for the variations in floor design.

We cannot neglect the Wiremobile!

Not to bring up an inane topic, but does anyone else find it odd that the curtainwall divisions on QCS I and QCS II do not match up? I work in Atrium II, and the fact that the curtainwall on one building is just a little off from the other is really noticeable.

 

The materials are the same, but there may be a slight difference to account for the variations in floor design.

 

Ah.  That makes sense.  I guess I just thought they would make sure that the floors matched up, so it looked integrated from one building to the other.  As it is, it looks like the floors (based on the curtainwall/windows) on the new section are about a foot or two higher than their counterparts on the original.  Not that big a deal, obviously.

We cannot neglect the Wiremobile!

 

I hear they are considering building a Wiremobile from the QCS tiara to the Carew flagpole.

Lets please keep the conversation respectful.  Everyone has the right to engage in discussion on this topic regardless of their knowledge level surrounding the project.  Previous posts have been deleted that were unnecessary and/or rude.

 

After coming back through Cincinnati via northbound I-75 yesterday evening from Atlanta, I have the following pronouncement:

 

By the powers granted to me by the American Planning Association, I declare entirely arbitrarily and through no scientific or verifiable method, that the Urban Core of Cincinnati, Ohio be moved from "Class 3: Medium" to "Class 2: Large" on the Civvikian Urban Core Impression Index.

 

The Index is summarized as follows:

 

Class 1: Exceptional

http://theorniphile.info/chicago_skyline_wallpaper/chicago_skyline.jpg

 

Class 2: Large

http://gettingbacktothepoint.com/graphics/photos/relocation_1.jpg

 

Class 3: Medium

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/395997389_3d9f929134.jpg

 

Class 4: Small

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DowntownMaconGa.jpg

^Haha, Nice!  ..............I concur!

Really? Do You really think this city has progress that much? I'd say when the city has the banks built, the casino, and a few other mid-tall buildings built (2-3) then they will classify as a large. But then again this classification was based on your arbitary scale. The city has a few gaps to fill. Namely between the whole of downtown and the Kroger Building. Why is that thing all the way out by it's lonesome? LOL

 

  Alternatively, removung the Kroger building would eliminate that gap.

 

  Just kidding.  :-D

Really? Do You really think this city has progress that much?

 

Define progress. Cincinnati has a much more vibrant core and a progressing movement than most give credit. A skyscraper is nice eye candy, but it does little to enhance the streetscape and add viability, especially if it is just an office tower. 8-5 jobs, does nothing to give downtown the boost it really needs. I'd rather see many smaller apartment/condominium buildings than more offices that aren't needed.

Namely between the whole of downtown and the Kroger Building.  Why is that thing all the way out by it's lonesome? LOL

 

My understand is the Kroger Building was built out along Central Parkway as part of a vision of high rises along the parkway in a very grand scale.  Things never really panned out that way, so the Kroger Building stands out there on its lonesome.

^ I wouldn't mind saying that grand scale canal. lol Maybe QCSIII could get Krogers into it.

Or another strong business district could really develop around the Gateway Quarter and Central Parkway area.

How about Kroger builds that new 800 ft tower everyone is hoping for and their building becomes apartments, adding a few thousand residents to the Gateway?

Wouldn't it be feasable for one of these F500 companies to build a 800-900 footer and lease out the portions they do not take up?

It was anticipated in the 1920's that Central Parkway would become the eventual center of downtown due to the subway and a convergence of other new roads at either end.  There was some effort to stop the subway from being extended into downtown in order to speed along this process. 

 

The Kroger tower is located, I believe, exactly where the first Kroger grocery store was back in the late 1800's.  So Kroger had the land and that's why the tower was built there.

 

Columbus's downtown is a downtown of Kroger buildings. 

Really? Do You really think this city has progress that much? I'd say when the city has the banks built, the casino, and a few other mid-tall buildings built (2-3) then they will classify as a large. But then again this classification was based on your arbitary scale. The city has a few gaps to fill. Namely between the whole of downtown and the Kroger Building. Why is that thing all the way out by it's lonesome? LOL

 

As an outsider, I agree with civvik. 

 

This is how I see Ohio city's on his scale

 

Exceptional: None

Large: Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinatti

Medium: Akron, Youngstown, Toledo

Small: Canton (my home town)

Columbus' downtown is a downtown of Kroger buildings.

 

Mwwaahahahaha!

Really? Do You really think this city has progress that much? I'd say when the city has the banks built, the casino, and a few other mid-tall buildings built (2-3) then they will classify as a large. But then again this classification was based on your arbitary scale. The city has a few gaps to fill. Namely between the whole of downtown and the Kroger Building. Why is that thing all the way out by it's lonesome? LOL

 

As an outsider, I agree with civvik.

 

This is how I see Ohio city's on his scale

 

Exceptional: None

Large: Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinatti

Medium: Akron, Youngstown, Toledo

Small: Canton (my home town)

 

So would Dayton lie between Large and Medium on this list?!?!

Oh god he forgot Dayton. Kiss your forum access goodbye motherfucker!

Exceptional: A massive conglomeration of human activity. Buildings break the horizon in all directions and at far distances. Multiple buildings taller than 500 feet. More than one skyline cluster. New York, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto

 

Large: A visually stunning collection of large buildings that is too large to be assessed instantly from one vantage point and appears impenetrable. At least one perspective shows buildings at near and far distances simultaneously. Usually displays tall buildings with a strong low-to-mid-rise fabric. More than one building over 500 feet. Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, Dallas, San Diego, Seattle, Calgary

 

Medium: A collection of buildings with a distinct skyline. At least one vantage point shows an impenetrable core of buildings. At least one building over 300 feet. Can be quickly assessed from one vantage point. Usually has tall buildings or a strong low-to-mid-rise fabric, but not both. Outlier buildings or long views are rare. Indianapolis, Orlando, Charlotte, Columbus, Dayton, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Austin

 

Small: An urban core that is easily identifiable and breaks the natural horizon from some reasonable vantage point. Buildings rarely over 300 feet. Very common and highly variable in size. Canton, West Palm Beach, Madison, Lexington, Worcester, Topeka, Savannah

Oh god he forgot Dayton. Kiss your forum access goodbye motherfucker!

 

DEATH TO HIM!!!

Exceptional: A massive conglomeration of human activity. Buildings break the horizon in all directions and at far distances. Multiple buildings taller than 500 feet. More than one skyline cluster. New York, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto

 

Large: A visually stunning collection of large buildings that is too large to be assessed instantly from one vantage point and appears impenetrable. At least one perspective shows buildings at near and far distances simultaneously. Usually displays tall buildings with a strong low-to-mid-rise fabric. More than one building over 500 feet. Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, Dallas, San Diego, Seattle, Calgary

 

Medium: A collection of buildings with a distinct skyline. At least one vantage point shows an impenetrable core of buildings. At least one building over 300 feet. Can be quickly assessed from one vantage point. Usually has tall buildings or a strong low-to-mid-rise fabric, but not both. Outlier buildings or long views are rare. Indianapolis, Orlando, Charlotte, Columbus, Dayton, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Austin

 

Small: An urban core that is easily identifiable and breaks the natural horizon from some reasonable vantage point. Buildings rarely over 300 feet. Very common and highly variable in size. Canton, West Palm Beach, Madison, Lexington, Worcester, Topeka, Savannah

 

Love it.

Exceptional: A massive conglomeration of human activity. Buildings break the horizon in all directions and at far distances. Multiple buildings taller than 500 feet. More than one skyline cluster. New York, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto

 

Large: A visually stunning collection of large buildings that is too large to be assessed instantly from one vantage point and appears impenetrable. At least one perspective shows buildings at near and far distances simultaneously. Usually displays tall buildings with a strong low-to-mid-rise fabric. More than one building over 500 feet. Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, Dallas, San Diego, Seattle, Calgary

 

Medium: A collection of buildings with a distinct skyline. At least one vantage point shows an impenetrable core of buildings. At least one building over 300 feet. Can be quickly assessed from one vantage point. Usually has tall buildings or a strong low-to-mid-rise fabric, but not both. Outlier buildings or long views are rare. Indianapolis, Orlando, Charlotte, Columbus, Dayton, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Austin

 

Small: An urban core that is easily identifiable and breaks the natural horizon from some reasonable vantage point. Buildings rarely over 300 feet. Very common and highly variable in size. Canton, West Palm Beach, Madison, Lexington, Worcester, Topeka, Savannah

 

Love it.

 

Oh I get it now because Cincinnati had previously only had "one" building over 500ft (Carew Tower), it didn't quite satisfy your requirements. But now that it has "more than one" (QCSII + Carew Tower) buildings over 500 ft. It can thus be classified as a Large City. Now I understand what you meant. Great description BTW.

Two other buildings in Cincinnati are almost as high as 500 ft.

And FYI, Columbus would still be the "taller" skyline (as would Indianapolis) in regards to Cincinnati.  I would bump those (and Charlotte and a future Austin) into the "Large" Category if San Diego (which rival's Phoenix, in all honesty, with more mid-rises of course) is in there.

 

Also, I would definately break up the Large and Exception into two more different tiers.  Putting Atlanta and Chicago in the same category is...well...a bitchslap to Chicago (though Atlanta has multiple skylines and if squished together, might make Houston or Los Angeles).  Also, Philadelphia in the same category as Calgary (an over-inflated Denver) and Pittsburgh (which has an impressive skyline for it's size; but not in the Philadelphia/Dallas league).

 

If I were to do a tier, this would be God's...er...mine of skyline:

 

Alpha: No city can compare on the continent.  The winner is?  New York.

 

Beta: Incomparably, exceptionally large skyline but not quite alpha-status.  And...the answer: Chicago

 

Gamma: Exceptional skylines, may have multiple nodes/clusters, 800-900 footers: Toronto, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, San Francisco, Mexico D.F.

 

Large skylines: A nice focal point with good bulk (600+ footers): Pittsburgh, Denver, Seattle, Montreal, Boston, Calgary, Minneapolis, Detroit, Vancouver

 

Medium-Large skylines: Above-average, large skylines, numerous 500+ footers: Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Charlotte, St. Louis, Kansas City, San Diego, Las Vegas, Baltimore, blah blah

 

Medium skylines: Louisville, Memphis, Orlando, Hartford, Sacramento, and the like

 

Medium-Small skylines: Bulky, but short. Dayton, Norfolk, Toledo, Richmond, etc

 

Small skylines: Your Akron's, your Fort Wayne's, your Knoxville's

And if anything, Queen City Square finally brings Cincinnati to the comparable zone mid-sized cities' skylines (the 600 foot mark).  Now it needs to get about 3ish more 600 footers+ to get to another level (or add endless condo towers in Queensgate to make Vancouver).

It's almost useless to build 500 footers in Cincinnati at this point unless it happens to be west of Vine.  The city needs an 800 footer to shadow Carew and a 700 footer on the western front for balance.  Cincinnati should build tall in order to maximize the visual impact of building a tower.  Too bad they aren't building 700+ footers in mid-markets on the regular.

Well, you'd need demand first.  I like QCS2 a lot, but I'm thinking that this will cover us for office space for at least the next 5-10 years.  That is, unless the newly vacated spots are converted to residential or something besides offices.

^ For sure, but Cincinnati has the goliaths to build a game-changer at any time.  That's how I believe the city will get its next tallest.  One day someone will step up and decide to build one with minimal speculation leading up to it.  We have to remember that the major tenant of our new tallest isn't in the same conversation as 5/3 and some of the others.

None of the "Goliaths" are going to build anything unless there's money to be made doing it, or if they actually need the space. If Procter & Gamble wants to build an 800-foot tower, it will be because they need space for a few thousand new workers, not so they can claim bragging rights for having a tall building. If some developer wants to build a huge tower on spec, it will be because he's confident that he'll be able to lease out the space and made a ton of money, not because the building will have a visual impact on the skyline.

I think you could parse a category list all day long. To me, there is more than one way for a city to reveal itself. I think Atlanta is a good example of that. It is quite striking to approach it from the south and think it is one thing, only to be surprised by wave after wave of skylines poking through the hills. I suppose my categorization is less about metrics and more about impressions.

 

The 5/3rd Tower could use a serious recladding ala Regions Bank Tower in Indianapolis.

 

Which means...a tornado must come...

Oh god he forgot Dayton. Kiss your forum access goodbye motherfucker!

 

lol (I was thinking the same thing). Your ass is grass mu fukka.

From Jackson Hill last week...

 

Here is my contribution:

 

 

 

From Jackson Hill last week...

 

I love shots of Cincy with OTR in the foreground...don't know why.

The 5/3rd Tower could use a serious recladding ala Regions Bank Tower in Indianapolis.

 

Which means...a tornado must come...

 

As an architecture student, I love Fifth/Third.  It's a perfect counter to Carew, and a very, very good example of the vertically oriented glass box style skyscraper.  Hell, I even like the "5/3" logo on the side. 

The 5/3rd Tower could use a serious recladding ala Regions Bank Tower in Indianapolis.

 

Which means...a tornado must come...

 

As an architecture student, I love Fifth/Third. It's a perfect counter to Carew, and a very, very good example of the vertically oriented glass box style skyscraper. Hell, I even like the "5/3" logo on the side.

 

I despise it! I say re-clad it!