Info about The Banks and surrounding area, please (Cincinnati: houses, tenant)

[Sarah Perry]

Originally Posted by abr7rmj

It doesn't stand out for anything other than its height, and isn't particularly stunning at night, as promised. With such a bold signature atop that building, it could at least be interesting to look at. It's not.

Give it some cool lights or something.

Huh. Why the hating? I think it's beautiful, and especially at night. Whaddya want, maybe some orange and black striping? How about a big, dangly tail?

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by Sarah Perry

Huh. Why the hating? I think it's beautiful, and especially at night. Whaddya want, maybe some orange and black striping? How about a big, dangly tail?

It just seems that the tiara should be more striking at night. If you're gonna do a tiara (bold as it is), you might as well go all out.

My favorite downtown skyscraper is still the PNC tower. Probably my second favorite building anywhere other than the Flatiron Building in Manhattan.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by Sarah Perry

Huh. Why the hating? I think it's beautiful, and especially at night. Whaddya want, maybe some orange and black striping? How about a big, dangly tail?

You could have the MGM lion on top in full physical animation and some people would still complain.

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

You could have the MGM lion on top in full physical animation and some people would still complain.

If we're going Vegas, I'd go for the light beam at the top of the Luxor. That would be cool.

In a perfect world, the tower would be about 6-7 floors taller too. But I do love its presence on Third Street and its presence in the skyline. The view from Mount Adams is even more spectacular now.

[motorman]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

You could have the MGM lion on top in full physical animation and some people would still complain.

Hilarious, kjbrill! () But some of us prefer Fay Wray trapped up there inside the tiara, screaming her head off while the almighty Kong scales the building in hot () pursuit.

[buckeyenative01]

Aesthetically, I'm with abr7rmj: If the building had a few more floors and the tiara was shrunk, it wouldn't be as obnoxious. It also wouldn't, in my opinion, have cheated its way to "city's tallest building" if it at least matched the Carew in the number of floors (48 or 49), rather than relying on the asinine girth of the crown to strip the "city's tallest" distinction from the Carew.

As much as I hate to say this given the rivalry that appears to have developed between Charlotte and Cincinnati, but if you want a crown representing your town's motto as "the Queen City" done right, just look at what Pelli did with the crown on top of the BofA Building.

/skyscraper geek

Otherwise, its sort of a modern throwback to art deco, which I like. Its not as much an homage to deco as the Wells Fargo Building in Minneapolis, but its also not something as stupid as like that Nike swoosh condo ("The Ascent"?) in Covington designed by Liebeskind.

[rrtechno]

I guess I have too much utilitarian thinking in me to get upset here. What was the cost of that building, per floor? So how much would a "few more floors" have cost, keeping in mind that a few more floors at the top very likely would have required some redesign in the construction of the foundation which would have cost more. If there was no need for additional space in the building, why spend that money to build it and have it sit empty, just to be able to claim the tallest title.

While I respect everyone's opinions on this, I also know that for everyone bemoaning the fact that there needs to be more towers in downtown, there is someone who would be upset with the "waste" of building those towers just for bragging rights (even if it is with "private" money).

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

I guess I have too much utilitarian thinking in me to get upset here. What was the cost of that building, per floor? So how much would a "few more floors" have cost, keeping in mind that a few more floors at the top very likely would have required some redesign in the construction of the foundation which would have cost more. If there was no need for additional space in the building, why spend that money to build it and have it sit empty, just to be able to claim the tallest title.

While I respect everyone's opinions on this, I also know that for everyone bemoaning the fact that there needs to be more towers in downtown, there is someone who would be upset with the "waste" of building those towers just for bragging rights (even if it is with "private" money).

It's hardly for bragging rights. Building vertical, be it in downtown environments or elsewhere, is far more environmentally friendly and sustainable than rampant, unckecked sprawl which rips up virgin land for ever more tract housing, squat suburban office parks and big box retail that is usually vacated and left for empty when the next, latest development opens a few miles away. You don't have to look hard in Cincinnati or Dayton to find examples of that reckless, irresponsible, community-killing development.

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by abr7rmj

It's hardly for bragging rights. Building vertical, be it in downtown environments or elsewhere, is far more environmentally friendly and sustainable than rampant, unckecked sprawl which rips up virgin land for ever more tract housing, squat suburban office parks and big box retail that is usually vacated and left for empty when the next, latest development opens a few miles away. You don't have to look hard in Cincinnati or Dayton to find examples of that reckless, irresponsible, community-killing development.

I never said it wasn't. Just made the statement that if that was all the floors that were needed, why build more?

[motorman]

Even if not a record-breaker, the Great American Tower (as others have already suggested) should have topped out at least at 700-725 ft. instead of 665 ft. Slimmer, not squat like now. Why the architects didn't foresee this I don't know.