283 replies to this topic

[joeDowntown]

I agree. We have enough cute little painted Italianate style buildings on Monroe. I'd keep the black, play off the deco lights (if I can't have them I'm glad they'll be restored) and steel and give it a slick old deco look. Some nice lights on the side that match the round part of the lights and wash light up and down the wall.

Keep it like it is, please. That block needs some diversity in architecture.  

gvsusean, on Aug 1 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

I LOVE THE LITTLE BLACK BUILDING (pardon the caps), its so much different than most any other buildings in GR. It has always been one of my absolute favs (of course i like art deco so.....) I would say it depends on what you are going to do with the building, that will decide the look. But know this, if you make it look like the others on the block, then thats all youll have, another one on that block. Someones gotta be feeling me on this

[Jasoncw]

I think the black is ok, but maybe it should be polished up so it's really slick looking?

Also, I'm a fan of rooftop patios, with potted trees/bushes and some tables with umbrellas.  If it's practical, that would be really cool.

Judging from what you've said here, and that fact that you've bothered to see what a group of people like us would like, I think whatever you decide will be good.  

[GRguy]

This building would make the best white table cloth restaurant or cool club. HIghlight the architectural friezes with silver leaf (I laughed about the gold plating commment earlier), but keep the art deco feel, even if some re-skinning has to be done. If this facade goes away, a few years from now, people will be lamenting how we lost such a great building.

[BigPlayJ]

GRDadof3, on Aug 1 2006, 03:36 PM, said:

BTW intovb, thanks for taking on this little building.  There a few buildings downtown like this that at first glance seem kind of hopeless (Kendall, Keeler), but with some passion and a little creativity may turn out to be the best gems of the block, and help fill in the gaps of pedestrian level activity and curb appeal.

I agree with GRDad, Intovb.  It is great that someone has finally decided to do something with this building.  I was involved with a group that took a hard look at this building earlier this year and we concluded it would be a difficult project, especially given the acquisition cost.  The building is also very long and narrow, which limits a lot of potential uses.

I for one wil axiously await the completion of the project.  For the record, I'm not a fan of the black, but if it were dressed up with some corner accents, rooftop cornice, etc., it might look OK, especially if the exterior can be repaired.

[Prankster]

Greedo, on Aug 1 2006, 04:06 PM, said:

Founder's Trust?  That's not Art Deco.  Not even close.

Think Civic Auditorium or the old Public Museum for Art Deco.  They are the two finest example we have in Grand Rapids.  

Otherwise great examples are the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings and Rockefeller Center in New York.

I thought that these were Beau Arts, not Art Deco?

[destijl]

Prankster, on Aug 1 2006, 09:49 PM, said:

I thought that these were Beau Arts, not Art Deco?

Beaux Arts would be more like the current Art Museum(old post office/federal buliding)

[tSlater]

I agree that it should keep true to its current design.  It's a unique building in town, and there really isn't anything else like it.  Although I do suggest that with a 3rd floor, it will need something along the top or some variety towards the top, otherwise a 3-storey black wall could be boring.  Some accent lighting shining down along the wall would be great for night, and grab people's attention as well.  Perhaps some decorational steel-looking border-like things (dunno what they're called) beneath and above the windows and along the roofline with an art-deco design could accomplish enough variety for the 3rd floor.

[Prankster]

destijl, on Aug 1 2006, 11:23 PM, said:

Beaux Arts would be more like the current Art Museum(old post office/federal buliding)

Well, at least I got one of the two correct.

[mpchicago]

I do like this building, except for the back half on Ionia that is just painted black (it always bugged me).  I would try to keep the Art Deco feel.  It was mentioned that the building is long and narrow making it difficult to find uses.  How about designing the new main entrance to open up in the middle of the building on Ionia?

[GRDadof3]

Everyone keeps suggesting to keep the art deco feel.  The art deco is NOT the original facade, but was added in the 30's  

[dbrok]

GRDadof3, on Aug 2 2006, 05:12 PM, said:

Everyone keeps suggesting to keep the art deco feel.  The art deco is NOT the original facade, but was added in the 30's  

I thought the art deco design was part of the addition from 1937, especially the eagles out front. What is the type of design used for the expansion?

[mpchicago]

GRDadof3, on Aug 2 2006, 04:12 PM, said:

Everyone keeps suggesting to keep the art deco feel.  The art deco is NOT the original facade, but was added in the 30's  

I think we all understand that the art deco was not original, but I like it and think its a nice contrast to the other Italianate buildings in that block.  While in most cases I prefer when a building is brought back to its original design, I believe this is one case where keeping it in this era is ok.

Here in Chicago the restoration of the Rookery Building included restoring the Frank Lloyd Wright interior in lieu of the original Root design.  I know there is a big difference between Wright and who ever designed this deco renovation back in the day, but in my opinion the art deco works.

Edited by mpchicago, 02 August 2006 - 03:37 PM.

[andrew.w]

I also like the black and art deco for a little variety on Monroe, despite not being the original design.  Since, a total building restoration to its original appearance is probably out of the question I would much rather see the front section remain as it is.

As for the third floor, if the design and style is not already set, I would suggest reppeating the elements that are already existing.  Windows would be large in the style of the large windows on the side of the building and instead of separated by black stone, I think that white glazed brick (with maybe a stripe of black brick) would be very appropriate and help to ballance the heaviness of the existing black.

-Just a thought.

Edited by andrew69@ltu, 02 August 2006 - 06:00 PM.

[joeDowntown]

That still makes the facade 70 years old...

GRDadof3, on Aug 2 2006, 05:12 PM, said:

Everyone keeps suggesting to keep the art deco feel.  The art deco is NOT the original facade, but was added in the 30's  

[civitas]

Not much left...

[Rizzo]

civitas, on Aug 4 2006, 11:52 AM, said:

Not much left...

2nd pic, he looks very authoritive! I'd like to have one of thoes in front of my residence.

[GRDadof3]

civitas, on Aug 4 2006, 11:52 AM, said:

Not much left...

Ugggh!  What a mess the renovation made back in the 30's with the original arched windows and their pattern.  But it's kind of like "Well, we're committed now....."  That highly reflective mirror glass has to go, IMO.

Quote

That still makes the facade 70 years old...

..and this facade was probably 50 years old.  Worth keeping?  To me, I don't see much difference between the two.  They're still very poorly applied makeup.

[tSlater]

Yes, the windows may not line up with the original.  But regardless, the current black design of the building is a style which is now unique, and not very ugly either (as opposed to the siegel's facade which looks horrendous) and, imho, has become a bit of a lesser-focused upon but still present icon of the area.  I'm not one to cry 'preserve!' on many buildings.  However, I do feel the art-deco style here with the black facade is something which should indeed be preserved, and on top of that, given a little attention.

[andrew.w]

I was going to reply to this alst night but I was too tired...

For me, I see quite a difference between Siegel's and 65 Monroe.  

Siegel's is definately poorly applied makeup.  (1) The material is cheap, (2) except for this facade and the cornice, all of the original building was kept intact and (3) even a large section of it can still be seen on the side.  Furthermore, though it may be 50 years old today, it didn't last that long before the facade was restored (and it may have been replaced before the restoration when the whole building was covered).  And that doesn't even cover the style of the applied front, which I do think is ugly.

65 Monroe was pretty much new construction/extreem remodeling.  (1) The material is not simply a cheap coverup but was meant to permanently replace the original brick.  (2) The entire original building was destroyed in making this 1937 design;  two floors were removed, the interior completely remodeled, all that's left is some old brick and the top of some arched windows.  (3) The buildig is unique on Monroe Center and IMO certainly isn't that unnatractive.

GRDad, what do you suggest be done with the building?  A full restoration is out of the question as far as cost goes since it would end up being an entire reconstruction (even the bare bones of the original building are hardly there).  Although it is kind of cool being able to see the original construction of this building and how it was altered, the brick is a mess and I don't think much can be done with it other than painting it or covering it up with the same or new material.

[GRDadof3]

andrew69@ltu, on Aug 6 2006, 09:16 AM, said:

I was going to reply to this alst night but I was too tired...

For me, I see quite a difference between Siegel's and 65 Monroe.  

Siegel's is definately poorly applied makeup.  (1) The material is cheap, (2) except for this facade and the cornice, all of the original building was kept intact and (3) even a large section of it can still be seen on the side.  Furthermore, though it may be 50 years old today, it didn't last that long before the facade was restored (and it may have been replaced before the restoration when the whole building was covered).  And that doesn't even cover the style of the applied front, which I do think is ugly.

65 Monroe was pretty much new construction/extreem remodeling.  (1) The material is not simply a cheap coverup but was meant to permanently replace the original brick.  (2) The entire original building was destroyed in making this 1937 design;  two floors were removed, the interior completely remodeled, all that's left is some old brick and the top of some arched windows.  (3) The buildig is unique on Monroe Center and IMO certainly isn't that unnatractive.

GRDad, what do you suggest be done with the building?  A full restoration is out of the question as far as cost goes since it would end up being an entire reconstruction (even the bare bones of the original building are hardly there).  Although it is kind of cool being able to see the original construction of this building and how it was altered, the brick is a mess and I don't think much can be done with it other than painting it or covering it up with the same or new material.

As I said before, it's hard to tell what to do until all the Albarene comes off.  And I'm not suggesting that it not be covered over with new material or painted.  That might be the only answer.  I have no problem with that, because there are a lot of repainted brick buildings downtown that I have no problem with.  But to me, the FAKE art deco facade is not MUCH better than what was on the Aldrich building.  The Albarene also did not stand up to the test of time, since it has to be replaced.

In fact, the eagles look a bit silly to me.  I chuckle every time I walk by there and happen to look up at them.  It's great to have diversity in architectural styles around downtown, but this building is/was not an architectural style.  

But do you want a big black glass cube at that corner?