Jump to content

Twelve Weston (Formerly known as 35 and 41 S Division)


ModSquad

Recommended Posts

I agree. Most buildings are just "buildings," not necessarily trying to make a statement (which is more often then not, the architect making a statement about his own big ego, usually men).

 

At least they did a way better job of screening the parking than Arena Place did.

 

I too would love to see what x-99 likes. :)

 

Hahahah anytime there's a new rendering for anything it's like grumpy cat lives in GR

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I see a little bit of the Hillmount in the base of this building, a little bit of City Hall in the glass tower, and a little bit of Arena Place in the brick tower that runs up the side of the building. I also see a little bit of the Children's Hospital with the large square base with a building on top.   If it's meant as a discussion rendering then I think that it's fine to discuss it... good and bad.   I like the International Style, and the transparent glass.  I don't like what appears to be an older building base with a newer building dropped on top.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

designated historic structures and districts. In a nutshell: preserve what already exists, replace like with like, and permit only those alterations which are truly unavoidable and do not detract from the existing character. This project is a bit more complex, perhaps, because it is new construction in a historic district. In this case the standards describe that such a building both 1) be compatible with the existing character of place and 2) be clearly differentiated from other older structures in order to avoid confusion about its time of origin.

 

These are the questions HPC must consider. And, of course, compliance with the federal standards doesn't guarantee good design, be it traditional or contemporary or a watered-down version of both. An evaluation of "good" isn't what the Commission exists to accomplish.

 

 

Sort of accurate, although I don't think whoever designed this had historic standards in mind.  We've had this discussion here before, so I'll spare another lengthy diatribe.  But, the actual standard that they'll need to meet is that “[t]he new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.”  PB14 at http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior-additions.htm was recently revised to further suggest that something that actually fits in is acceptable.  See Figure 10 and 21. 

 

That said, there is no reason these designs have to be so boring other than lack of design talent.  Assuming this is a brick facade, it is not that much more expensive to do things right.  

 

I would also disagree that an evaluation of "good design" is not what the commission exists to do.  This is exactly what they are there to do, albeit indirectly.  Make no mistake about it:  And HPC is an architectural review board.  They are there to ensure that a new design is compatible.  When you propose a hideous, boring building that is surrounded by otherwise attractive structures with good proportions and good detail, "compatibility" can and should mean the incompatible, ugly building goes down in flames.  Now, that doesn't mean that you couldn't wind up with a fairly uninspired design.  But you should not end up with weird, crappy s--- buildings like the low income housing projects that went up with square tiles, "jumbo" bricks, or metal panelized exteriors.   These are perfect examples of things that should not have happened, but did. 

 

Historic concerns aside, these just aren't very good buildings.  The so-called "architects" need to put away their computers, take out their pencils, walk around the neighborhood, get some inspiration, and get to work.  Not hard.  But it requires a degree of creative talent that seems to be in short supply.

 

I did a quick ten minute sketch.  There are a few clever fixes here that would improve things quite a bit--The four story brick part would get arches on each side surrounding the sets of four windows, recessed by at least two courses of brick to provide some variation in the facade depth.  Inside the arches we'd switch to a black painted ornamented aluminum to mimic ornamental ironwork, as on the Acton Institute reno.  Double hung window design roughly stays the same, but with the top floor windows intersecting with the archway.  Although, I might switch to a single window on each "side" of the arch with a mulled pair in the middle. Center two columns of window convert to mulled together pairs, with limestone lintels beneath.  Windows on the first floor would come 2 feet off the ground to improve design compatibility with existing, with proper recessed entryways and a also using horizontal textured glass paneling appx 2 feet high to match existing traditional and provide a cohesive street presentation.  Brick section gets a nice, fat pediment on top with ornamental brackets and a raised section in the middle.  Treatment on that could vary.  Now, none of this works if this section is a panelized brick parking ramp.  So... who knows.  :)    I didn't play around with the top section much.  While I sort of like the glass tower, I'm not convinced it is appropriate since this is technically a historic district.   I would probably continue the brick on up, extending on the arch theme, perhaps terminating it in a hipped roof sort of like 5 Lyon, but if faux copper That might be interesting.   That's a fairly vertical, yet still economically built structure.  Now, I would love to put a huge clock face on top, but I don't think that's in the budget.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Something like Rockville Town Square, for example.

 

Rockville_2.jpg

 

Meh. Seriously this faux-chitecture was done to death in the 1990's, 2000's. Haven't we moved beyond? Looks like something you'd see in suburban Washington DC, not in a city. And a sloped roof? That's not even in character with anything around. But at least people 20 miles away can tell the time. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is as uninspired as a pole barn.

 

And the square cubes with a glass box on top are more inspired?  Things like Rockville Town Square might not be hip and edgy, but they are award-winning examples of New Urbanist design.  They design for posterity, with a human-scaled design with lots of visual interest, albeit generally still quite toned down from what was historically appropriate.  Still, in a historic district, I think a New Urbanist design is a particularly good approach.

 

 

Meh. Seriously this faux-chitecture was done to death in the 1990's, 2000's. Haven't we moved beyond? Looks like something you'd see in suburban Washington DC, not in a city. And a sloped roof? That's not even in character with anything around. But at least people 20 miles away can tell the time. :)

 

"Faux-chitecture"?  New Urbanism thanks you for hating it.  The sloped roof on top would be a different treatment, sure, but there aren't any other 12+ story buildings around either. 

 

I realize there is always going to a push for more "modern" structures, but I tend to make decisions based on experience.  Our last flirtation with "modern" structures brought us Urban Renewal.  What I want to see are more Ledyard Buildings or McKay Towers--buildings that are still treasured a century later.  What I don't want are more ugly buildings like the Urban Renewal District, where most people want the whole thing bulldozed again because the designs failed the test of time.

 

Granted, this isn't a terrible design--it's basically a badly done warehouse with a glass tower on top.  It could be far worse.  It's just sad that what was there was so much better looking (barring the obvious structural issues and various alterations).  Crying over split milk, I suppose.

Edited by x99
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the square cubes with a glass box on top are more inspired?  Things like Rockville Town Square might not be hip and edgy, but they are award-winning examples of New Urbanist design.  They design for posterity, with a human-scaled design with lots of visual interest, albeit generally still quite toned down from what was historically appropriate.  Still, in a historic district, I think a New Urbanist design is a particularly good approach.

 

 

 

"Faux-chitecture"?  New Urbanism thanks you for hating it.  The sloped roof on top would be a different treatment, sure, but there aren't any other 12+ story buildings around either. 

 

I realize there is always going to a push for more "modern" structures, but I tend to make decisions based on experience.  Our last flirtation with "modern" structures brought us Urban Renewal.  What I want to see are more Ledyard Buildings or McKay Towers--buildings that are still treasured a century later.  What I don't want are more ugly buildings like the Urban Renewal District, where most people want the whole thing bulldozed again because the designs failed the test of time.

 

Granted, this isn't a terrible design--it's basically a badly done warehouse with a glass tower on top.  It could be far worse.  It's just sad that what was there was so much better looking (barring the obvious structural issues and various alterations).  Crying over split milk, I suppose.

 

 

The whole "New urbanism" trend is dead, I thought? Didn't it die with the housing crash? I haven't really heard the term used in a while. The whole concept of trying to make suburbs feel like cities. Went out with Richard Florida? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole "New urbanism" trend is dead, I thought? Didn't it die with the housing crash? I haven't really heard the term used in a while. The whole concept of trying to make suburbs feel like cities. Went out with Richard Florida? :)

 

Far from it.  Granted, the concept was to make suburbs like cities, which was a little odd, even if a noble idea (particularly from a land-use perspective).  But when it comes to actual urban redevelopment projects, making a city feel like a city by drawing on what historically made them successful isn't a bad idea.  

 

I think we've lost something very important in the buildings we are building--in particular a sense of beauty and visual interest.  The idea that we're building something to endure for the ages seems to have gone away.  The Trust Building, Ledyard, and Michigan National Bank Buildings are revered.  Fifth Third Center is reviled.  There's a reason for that.  Instead of designing a built environment that is uplifting and interesting and filled with aesthetic beauty, we so often keep designing a built environment that simply gets the job done and nothing more.  Unfortunately, this addition is in the latter category--it gets the job done, and nothing more.

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far from it.  Granted, the concept was to make suburbs like cities, which was a little odd, even if a noble idea (particularly from a land-use perspective).  But when it comes to actual urban redevelopment projects, making a city feel like a city by drawing on what historically made them successful isn't a bad idea.  

 

I think we've lost something very important in the buildings we are building--in particular a sense of beauty and visual interest.  The idea that we're building something to endure for the ages seems to have gone away.  The Trust Building, Ledyard, and Michigan National Bank Buildings are revered.  Fifth Third Center is reviled.  There's a reason for that.  Instead of designing a built environment that is uplifting and interesting and filled with aesthetic beauty, we so often keep designing a built environment that simply gets the job done and nothing more.  Unfortunately, this addition is in the latter category--it gets the job done, and nothing more.

 

 

I will agree with that, and I'm just giving you a hard time.

 

We should all strive for better, and also be open-minded to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GVSU's original downtown campus is x99's architectural mecca then?  #edgy

 

Actually, their most recent addition was done by a very well regarded architectural firm, Robert A.M. Stern.  In general, they do exemplary work.  If Sibsco hires Stern do a building on Division in a historic district, you'd probably see me jumping for joy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, their most recent addition was done by a very well regarded architectural firm, Robert A.M. Stern.  In general, they do exemplary work.  If Sibsco hires Stern do a building on Division in a historic district, you'd probably see me jumping for joy.

 

Oh god no. You can't have a low rise architect do a mid or high rise project. If you attempted a high rise with the amount of heavy masonry and inset windows that the GVSU business college has, it would give the sense that you were in North Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we've lost something very important in the buildings we are building--in particular a sense of beauty and visual interest.  The idea that we're building something to endure for the ages seems to have gone away.  The Trust Building, Ledyard, and Michigan National Bank Buildings are revered.  Fifth Third Center is reviled.  There's a reason for that.  Instead of designing a built environment that is uplifting and interesting and filled with aesthetic beauty, we so often keep designing a built environment that simply gets the job done and nothing more.  Unfortunately, this addition is in the latter category--it gets the job done, and nothing more.

 

I appreciate the sentiment - I really do - but I think you give the old builders of our historic buildings too much credit.  Trust, Ledyard, and 77 Monroe were built at separate times spanning over 50 years (1892, 1874, 1926 respectively) and all they all replaced something else that was already there.  Buildings had life spans back then just as they do now.  That we have so many that have endured is GR's blessing, to say the least.

 

To say "our last flirtation with modern structures brought us urban renewal" is unfair.  I would argue the problem with urban renewal wasn't so much the buildings' aesthetic but that they erased the streetscape to give way for concrete plazas and landscaping.  I may be in the minority here, but I like a lot of modern buildings in GR.  I like the current City/County buildings.  I like the '60s facade of the Post Office (though I don't like the rest of it).  I even liked the old Hall of Justice too.  The irony with urban renewal is, that actually was intended to be a grand vision that would stand the test of time.  It's just that the vision was wrong, and it's easy for us to say that in retrospect.  If Grab Corners was still around today, you would be all over the city on this forum demanding that they make it easier for parking.

 

But Rockville, MD?  Really?  To me, I see total faux-chitecture.  The pictures look nice, but have you actually been to Rockville?  That's not rhetorical, I'm seriously asking.  I haven't, but I've been to many similar town square concepts, like "Downtown" Brea, CA or "Downtown" Virginia Beach, and they don't impress me.  They're nice places, but they don't feel like real cities at all.  They just don't.  And further, I don't see at all how concepts like those could "endure for ages" while modern concepts couldn't.  Personally, I like the international style that inspired the glass tower in the Sibisco project.  I would prefer the building fit the corner more than make a statement, and I think with some tweaking it will do that.  It's possible, just look at the Amway Grand - I think the modern glass tower is elegantly designed, and doesn't get in the way of the historic Pantlind Hotel at all.

Edited by RegalTDP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with x99 here.  Although Regal does raise a good point -- the best of the past survives and the mediocre is gone, making the past look better than it was, looking at historic images the infill was still largely fantastic as well, wheras currently it feels bland and boring.
 
What really gets me is the labeling of anything new done in a more classic style as faux-chitecture.  That drives me up the wall.  It's a word that gets slapped on anything that isn't modern as a way to discredit it in its entirety without actually analyzing the design itself -- both its merits and its shortcomings.  We argue all the time on how we can improve a detail here or a detail there on a modern building, but if it's a classically-designed building, that is skipped, it's labeled "fauxchitecture" and tossed into the rubbish.  And that handling of it further creates an environment hostile to anyone who may want to do a classically-designed building right, and simply settle for mediocre modern structures.  It's like discrediting someone's viewpoint with a single word.  "Well, you're just a conservative/liberal/ideology-here" and moving on.  It's awful, and not logically sound.
 
What we SHOULD be calling such approches are Pre-modern Revivalism.  Revivalism is nothing new to architecture and in fact has given us some of our greatest treasures.  The Houses of Parliament and Big Ben's Tower in London?  Gothic Revival.  Not Gothic Faux-chitecture, not Disneyworld Gothic -- Gothic Revival.  And it's beautiful.
 
We should stop saying "it's just trying to be old but it's not" and instead be saying "how can we make this classically-designed structure feel valuable and fresh?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the building proposed, everything I would say about it has already been said.  The brick wall on the side needs work, the elevator shaft needs some major work.  The International-Style floor is awkward, at least on the property-line-touching sides.  International style alcove facing the actual rooftop plaza would be excellent, actually, but against the property edge it feels silly and makes the building feel like disconnected blocks -- a frequent problem in modern architecture imho.  And as x99 said, I feel some opportunity for plays on the verticality of the building are sorely missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Less dystopian is a good word. Goes before the HPC this Wednesday at 5:00. I was told this is just an "informal" rendering/discussion and not the final plans. 

 

With Gallery, 20 Fulton East and this project, it will be a cluster of mid-rises kind of like the intersection of Monroe Center and Ionia. 

 

 

15805117464_e6ed3c4891_o.jpg

 

*Quoting this so people don't have to keep flipping back up*

 

The other thing I thought about is that this angle is one that most people won't see. Except for maybe the new residents on the back side of 20 Fulton E. It should be showing a ground level angle looking up. You won't even see the "International Style" columns inset from the street. You will see the elevator shaft and the small windows on the parking levels though. And the big blank brick wall hiding behind the trees on Weston. :)

 

Here's a fascinating picture of New York City during a building boom in the 1960's (?).

 

 

NewYorkPhoto-2.jpg

 

 

 

While they certainly have their classical characteristics, they seem to mark a particular period of time. Who's to say they'll last longer then a glass and steel structure? The first word that comes to mind when I see an old section of a downtown like this (like Detroit) I think "gold standard."

 

Here's a picture of a section of Toronto with its building boom going on (147 skyscrapers going up right now). They seem to speak more about lightness, swiftness, flexibility. I think "international currency exchange." And you can't really point at them and know exactly where the elevator shaft is. :)

 

 

 

Delta-Toronto-Bremner-office-tower-and-I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An elevator shaft doesn't necessarily have to be hidden or have unknown location.  It's pretty obvious where it is on 77 Monroe and that's a fantastic building.  But the key there is that shaft is dressed up much like the rest of the building, not quite as heavy on detail as the rest of the building but still dressed up.  But when you have an all glass building that has no details at all, treating it that way is nearly impossible.  I'm actually not sure how that elevator shaft could really be improved aside from just starting over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really gets me is the labeling of anything new done in a more classic style as faux-chitecture.  That drives me up the wall.  It's a word that gets slapped on anything that isn't modern as a way to discredit it in its entirety without actually analyzing the design itself -- both its merits and its shortcomings.  We argue all the time on how we can improve a detail here or a detail there on a modern building, but if it's a classically-designed building, that is skipped, it's labeled "fauxchitecture" and tossed into the rubbish.  And that handling of it further creates an environment hostile to anyone who may want to do a classically-designed building right, and simply settle for mediocre modern structures.  It's like discrediting someone's viewpoint with a single word.  "Well, you're just a conservative/liberal/ideology-here" and moving on.  It's awful, and not logically sound.

 

I'm willing to retire the term "faux-chitecture," but I will say: (a) Rockville and other town center projects are still poor examples of "enduring" or "long-lasting" architecture.  Or maybe a better word is "unconvincing." (b) For whatever biases there are against "Revivalism," I think the reverse is more prevalent, in biases against modernism.  I'm not the one making blanket statements like "Modern structures gave us Urban Renewal."

 

But I like your thoughts regarding this building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm willing to retire the term "faux-chitecture," but I will say: (a) Rockville and other town center projects are still poor examples of "enduring" or "long-lasting" architecture.  Or maybe a better word is "unconvincing." (b) For whatever biases there are against "Revivalism," I think the reverse is more prevalent, in biases against modernism.  I'm not the one making blanket statements like "Modern structures gave us Urban Renewal."

 

I have to agree with Tony.  Something isn't "fake" because it utilizes elements of a prior style.  What makes many new buildings "unconvincing" is that they are simply not well done.  They use traditional load-bearing materials in a way that makes the building look flimsy.  There are rules you need to follow to make, for example, a brick facade look like it is load bearing and  not about to shear off the structure, or collapse over the windows.  There are rules you need to follow to make a pillar look like it isn't about to collapse.  Many architecture schools don't bother with those rules because their concentration is on modernism, which is the rule of the day in most architecture schools and major projects.  As for bias, the bias against modernism is prevalent primarily among the general public, which doesn't much care for it as evidenced by the styles of houses they demand.  Everywhere else, it's the rule because it's the only thing most non-residential architects can pull off because most of them don't know how to do anything else decently (as evidence by almost every recent proposal in a historic district).  With some constructive feedback, hopefully they can learn to do a better job.

 

As for this building, my problem is that is less involved and appealing than a 100 year old factory or warehouse using the same materials. I appreciate the brick (probably a sop to the HPC), but you need only look what was there before to see how bad the rest is.  Same materials, but all of the detail and character is lacking: 

 

building.jpg

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Tony.  Something isn't "fake" because it utilizes elements of a prior style.  What makes many new buildings "unconvincing" is that they are simply not well done.  They use traditional load-bearing materials in a way that makes the building look flimsy.  There are rules you need to follow to make, for example, a brick facade look like it is load bearing and  not about to shear off the structure, or collapse over the windows.  There are rules you need to follow to make a pillar look like it isn't about to collapse.  Many architecture schools don't bother with those rules because their concentration is on modernism, which is the rule of the day in most architecture schools and major projects.  As for bias, the bias against modernism is prevalent primarily among the general public, which doesn't much care for it as evidenced by the styles of houses they demand.  Everywhere else, it's the rule because it's the only thing most non-residential architects can pull off because most of them don't know how to do anything else decently (as evidence by almost every recent proposal in a historic district).  With some constructive feedback, hopefully they can learn to do a better job.

 

As for this building, my problem is that is less involved and appealing than a 100 year old factory or warehouse using the same materials. I appreciate the brick (probably a sop to the HPC), but you need only look what was there before to see how bad the rest is.  Same materials, but all of the detail and character is lacking: 

 

building.jpg

 

 

That goes back to a thing called "cost." I think you don't grasp where construction costs have escalated in the last decade. They're simply "not done well" because they pretend to be historic and no client has the kind of cash to make it right.

 

Here's a cool building, Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy at University of Michigan. Very very nicely done and most people probably don't even know it's only a few years old. Constructed for the low low price of $700/square foot (3x the average construction cost for a commercial building).

 

45308.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That goes back to a thing called "cost." I think you don't grasp where construction costs have escalated in the last decade. They're simply "not done well" because they pretend to be historic and no client has the kind of cash to make it right.

 

Here's a cool building, Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy at University of Michigan. Very very nicely done and most people probably don't even know it's only a few years old. Constructed for the low low price of $700/square foot (3x the average construction cost for a commercial building).

 

 

 

It's the same firm that designed the Seidman College of Business, Robert A.M. Stern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That goes back to a thing called "cost." I think you don't grasp where construction costs have escalated in the last decade. They're simply "not done well" because they pretend to be historic and no client has the kind of cash to make it right.

 

Here's a cool building, Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy at University of Michigan. Very very nicely done and most people probably don't even know it's only a few years old. Constructed for the low low price of $700/square foot (3x the average construction cost for a commercial building).

 

Nice building!  The other side is particularly interesting--it's actually a very fresh design using traditional materials.  Totally asymmetrical and "out there" a bit, but because of the architect's skill, it still looks fantastic.  FWIW, I'm not sure on the $700/sf.  Most references say $35mm for the whole project cost for 80,000 square feet.  Archiplanet puts the building at exactly 85,622 square feet for a $21.5mm construction costs.  I assume they probably exclude some of the landscaping and outfitting costs. http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/Joan_and_Sanford_Weill_Hall,_Ann_Arbor,_Michigan  Same cost was reported in the Chronicle of Higher Educations  That amounts to $251 per square foot.  Not to mention this is a standalone structure with extensive limestone cladding, a tower (on the other side) and a 100+ year slate roof.  If correct, that isn't very expensive.

 

Urban infill, OTOH, only needs one good side facing the main street.  I still believe a lot of the issue here is a lack of local design talent for these so-called "historic" districts--not necessarily cost.  Adding in a few layers of brick for depth, tacking on a proper cornice, breaking up the fenestration pattern, and adding a modicum of visual interest and ornamentation on one side of a 4 story brick building shouldn't break the bank on construction costs.  Now, if these are precast panels covering a parking ramp, might be a different story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice building!  The other side is particularly interesting--it's actually a very fresh design using traditional materials.  Totally asymmetrical and "out there" a bit, but because of the architect's skill, it still looks fantastic. ...

The other side is on this page, look for Joan and Sanford Weill Hall.  (I left the link intact due to the interesting variety of structures shown.)

A sample of campus facilities supported by The Michigan Difference campaign

x99, I am finding your comments quite interesting as well; you're adding a lot to the general discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.