POLL: Best skyline in Ohio? (Cincinnati: floor, designs, architects)

[1watertiger]

[ScranBarre]

Well I can honestly say that immaturity must run amok here on the Ohio forum. I've never seen so much fighting in an innocuous SKYLINE thread in my life! Was there really such a need to flat-out insult and attack Cincy-Rise?

Judging from all of the images I've seen and with how familiar I am with both cities I'm awarding the slight edge here to Cincinnati. Cleveland has a couple of very tall buildings, but it takes more than just height to impress me (size doesn't matter to everyone). It takes density and cohesion to awe me. Pittsburgh is a great example of a very small city (only our nation's 51st-largest I think) that has a wickedly impressive skyline. Cincinnati might not have many very tall buildings, but they're all very tightly concentrated, similar to Pittsburgh, which gives the city the aura of being larger than it really is.

Believe it or not there are some of us who judge skylines moreso than just which one has the taller buildings or which one has the most "stuff." I like to see how natural surroundings complement the skylines, a variety of heights, and close density between buildings. Cincinnati pulls that off the best. Cleveland is just too spread out for my tastes.

[Cincy-Rise]

Originally Posted by hillside

it's as much a part of the structure as the top of terminal tower.

Diagrams - SkyscraperPage.com

Perfect rebuttal.

Cle440, I think what he's trying to show is that flag poles are used on a buildings total height, but not with the Carew's. Is this because it's so old? I don't know ... but if you go to emporis.com, you'll see where they have 3 numbers: 1) a buildings height 2) structural height 3) height with flagpole.


The height with the flagpole is usually always noted, because that's what we know, but we also "know" that the Carew's flagpole is not counted. It's there, but it's not counted. With Key, it is counted.

[Cincy-Rise]

Originally Posted by hillside

cincy-rise, i've always been confused by the rendering vs. the height. they say 660, but if you judge various renderings, it looks like 3.5 303 broadways, which would be 700 feet. that rendering you showed made me go hmmm...

Well, to scale it's obviously going to be 700'. I know that the articles read 660' ... I'm not sure if they're talking total office space, with the tiara, or what?

Someone on SSC & SSP has recently uncovered an error in one of KC's actual heights and they did it with architectural blueprints. Everyone was wrong, wikipedia, emporis, the SSP diagram, everyone ... but it's actually off significantly.

I think we may have to try to obtain blueprints or wait for the damn thing to be finished.

With a tower 660' or 700' tall, 40' feet isn't going to make that much of a difference, especially at street level. The damn thing is almost a million sq. ft. The kicker will be with the tiara, meaning 40' won't be anything with something this large ... we're not talking about a flagpole here.

[1watertiger]

my 2 favorite buildings in cleveland, they are also our great states 2 tallest. i think they represent the old and new of our city well.

[hillside]

1watertiger, you always have the best pictures.

[jjbradleynyc]

I voted for Columbus initially--thinking they had a ton of great skyscrapers. This was based just what I've read on various sites, like "emporis.com" and "skyscrapercity". Anyway, after viewing the pictures and thinking more about it, I would vote Cincinnati. I've been to Cincinnati twice, and always thought their downtown was amazing for a city its size.
Cleveland's skyline is too spread out, and lacks true density. Although I do love their tallest building's design.

[Cincy-Rise]

I do love Key Bank's design too. It's fortunate that their tallest looks as classy as it does. It's twin resides in Charlotte.

[aquila]

Originally Posted by hillside

it's as much a part of the structure as the top of terminal tower.

Diagrams - SkyscraperPage.com

That stuff is highly subjective. You're talking about a bunch of skyscraper enthusiasts who are always fighting to find some way of making a building taller. So if they think they can do that by including a flagpole (which is STUPID), they'll do it. Hell, if that's the case, a rollercoaster's true height could be measured to the top of the sign which reads "Remain seated at all times" at the end of the lifthill. That could add a whole additional 10' to the height of the rollercoaster. Stupid to do that, though, because it's not actually what the designer had in mind as part of the ride's height. Same thing with a flagpole at the top of a skyscraper. I highly doubt the designer's official height includes such spurious things.

Originally Posted by hillside

cincy-rise, i've always been confused by the rendering vs. the height. they say 660, but if you judge various renderings, it looks like 3.5 303 broadways, which would be 700 feet. that rendering you showed made me go hmmm...

Nevermind that the official press release stated it would be 660'. Why are you guys fighting this so much, when the info is clearly out there.

EDIT: Something you might want to consider....why did Ronnie draw the diagram of GAI showing it at 660'? Where did he get the information that would lead him to conclude that was the height of the building? From press releases, right? Or else he contacted Western Southern....something you guys might want to consider doing if you want to learn the official height.

[aquila]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Well I can honestly say that immaturity must run amok here on the Ohio forum. I've never seen so much fighting in an innocuous SKYLINE thread in my life! Was there really such a need to flat-out insult and attack Cincy-Rise?

DM sent.