GRDadof3

Mary Free Bed Expansion

29 posts in this topic


Kudos to the hospital for agreeing to keep the corner open and planning infrastructure for a future retail development.  This project is great for the healthcare community and the neighborhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused about the alignment of the building. Is it facing Wealthy? 

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused about the alignment of the building. Is it facing Wealthy? 

 

Joe

 

No it faces Jefferson. In the one picture of the overhead model, you can see the Wealthy/Jefferson roundabout in the lower left corner.

Kudos to the hospital for agreeing to keep the corner open and planning infrastructure for a future retail development.  This project is great for the healthcare community and the neighborhood.

 

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disappointing architecture. Even worse ground floor use -- parking on Jefferson -- woo who!

 

Doesn't the City have active ground floor use requirements facing streets? If it doesn't, that should be changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disappointing architecture. Even worse ground floor use -- parking on Jefferson -- woo who!

 

Doesn't the City have active ground floor use requirements facing streets? If it doesn't, that should be changed. 

 

I can't tell what's actually facing Jefferson at ground level.  It looks like lit-up windows, with parking taking the rear of the ground floor and all of the second.  Parking-wise, at least that's a step up from the old practice of tearing down historic houses for surface lots.

 

Did you have retail/commercial use in mind for the ground floor?  Interesting idea, with Tapestry Square nearby.

 

Notwithstanding, I like it overall.  Looks like a hospital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disappointing architecture. Even worse ground floor use -- parking on Jefferson -- woo who!

 

Doesn't the City have active ground floor use requirements facing streets? If it doesn't, that should be changed. 

 

Not active use, but there are requirements for ground floor treatment/windows, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell what's actually facing Jefferson at ground level.  It looks like lit-up windows, with parking taking the rear of the ground floor and all of the second.  Parking-wise, at least that's a step up from the old practice of tearing down historic houses for surface lots.

 

Did you have retail/commercial use in mind for the ground floor?  Interesting idea, with Tapestry Square nearby.

 

Notwithstanding, I like it overall.  Looks like a hospital.

 

It's a parking garage. The windows dont have any blue in them, and the whole (99%) of the Jefferson frontage has "hide our shame" shrubbery.

 

So yeah, it's definitely a step up from St. Mary's normal level of pathetic, but the street is dead even with the building.

 

 

I guess that's why the rendering has cars whizzing by and 4 people that look like they are totally wishing they had a car to get away from there. :silly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It's a parking garage. The windows dont have any blue in them, and the whole (99%) of the Jefferson frontage has "hide our shame" shrubbery.

 

So yeah, it's definitely a step up from St. Mary's normal level of pathetic, but the street is dead even with the building.

 

Mary Free Bed is a different hospital than St. Mary's.  I do wish the ground floor wasn't parking the whole way across…at least it's not on Wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not active use, but there are requirements for ground floor treatment/windows, etc..

 

I would encourage the GR Planning department to explore ways to tighten up the regulations.

 

In many cities, there are active ground floor use requirements for a minimum percentage of the width of the building.  For instance, in a city that I was recently working in, a minimum of 60% of the building facing a right of way had to contain active ground floor use (applied across the entire city). On primary streets downtown, buildings require retail or restaurant uses; on secondary streets, the ground floor could also include lobbies, offices, or residential. It also required that a primary entrance face the street. In my opinion these are very easy requirements to achieve, which also create substantial benefit.

 

There are a variety of motivations; CPTED, providing more activity at the street level, aesthetics...and I am sure many more.  

Edited by Jippy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would encourage the GR Planning department to explore ways to tighten up the regulations.

 

In many cities, there are active ground floor use requirements for a minimum percentage of the width of the building.  For instance, in a city that I was recently working in, a minimum of 60% of the building facing a right of way had to contain active ground floor use (applied across the entire city). On primary streets downtown, buildings require retail or restaurant uses; on secondary streets, the ground floor could also include lobbies, offices, or residential. It also required that a primary entrance face the street. In my opinion these are very easy requirements to achieve, which also create substantial benefit.

 

There are a variety of motivations; CPTED, providing more activity at the street level, aesthetics...and I am sure many more.  

 

 

You should bring that up to the city, Suzanne Schulz particularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mom is a nurse at MFB, the ground floor parking is to appease St. Mary's. This new building will go directly over their outpatient parking. The building although ugly, will contain some badly needed therapy floors and space for more acute patients. They have been at or near capacity for the last year, since the founding of the rehab network. Personally, I hope they update the older portion soon too, some of which is from the 70s and quite plain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mom is a nurse at MFB, the ground floor parking is to appease St. Mary's. This new building will go directly over their outpatient parking. The building although ugly, will contain some badly needed therapy floors and space for more acute patients. They have been at or near capacity for the last year, since the founding of the rehab network. Personally, I hope they update the older portion soon too, some of which is from the 70s and quite plain.

 

That's pretty harsh. I wouldn't call it ugly. It's actually pretty nice looking IMO for what is essentially a hospital.

 

The ground floor is a lot nicer than the parking ramp at the corner of Cherry and Jefferson, with the big gaping holes in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed building is corporatized low-brow design that is of the same inspiration as a soulless Hampton Inn in some far-flung exurb. It is also about 15 years out of date in terms of best practices that incorporate architectural and landscape design as part of the healing process.

 

Hospitals are meant to be places of healing, a place that should inspire to heal the body, mind, and soul. The type of injuries that Mary Free Bed treats, it is even more important. The design should be light, inspiring, and include substantial elements of vegetation inside and out.

 

The proposed design does nothing of the sort. Frankly, I am disappointed and slightly embarrassed that this may get built. 

Edited by Jippy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed building is corporatized low-brow design that is of the same inspiration as a soulless Hampton Inn in some far-flung exurb. It is also about 15 years out of date in terms of best practices that incorporate architectural and landscape design as part of the healing process.

 

Hospitals are meant to be places of healing, a place that should inspire to heal the body, mind, and soul. The type of injuries that Mary Free Bed treats, it is even more important. The design should be light, inspiring, and include substantial elements of vegetation inside and out.

 

The proposed design does nothing of the sort. Frankly, I am disappointed and slightly embarrassed that this may get built. 

 

Did you guys get beat out for the design work. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I would agree that the design is rather uninspired. It could be worse but probably not more boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you guys get beat out for the design work. ;)

 

Ha!   :D

 

My firm is not in architecture, so I have no conflict of interest to report...other than desiring consistently good design throughout GR.  

 

That said, I bet most folks on this forum could design above the level of this warehouse: "draw rectangle here. done. slap low grade EIFS or tacky concrete panels. done. stick on 1980's vertical glass pyramaid. done. and finished. oh wait, i don't have enough parking. well, i'll just rip out the first floor lobby and office and put it there. where is this thing located again?...ahhh, it doesn't really matter... alright guys, what's the next project?"

Edited by Jippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I don't think it's anything special. I guess I give Mary Free Bed a bit of a "pass" on this one as they didn't rip anything down to build it, and the quality of care they give is a great benefit to the region. 

 

With that being said, I do wish the design was better. Maybe it was, but got value engineered out of the design? I know that in my line of work (not architecture), what we initially present to clients usually gets "watered down by committee". I'm sure that is a terribly frustrating downside to being an architect. 

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot's being cleared and there's a big tent for the groundbreaking out (I assume).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, that already looks terrible..

 

Yes, no need to wait for architectural tastes to change on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, no need to wait for architectural tastes to change on this one.

 

At least it looks a lot like the rendering. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.