20 Fulton E, Mixed Use Development

[mpchicago]

What's with the rendering release game Jeff?   

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, mpchicago said:

What's with the rendering release game Jeff?   

I don't have any renderings, just elevations. They're coming.

[GRDadof3]

 

 

 

[joeDowntown]

When this is done, I think it will remove a huge psychological barrier between east Fulton and west Fulton. With the park, the church parking lot and the parking lot this development is taking over, it seemed like a hike to nowhere to get from Division to the Peacock building. Hopefully this will make it feel more contiguous. 

Joe

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, joeDowntown said:

When this is done, I think it will remove a huge psychological barrier between east Fulton and west Fulton. With the park, the church parking lot and the parking lot this development is taking over, it seemed like a hike to nowhere to get from Division to the Peacock building. Hopefully this will make it feel more contiguous. 

Joe

Plus 10,000 sf of brand new retail space (with attached parking garage) won't hurt. 

[wingbert]

15 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Plus 10,000 sf of brand new retail space (with attached parking garage) won't hurt. 

Game Changer?

[GRDadof3]

Here's the latest drawing of the North face of the building, done by the new architect. I have other angles too but it's hard to make out the design from just elevation drawings. Frankly it looks an awful lot like PAE's drawing. Interesting that the retail just shows a door at the Northeast end, for the entire 10,000ish square feet. 

 

 

Thankfully the site is big enough to tuck the parking back to the South and along Sheldon (and not have unscreened parking levels wedged in the middle).  Even the ground floor retail extends about 50 feet down Sheldon. 

[mpchicago]

I've gotten to the point were I simply don't comment when I don't like something, but what the heck....

Now why did they have to go all the way to Chicago to get this mediocre design? Looks like the balconies are gone and black air conditioning vents were added in their place? I know this is just an elevation, but I don't think this is an improvement over the Progressive design.   My hope is it will look better in person. 

[WMrapids]

Yeah. Not feeling this either. This reminds me of the diocese building further down the road...

[GRDadof3]

8 hours ago, WMrapids said:

Yeah. Not feeling this either. This reminds me of the diocese building further down the road...

Yes, with the alternating random patterns going down the side? 

If you want to see a really big version, here ya go. Just click on it to be able to zoom in. The "triangle" shapes on the glass mean that the window is operable.  Seems like a lot of projects are foregoing individual balconies and providing one common outdoor space, usually on the roof. If you can't do it because of historical standards, I get that (like the Boardwalk), but otherwise it's kinda lame. I wouldn't rent an apartment without the ability to go outside to a balcony. What if you have friends over and people want to smoke? Make them go downstairs and outside? 

[arcturus]

4 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

What if you have friends over and people want to smoke? Make them go downstairs and outside? 

 

In Tucson right now the city is considering a ban on construction of new buildings with balconies.  It seems people get drunk every now and then and play bombs away with bottles tossed off the balcony without regard to the law of gravity and who might be below.  

[GR_Urbanist]

I guess just like the new project on Bond, it's a matter of whether we are going to have a place to put people DT that want to be there soon, or will they move on to another city.

The big problem is that GR lacks any significant examples of amazing, world-class architecture, so when we look at the bland structures that are the only things getting built, they REALLY stand out.

Buildings like this are fairly commonplace in large American cities, it's just that they are built around really amazing buildings so no one notices. Just doing a Google image search on Seattle apartment buildings yields numerous examples of buildings that are almost identical to these in GR, so it isnt a lack of effort, it's more of just that's what the generic style is.

 

 

But at least will really complete the retail/restaurant street-wall in that part of of downtown.

[WMrapids]

5 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Yes, with the alternating random patterns going down the side? 

Exactly. It's messy and makes it look like they took too much time designing the inside but forgot that the public will see this calamity...

The original proposal was much more sleek and didn't look stubby like this. I also loved the "T" shape it made and the use of overhangs. I usually don't get too upset over things like this, I mean I'm not as enthused about how the tower (or cube) next to the BOB ended up, but I'm happy that we're actually got something there. This, however, is a clear miss that had potential.

[x99]

Pure crap designed by the laziest hack in the office.  

Apparently, they had to go to Chicago to make a half-a$$ed local design even worse.

[jthrasher]

I seriously hope these aren't final renderings.  Do we have anyone in this city who's job it is to approve final designs?  

Wouldn't this location be a good spot for a first floor grocery store?

Edited February 11, 2016 by jthrasher

[GRDadof3]

22 minutes ago, jthrasher said:

I seriously hope these aren't final renderings.  Do we have anyone in this city who's job it is to approve final designs?  

Wouldn't this location be a good spot for a first floor grocery store?

The building is under construction = drawings have been approved. Technically those you see are not THE official construction drawings that the builder and its trades are using, but they were the latest version the city has (they came directly from the city, not the developer).

[joeDowntown]

I agree. Much crappier than the original design. Value engineering at it finest, lousy design, or both? Boo!

joe

[GRDadof3]

I don't really think the design is that bad. It's really hard to determine depth on a 2d drawing (they don't draw in shadows like on a rendering), so there may be more contours than what is shown.

I won't be living here or looking at it all day so I guess I'm not that offended by it. 

 

[WMrapids]

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

It's really hard to determine depth on a 2d drawing (they don't draw in shadows like on a rendering), so there may be more contours than what is shown.

If you look at both drawings that are at different angles, you can see that it doesn't have many contours unless the windows are setback, which would make the random windows look more hideous.

[GRDadof3]

5 hours ago, WMrapids said:

If you look at both drawings that are at different angles, you can see that it doesn't have many contours unless the windows are setback, which would make the random windows look more hideous.

As I said, without the renderings, I will reserve judgement. 

[GRDadof3]

The new design seems to be more brick and glass, as opposed to an overabundance of EIFS on the old design. 

Looks like PappageorgeHaymes has done a similar alternating window pattern mid-rise, on Clybourn in Chicago. I don't think it's that bad. 

http://pappageorgehaymes.com/projects/clybourn-division

It's like what a lot of dutch architects seem to like to do. 

 

 

 

 

In fact, the Zuid World Trade Center Train Station tower in Amsterdam looks eerily close. Even similar glass color. Designed by Kohn Pederson Fox.

 

 

[GRDadof3]

Wire frames. My scaling might be a tad off. 

 

 

 

 

[WMrapids]

I think the difference is that the window pattern looks better on a more narrow building that stretches up.

[joeDowntown]

Anyone good with Sketchup? Seems like it would be pretty easy to skin this on a 3d model for reference (won't necessarily show depth and shadows, but would be an interesting representation). 

Joe

[WMrapids]

Here's a quick one.

Edited February 14, 2016 by WMrapids