Proposal: Downtown Convention Center

[motonenterprises]

Darn. 1st world problems. Lol.

[sc smitty]

12 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

The idea of building a building that represents 1400-1600’s Europe doesn’t at all seem appropriate in 2020 Greenville, does it? They’re beautiful in their stagnant context, but they represent a time AND place that is not anywhere in North America. Replicating something has a huge potential of coming across as very Disney just so the Art seems “at home” in the architecture. The reality is that the art is going to hang on a white wall with great lighting no matter the exterior facade. I think the GCMA is a gorgeous building. And you can look at the art housed at the High in Atlanta for prestige of pieces in a modern setting. 

Using classic architectural styles and proportions isn't an inappropriate or foreign concept for Greenville today. Architects have been using the styles of classical Greek and Roman architecture for thousands of years. They are  seen in churches, civic buildings, and residences all over America, and not limited to 1400-1600's Europe. Those buildings are not merely replicas of older buildings, but take a historic form and use it for a new purpose, be it a museum, courthouse, residence, place of worship, etc. There's nothing fake or stagnant about buildings like Greenville's old county courthouse, old Washington St. post office, or the old First Baptist Church. I think they are actually some of the best examples of good architecture in town. Greenville doesn't even have that many examples, as we are so prone to tear down anything old. While I tend to prefer more traditional architecture, I think either a classical or modern building would be appropriate for an art museum. There are some great iconic examples of modern museum buildings. Even the current art museum is a decent example of a modern museum. At the same time, I think some modern buildings tend to look odd when they try too hard to be unique and different (think Frank Gehry). That being said, I don't know that this site is the best spot for a classical style building, being wedged between River St and the Academy St bridge. I think a monumental style building would have the most impact with a significant public space in front of it, or set on an axis that places it in an important spot in its surroundings.

[GvilleSC]

1 hour ago, sc smitty said:

Using classic architectural styles and proportions isn't an inappropriate or foreign concept for Greenville today. Architects have been using the styles of classical Greek and Roman architecture for thousands of years. They are  seen in churches, civic buildings, and residences all over America, and not limited to 1400-1600's Europe. Those buildings are not merely replicas of older buildings, but take a historic form and use it for a new purpose, be it a museum, courthouse, residence, place of worship, etc. There's nothing fake or stagnant about buildings like Greenville's old county courthouse, old Washington St. post office, or the old First Baptist Church. I think they are actually some of the best examples of good architecture in town. Greenville doesn't even have that many examples, as we are so prone to tear down anything old. While I tend to prefer more traditional architecture, I think either a classical or modern building would be appropriate for an art museum. There are some great iconic examples of modern museum buildings. Even the current art museum is a decent example of a modern museum. At the same time, I think some modern buildings tend to look odd when they try too hard to be unique and different (think Frank Gehry). That being said, I don't know that this site is the best spot for a classical style building, being wedged between River St and the Academy St bridge. I think a monumental style building would have the most impact with a significant public space in front of it, or set on an axis that places it in an important spot in its surroundings.

Well, the conversation has morphed from 'the likes of the louvre is the only appropriate host of such great art' to 'we need these building materials because they've stood the test of time and I don't like glass'. I don't disagree with anything that you're saying. I like the proposed vision for the site and it's contextually appropriate. 

[gman430]

When is it going to start construction?  

[Exile]

1 hour ago, GvilleSC said:

Well, the conversation has morphed from 'the likes of the louvre is the only appropriate host of such great art' to 'we need these building materials because they've stood the test of time and I don't like glass'. I don't disagree with anything that you're saying. I like the proposed vision for the site and it's contextually appropriate. 

Where did anyone suggest that "the likes of the Louvre is the only appropriate host of such great art"? I believe it was Gman who invoked the Louvre. I did offer an opinion on the pyramid there, but nowhere has anyone suggested a particular style--other than the extremely broad categories of "lasting" and "traditional", with example-lists clearly not meant to be exhaustive--much less a particular building as a model for the proposed museum.

And as far as your historical account of the conversation goes, you've got it completely backward: I *first* expressed my serious reservations about the "glass box" concept and at the same time suggested *a style* that "evokes" the art's European sources. Gman then brought up the Louvre, yada yada....you can reread it, if you choose to. Second, while there's a kernel of truth in your summary phrase "I [Exile] don't like glass," it's really a total caricature. There's a reason that postmodern architecture rejected the modernist, unadorned boxiness that this concept  seems to favor. P&K cited the "New Classical" approach, of which I'm generally a fan. Thus, I'm not alone in this--a lot of architects would essentially agree with me (and a lot would not; I get that, FTR). Finally, its not that the *building materials* that have stood the test of time (they won't--think Notre Dame, ruined abbeys, etc.), it's that the architectural style itself has endured.

Moral of the story: if you're going to criticize--directly or indirectly--someone else's expressed opinion, then represent it in a factually and conversationally-accurate way. Unless your intent is subtle mockery. Is that it? Your imperious "We won't get into..." and subtly mocking "I'd love to see you make the request..." of your most recent reply to P&K would indicate so.

[Exile]

3 hours ago, sc smitty said:

That being said, I don't know that this site is the best spot for a classical style building, being wedged between River St and the Academy St bridge. I think a monumental style building would have the most impact with a significant public space in front of it, or set on an axis that places it in an important spot in its surroundings.

I actually am inclined to agree with this. The St. Louis Art Museum is the best--and pretty much completely un-duplicatable--example of this that I know of.

Which raises the question of "wedging." Should you "wedge" this kind of museum into a development like this? What if a major benefactor--another Arthur Magill--wants to loan works to the museum? Will there be room for growth? I doubt it.

[goodbye]

A sad reality about aesthetic appeal is that a pile of poop can be declared "beautiful" by some highly educated people.

[PuppiesandKittens]

On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 10:45 AM, GvilleSC said:

We won't get into the economics, politics, and social structures of the time and how that impacted the expenditures. It's fair to say that it would not be tolerated today, especially in a locale that believes in private industry and free market. What you're not understanding is that while it may cost the "same" (more or less for the sake of argument and keeping things simple) to build those cities today, we have FAR greater, advanced technology at our hands that provide us with more affordable and efficient options for construction. So, yes-- it would be the more expensive option on the table and would be difficult to justify. 

But, I'll take your word for it. I'd love to see you make the request for money from County Council. "But, we need to increase the budget to appease my aesthetic desires." ...and the project dies.

Your statements are false.

Contrary to your statements, I have been a member of property administration committees for several organizations that have large, traditional buildings built in the 1870s-1920s, and a key part of my job has been oversight of their maintenance, including exterior maintenance.  

I've posted this before and you simply missed it.

I'm well aware of the costs of adding ornamentation to buildings, and otherwise using traditional styles.  Just like the private and public sectors both used traditional styles in the past, they do in many instances today.  The costs of ornamentation and using traditional styles are immaterial.

What makes a difference, both for construction costs and long-term maintenance, is the type of material used for the construction, regardless of style and ornamentation.  For example, sandstone is extremely expensive to maintain, even if it's used just for a plain wall.

Next time, you may wish to get your facts straight about others before trying to insult them.

[gman430]

And so it begins: https://gsabusiness.com/news/construction/77107/

An effort is underway to bring a conference center to downtown Greenville, and Phil Hughes, president of Hughes Investments, said “it looks like this is going to happen in Greenville.”

Edited September 17, 2019 by gman430

[gvegascple]

What is the over/under on Hughes getting this pulled off?

Oh, and put me in the camp for modern glass design over another brick box.  I spend of lot of time in Charleston and the new brick boxes are starting to destroy the over all architectural look of the city (as you drive in on 26 and on meeting street).  With interest rates so low we can afford some "ornamentation" and exciting design.  IMHO its time and will be a perfect fit.  Im down lets do this.

Edited September 22, 2019 by gvegascple
clarity

[gman430]

I’m giving it a very good chance of happening. Hughes and Windsor Aughtry have always built what they have announced. You also have the city, county, and state ($5 million given already) support along with a major hotel chain (Embassy Suites) already signed on.

[vicupstate]

Probably 70-80% chance, IMO.  Once the county gets on board, that goes to about 90%.   

[distortedlogic]

1 hour ago, gvegascple said:

What the over/under on Hughes getting this pulled off?

The trickier bet is WHEN  it's pulled off.

[btoy]

18 hours ago, gvegascple said:

What the over/under on Hughes getting this pulled off?

Oh, and put me in the camp for modern glass design over another brick box.  I spend of lot of time in Charleston and the new brick boxes are starting to destroy the over all architectural look of the city (as you drive in on 26 and on meeting street).  With interest rates so low we can afford some "ornamentation" and exciting design.  IMHO its time and will be a perfect fit.  Im down lets do this.

Interest rates might be low but constructions costs are extremely high right now.

[apaladin]

4 hours ago, btoy said:

Interest rates might be low but constructions costs are extremely high right now.

Don't know about that. My wife works for a building supply company and she says building material is ridiculously cheap right now. Said they would have to sell twice as much this year to make the same profit they made last year.,

[Spero]

57 minutes ago, apaladin said:

Don't know about that. My wife works for a building supply company and she says building material is ridiculously cheap right now. Said they would have to sell twice as much this year to make the same profit they made last year.,

Timber is down but steel is high and getting higher - it’s all over the news. Also, labor compliance and planning.

[gman]

1 hour ago, apaladin said:

Don't know about that. My wife works for a building supply company and she says building material is ridiculously cheap right now. Said they would have to sell twice as much this year to make the same profit they made last year.,

Construction costs are at record levels at the present time. 

[apaladin]

On 9/18/2019 at 2:15 PM, vicupstate said:

Probably 70-80% chance, IMO.  Once the county gets on board, that goes to about 90%.   

Once the county gets involved wouldn't that make the chance go way down? 

[vicupstate]

16 minutes ago, apaladin said:

Once the county gets involved wouldn't that make the chance go way down? 

I get your point, but the expectation is that they only will be writing a check.  Of course that does give them some say I suppose. 

[GvilleSC]

I think satisfying and respecting each museum seems like a tricky component, and this project definitely needs that component in order to keep this thing a 7-days-a-week kind of draw. But, yes -- they definitely can't move forward without the capital. Sheesh- there will be a lot of players in this. 

[gman430]

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/10/01/greenville-county-sc-vote-funds-downtown-conference-center-reedy-river/3823126002/ 

Edited October 1, 2019 by gman430

[vicupstate]

Excellent. The only thing I see preventing this is the state funding, but I assume that is largely in the works since they have gotten this far. 

[distortedlogic]

The proposal has called for 65,000 ft for both museums. That seems very small to me. I would have thought the current art museum already had that much, after all it's like 4 or 5 floors. And the old Bob Jones museum wasn't small. Anyone have any insight?

[vicupstate]

1 minute ago, distortedlogic said:

The proposal has called for 65,000 ft for both museums. That seems very small to me. I would have thought the current art museum already had that much, after all it's like 4 or 5 floors. And the old Bob Jones museum wasn't small. Anyone have any insight?

65,000 SF is the CONFERENCE space, not the museums. 

 

Quote

The South Carolina Art and Cultural Center — which would house 65,000 square feet of conference space and two art museums along with accompanying private development next to RiverPlace

 

[GvilleSC]

Glad to see the County moving this forward! 

I have mixed feelings on what they're currently calling it (is this permanent?).  I kind of like the state branding on it, but a strong abbreviation would be nice and more easily brandable at first thought. SCACC...? Anyone else have a first impression and reaction?