Jump to content

jmicha

Members
  • Content Count

    4,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. There are a handful of instances where it works with the overall aesthetic. A lot of times (most times) however it's just a relatively easy and affordable way to add variety to a simple form. I personally don't hate them quite as much as most, but they definitely wouldn't be my first choice for a tower. There are a handful of times where it's regular enough to feel appropriate (The Beacon being built in Cleveland for instance handles them well I think) but in most it just ends up looking messy and fussy in my mind. Overall I actually don't dislike this proposal. There are some things I'd change for sure, but I think it will actually be a pretty good looking building once built and in a real environment, not the PS1-fog and white blocks environment it's rendered in currently. If they're sending this design out to bid, you can bank on it being fairly close to what they intend to build. Things will definitely change, but if they have drawings to a point of doing a full bid then you won't be seeing any major massing changes.
  2. Though I'm happy to hear that as that entire complex needs much more life, I really do wish changes were being made to the exterior. The entire complex is...ugly. Not in a garish, in-your-face kind of way, but it's just not a flattering series of forms, textures, details, colors, etc. This building being one of the weirdest. The way the penthouses sit on top has always looked really uncomfortable to me. But that's enough negativity, more people right across the Roebling is good for both cities. Hopefully they can bring more people into future developments and whatever happens with the IRS building site.
  3. So when you're in the sketchup model did you geolocate the model? If so, go to file>expor>3d model and select the google earth file (.kmz) then open Google Earth and load it. If you can't get this to work I can quickly do it when I'm free but that likely won't be until later this weekend.
  4. I really don't think it is. If you do a hotel/residential tower it could likely work. The Cincy market isn't much different than the Cleveland market in terms of price per square foot and construction costs and they're building a 396' tall residential tower. Put that on top of a 10-15 story tall hotel/retail podium and you have a 550' tall mixed used building. It's feasible. It'll be a challenge no doubt, but it's not impossible in the current market.
  5. I like where your head is at. 800 footer here, another 650 footer on the lot by the convention center, and a handful of other 150-300 footers scattered about and suddenly the skyline is much bigger.
  6. I disagree. I think this has a very open and appealing feel, I bet it would be an attractive and busy area, I also assume at least part of the ground level would be some form of retail or restaurant. I don't understand the necessity for a street wall. The Kroger building does just that and it's supremely univiting, same with the base of the Terrace Plaza, which is so beloved on this forum. There's a difference between a bland adherence to a street wall, and an activated street wall which is definitely what jjakucyk is talking about. Kroger and the Terrace Plaza have street walls that have essentially no entrances off them, no active uses, etc. so they are dead. An active street wall with proper ground floor uses, building entrances, etc. that feels active is precisely what makes urban areas special. You CAN create impactful plazas that are really great public spaces that activate the space, but the problem is that they often don't go anywhere close to far enough and therefore just become front lawns. Being that this is a mixed use design, I would hope they'd find a way to make it active at all hours, but the reality is that we don't have many good examples of this in Cincinnati. Most plazas are bad and kill street life rather than activate it.
  7. I still love that their argument was based on there being no market for residential in that area...despite the two new towers directly behind it and the new one that is likely to rise directly across the street. What a farce.
  8. They also have a crazy bizzaro version of 4th and Race and list Flaherty and Collins as their client. I have a feeling this might be part of a wider RFP and it's just the only concept we've come across so far.I have no issue with the shape of the actual tower, but I do take issue with how it is sited. There should be zero plaza space here. It would diminish the impact of Fountain Square. This needs to hold the street walls on all sides.
  9. Or you'll punch him through the internet?
  10. Great picture! Skyline is looking great. Thanks for sharing.
  11. jmicha

    Nashville Gentrification Madness 1

    Many of these would honestly be fine in the right context (not speaking of their actual construction quality, because while they might look fine I suspect most are really poorly built). But that context they'd be appropriate in is a more dense, missing-middle-urban context. With things like sidewalks, proper roads...hell, proper drainage and grading. I know Nashville has done a lot of great things that Ohio's cities could learn from but...this isn't it haha. Thanks for sharing!
  12. That has nothing to do with them though, right? Someone correct me if my memory is failing (my roller coaster enthusiast card might as well be revoked at this point I stay so out of the loop these days) but wasn't that a result of Philadelphia Toboggan Company stating their trains shouldn't be run backwards and as a result of the specifics of Ohio amusement park regulations, that became a requirement? Or something along those lines. I don't think it was an internal decision. But you're right they'll never touch it while he's there. He has stated as such. Which is a shame because, let's face it, it's not a very good ride. Yes, it's important to the resurgence of roller coasters in the 70s, but still. It doesn't do much, half of its layout doesn't really allow you to race in any meaningful way, and it's not maintained well. And it could be a great ride if RMC got their hands on it.
  13. Wow yuck. Where in Oakley is that...?
  14. The Beast AND The Racer should have topper-track. I'd love Racer to get the full RMC redo. Go all Twisted Collosus on it, make the rides swap sides at some point during their dueling and make it where you go around both sides. It would be a major hit. I really just want to experience Beast without trims. The entire ride could be as out of control feeling as the double helix. But as it stands a lot of the layout is just meandering through the woods between intense moments. I still love the ride, but there's SO much it could do better.
  15. Yep, and B&M in recent years has moved to less and less supports by greatly enlarging the spine of their track to allow it to span further distances. If you compare their first hypercoasters with something like Fury325 you can see the difference in how they design their structures. While cool, it requires enormous foundations as you mention and therefore foliage can only get so close. I know it's sacrilege, but I'd love an RMC Beast. Not major ride altering changes, but all the track replaced with topper track, all four sets of trims removed for good, and the hills reprofiled in a manner that actually produces forces. I love the vibe of Beast and it's location and think the ride, at certain times, really does feel out of control, but the fact that it isn't allowed to get up to speed without hitting a magnetic trim brake soon after is frustrating and feels like so much lost potential.
×