POLL: Best skyline in Ohio? (Columbus, Cleveland: crime, unemployed, high school)

[hillside]

Originally Posted by Cle440

Let me just ask you one thing. Are you seriously calling Carew Tower taller than the BP building because the "flagpole" is 1 foot taller? wait, I dont think you heard me right, I said "flag pole" and "1 FOOT aka 12 inches" Not to mention emporis, which is basically the official site, has the carew tower listed at 574 ft, all you could find was a single graph and how am I supposed to even know if thats true?. Ive seen flag poles sticking out of the ground and 30 ft buildings, and the ground doesnt all of a sudden become 40 ft tall, or the building 70, you see what I mean?.

The actual structure of the BP building is 658 ft tall, nearly 90 ft taller than the Carew Tower. This is not one of the instances where the stats dont agree with my point so Im arguing (which 9/10 of the people on here do also), even you cant deny that saying the Carew Tower is taller is flat out ridiculous. If you say its taller, I have nothing further to discuss with you on this topic.

"let me ask you one question..". i asked you a bunch of questions, none of which you answered.

"all you could find was a single graph...emporis is basically the official site...". skyscraperpage is a large archive with more active features than emporis. where in the world of anywhere does emporis lay claim to be, "the official sponsor of skyscrapers"? you're the same guy who couldn't produce not one link to prove lorain's crime rate was any higher than what it truly is, slightly above the national average.

are you listening? the flagpole does not make the building taller, but it does make the structure itself 659 ft. if that happens to be close to the height of the BP tower, so be it. learn to live with it.

i don't hear anybody complaining about the design of the terminal tower. it tapers up at a thin diameter for 50 meters, twice as long as the carew flagpole.

[BelieveInCleve]

"if that happens to be close to the height of the BP tower, so be it. learn to live with it.": Okay. We can leave it at that, only if you find an official height with the flagpole added, not some graph. We can agree that the BP building is 84 ft taller, but the Carew tower with the "flagpole" added is 1 ft taller (if you can find an official source for the height).

Here is what I found to prove otherwise: http://www.wlwt.com/money/14925863/detail.html : "Queen City Square tops out at 660 feet, which would be 86 feet higher than the Carew Tower". and http://www.ocpm.edu/cleveland/ : "BP Tower is the third tallest building in Cleveland and Ohio." http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu?id=c...cinnati-oh-usa : "574 ft", and even though I didnt mean "official" literally, Emporis IS the "official place": "In 2005 Emporis formed a partnership with the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), under which Emporis serves as the official CTBUH high-rise buildings database." Do you EVEN KNOW what the CTBUH is? You have to be pretty accurate and "official" to make a claim like that...So the "Official" height of the Carew Tower is 574 ft. If the flag pole is even that tall, its not added whatsoever, so it doesnt count. Look up http://skyscraperpage.com/ ..."the world's finest resource for skyscraper and urbanism enthusiasts"...yes it says "enthusiasts"...Emporis IS official and "skyscraperpage" IS NOT. Now your the one trying to argue with the stats because they dont agree with the point your trying to make. You must love getting proved wrong.

BTW, The Terminal Tower is different and doesnt have anything to do with what I was arguing. The entire structure before the Terminal Towers flagpole is still part of the building/main structure, its not a 10" piece of rail like a flag pole. Thats what the whole argument was about, the flagpole is not part of the actual building. And dont even get me started with the Lorain crime rate, what we DO know is that Lorain has a poverty rate of 26%, is nearly 40% minority, and had 9 murders last year. And according to your logic, East Cleveland has a crime rate of 0...Lorains crime rate is MUCH higher than the national average, if you dont know that, youve never been here before, which you havent. Thanks for changing the subject though.

[aquila]

Originally Posted by JefferyT

Because, if you are talking about the "aesthetics" of a skyline, Cincinnati had a nearly perfect one with two great older skyscrapers, Carew Tower and Central Trust (or whatever it was called), clustered together as the higher towers. Their designs werent that bulky, either, so they read as spires.

This new thing with that wierd top is going to detract from the skyline. And its too bulky, though they did design it to mask that & make it read more verticle.

Change is inevitable. Cincinnati's skyline can't stay the same forever. And I simply never saw it as an exemplary skyline that was without flaws anyway. I honestly see the new GAI tower as being a very much needed and welcome addition to the skyline. It will give needed height, act as a bookend on the eastern edge, and give an added sense of "breadth" to the silhouette of the skyline. That "weird thing" is something unique you won't find anywhere else. Why is that a bad thing?

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

I'm not leaving the Ohio forum until aquila and Cincy-Rise hug!

Only if he comes up to West Chester and kisses Union Centre Blvd.

How likely is that to happen?

In other words, ScranBarre, welcome to the Ohio forum.

Originally Posted by Cle440

Let me just ask you one thing. Are you seriously calling Carew Tower taller than the BP building because the "flagpole" is 1 foot taller? wait, I dont think you heard me right, I said "flag pole" and "1 FOOT aka 12 inches" Not to mention emporis, which is basically the official site, has the carew tower listed at 574 ft, all you could find was a single graph and how am I supposed to even know if thats true?. Ive seen flag poles sticking out of the ground and 30 ft buildings, and the ground doesnt all of a sudden become 40 ft tall, or the building 70, you see what I mean?.

The actual structure of the BP building is 658 ft tall, nearly 90 ft taller than the Carew Tower. This is not one of the instances where the stats dont agree with my point so Im arguing (which 9/10 of the people on here do also), even you cant deny that saying the Carew Tower is taller is flat out ridiculous. If you say its taller, I have nothing further to discuss with you on this topic.

Originally Posted by Cle440

I dont plan in on joining into this childish argument that this thread has become, I have no desire to and dont have time.

But Just to add one thing. BP is much taller than Carew Tower. If you are seriously going to say its taller because its 12 inches more because of a virtual twig sticking out of the top, youve got to be out of your mind. Flag poles are not part of the structure and shoudlnt even be counted. Current 5 tallest buildings in Ohio: 1. Key Tower 2. Terminal Tower 3. BP 4. Rhodes Tower 5. Carew Tower.

Have to spread it around first, so major reps to you once again for both of those posts.

Originally Posted by hillside

that's an opinion, cle440. ask yourself, have you ever seen carew without a flagpole? do you have proof that it was a late addition, or added post-construction? would it be the same building without it? the flagpole is a part of the building; the flagpole completes the concept of an art-deco classic sitting majestically over the river. you present links and such, and expect them to be taken seriously, but when someone else provides support for their argument, you dismiss them upon opinion claimed as fact. i've noticed this pattern.

oh yea...what other building has a flagpole with the kind of iconic status of carew?

Originally Posted by hillside

"let me ask you one question..". i asked you a bunch of questions, none of which you answered.

"all you could find was a single graph...emporis is basically the official site...". skyscraperpage is a large archive with more active features than emporis. where in the world of anywhere does emporis lay claim to be, "the official sponsor of skyscrapers"? you're the same guy who couldn't produce not one link to prove lorain's crime rate was any higher than what it truly is, slightly above the national average.

are you listening? the flagpole does not make the building taller, but it does make the structure itself 659 ft. if that happens to be close to the height of the BP tower, so be it. learn to live with it.

i don't hear anybody complaining about the design of the terminal tower. it tapers up at a thin diameter for 50 meters, twice as long as the carew flagpole.

If the flagpole is supposedly included in the structure's height, how come throughout history (since it was built) that has NEVER ONCE been shown to be true? I was FLOORED when I saw the Skyscraperpage diagram. In fact, I'd NEVER once heard of such a ridiculous thing until I saw that diagram. I actually laughed, and immediately realized just HOW fanatical some people are, and how OBSESSED they are about such STUPID things. I mean, I've been following skyscraper heights since the early 80's...a time when I was IN LOVE with Cincinnati....and each book I opened, which had Carew Tower listed, NEVER indicated it to be anything higher than 574'. We're talking books that were written DECADES ago. Old postcards from the 40s and 50s show the flagpole, but always indicate the height of the building as...TADA....574'. I imagine if you asked any architecture professor at UC or a Cincinnati city official, they'd tell you the same thing. This whole nonsense about the flagpole making it higher is a recent thing.

I'm sorry....I'm really not trying to be insulting when I say this, but it's almost obsessive to think of Carew Tower as being 85' higher simply because of a FLAGPOLE, and certainly deceptive to promote such an idea, in my opinion. That's nuts. It's NOT that tall, and NEVER has been. Some of you guys simply need to deal with that reality. Truly. I'm starting to think like Cle440 - it's time to abandon this argument because it's getting pretty stupid and childish.

[Cincy-Rise]

Cle440, you know that Emporis was started by some members at SSP right? ... and that members of SSP helped gather facts for Emporis, right? lol

[Cincy-Rise]

Originally Posted by aquila

If the flagpole is supposedly included in the structure's height, how come throughout history (since it was built) that has NEVER ONCE been shown to be true? I imagine if you asked any architecture professor at UC or a Cincinnati city official, they'd tell you the same thing. This whole nonsense about the flagpole making it higher is a recent thing.

I was FLOORED when I saw the Skyscraperpage diagram. In fact, I'd NEVER once heard of such a ridiculous thing until I saw that diagram. I actually laughed, and immediately realized just HOW fanatical some people are, and how OBSESSED they are about such STUPID things.

I mean, I've been following skyscraper heights since the early 80's...a time when I was IN LOVE with Cincinnati....and each book I opened, which had Carew Tower listed, NEVER indicated it to be anything higher than 574'. We're talking books that were written DECADES ago. Old postcards from the 40s and 50s show the flagpole, but always indicate the height of the building as...TADA....574'.

I'm sorry....I'm really not trying to be insulting when I say this, but it's almost obsessive to think of Carew Tower as being 85' higher simply because of a FLAGPOLE, and certainly deceptive to promote such an idea, in my opinion. That's nuts. It's NOT that tall, and NEVER has been. Some of you guys simply need to deal with that reality.

Truly. I'm starting to think like Cle440 - it's time to abandon this argument because it's getting pretty stupid and childish.

Some of thousands of examples ... aquila, especially you ... just stick to West Chester. Mmmmkay?



- The Empire State Building, the first building to have more than 100 floors (it has 102), was completed the following year. It was designed by Shreve, Lamb and Harmon in the contemporary Art Deco style. The tower takes its name from the nickname of New York State. Upon its completion in 1931, it took the top spot as tallest building, and at 1,472 feet (448 m) to the very top of the antenna, towered above all other buildings until 1973.

- The Freedom Tower is now under construction and is the tallest tower comprising the redevelopment of the site of the former World Trade Center following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Its antenna will reach a height of 541.4 m (1,776 ft).

- This naturally hurts the rankings of buildings without spires, or with antennas instead of spires. The most famous such discrepancy is that Malaysian Petronas Towers (with spire on top) is ranked higher than the US Sears Tower (with antenna on top) despite having lower roof and lower highest point (of spire/antenna).

- Construction commenced in August 1970 and the building reached its originally anticipated maximum height on May 3, 1973. When completed, the Sears Tower had overtaken the World Trade Center in New York City as the world's tallest building. The tower has 108 stories as counted by standard methods, though the building owners count the main roof as 109 and the mechanical penthouse roof as 110. The distance to the roof is 1,450.58 feet (442 m), measured from the east entrance.[3]
In February 1982, two television antennas were added to the structure, increasing its total height to 1,707 feet (520 m). The western antenna was later extended to 1,730 feet (527 m)[4] on June 5, 2000 to improve reception of local NBC station WMAQ-TV.








... So, aquila/Cle440 ... care to admit that you both sounded like *******s?

[xnyer]

Originally Posted by maestro

not a fan of Dayton's skyline, sorry. It feels like all the buildings are drab and "blah", almost like if it isn't raining, it should be.

Great photo of Dayton. Hope you get to see Cinti. from the overlook in Devou Park on the Covington side of the river.

[hillside]

cincy-rise, you just saved me a lot of time, 'cuz i was ready to open a can. rep to you.

cle440, aquila, what is the difference between a spire built into the structure, and a flagpole that serves as a spire that is bolted onto the structure, as a permanent issue. what would the building look like without the flag? unless you were downtown, and it was raining, you don't know.

cle440, want a flagpole?
Commercial Flagpoles: Choosing Heights

aquila, there's a difference between official height, and the peak of the building. if we're talking official height, carew is 574. but if you neglect what height a flagpole adds to a building's peak, then you might as well chop off the sears spire and the empire state fixture. you and cle440 are arguing over a technicality that accomplishes the exact same task as the model you're supporting.

this is a little old, but the numbers support what i've been saying all along.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...amcrime31.html

[aquila]

Originally Posted by hillside

cincy-rise, you just saved me a lot of time, 'cuz i was ready to open a can. rep to you.

cle440, aquila, what is the difference between a spire built into the structure, and a flagpole that serves as a spire that is bolted onto the structure, as a permanent issue. what would the building look like without the flag? unless you were downtown, and it was raining, you don't know.

cle440, want a flagpole?
Commercial Flagpoles: Choosing Heights

aquila, there's a difference between official height, and the peak of the building. if we're talking official height, carew is 574. but if you neglect what height a flagpole adds to a building's peak, then you might as well chop off the sears spire and the empire state fixture. you and cle440 are arguing over a technicality that accomplishes the exact same task as the model you're supporting.

Fine....answer my question about the rollercoaster. It's the same principle. NO ONE considers the "Remain seated at all times" sign at the top of a lift hill to be included in ANY height references for the ride.

Why is this just NOW being mentioned with respect to Carew's height? It's never been an issue in the 70+ years since it's construction. It's never ONCE been mentioned in ANY historical references. If you guys want to hype it up now, be my guest. I think it's STUPID....but be my guest. Obviously, this whole subject is a matter of opinion, and there are differences among architecture enthusiasts as to whether the flagpoles should be included in a building's height. I personally think it's stupid to, but whatever. I don't consider a flagpole as part of a building's height. I don't even consider it part of the overall structure. Are there any official resources which lists "flagpoles" as viable parts of a building's structure, thereby regarding them as valid elements to be included in the building's height? No. Why? Because the architectural world is divided on this subject. And since they never have actually been included, then this whole argument is mere fantasy on the part of fanatical skyscraper enthusiasts. The only reason it is supposedly now included as part of the height is for pure ego's sake. You guys can't stand the idea that Cincinnati's tallest building until now has only been 574', so this is some sort of vain attempt at showing it as being higher.

As for a spire....THAT is an integral part of a building's design included in the structural blueprints. A flagpole bolted to the roof of a building generally is NOT. You can remove and replace a flagpole if necessary. Try to remove the spire from Terminal Tower or the Empire State Building.

This whole argument, for me anyway, ends with this post.

[hillside]

Originally Posted by aquila

Fine....answer my question about the rollercoaster. It's the same principle. NO ONE considers the "Remain seated at all times" sign at the top of a lift hill to be included in ANY height references for the ride.

Why is this just NOW being mentioned with respect to Carew's height? It's never been an issue in the 70+ years since it's construction. It's never ONCE been mentioned in ANY historical references. If you guys want to hype it up now, be my guest. I think it's STUPID....but be my guest. Obviously, this whole subject is a matter of opinion, and there are differences among architecture enthusiasts as to whether the flagpoles should be included in a building's height. I personally think it's stupid to, but whatever. I don't consider a flagpole as part of a building's height. I don't even consider it part of the overall structure. Are there any official resources which lists "flagpoles" as viable parts of a building's structure, thereby regarding them as valid elements to be included in the building's height? No. Why? Because the architectural world is divided on this subject. And since they never have actually been included, then this whole argument is mere fantasy on the part of fanatical skyscraper enthusiasts. The only reason it is supposedly now included as part of the height is for pure ego's sake. You guys can't stand the idea that Cincinnati's tallest building until now has only been 574', so this is some sort of vain attempt at showing it as being higher.

As for a spire....THAT is an integral part of a building's design included in the structural blueprints. A flagpole bolted to the roof of a building generally is NOT. You can remove and replace a flagpole if necessary. Try to remove the spire from Terminal Tower or the Empire State Building.

This whole argument, for me anyway, ends with this post.

i think you're taking this completely wrong. my argument is that there isn't a clear difference in a spire, an antenna and a flagpole. it has nothing to do with 574 feet. furthermore, i couldn't care less who thinks what. that's the beauty of logic.

here's some logic....if a flagpole has been on a building for almost 80 years, and the height to the top of the pole hasn't been a focal point of the building, does that make the flagpole invisible, or worse, non-existent because a particular school of thought disputes its purpose?

classic causal fallacy.

[1watertiger]