Warner Building/Hyatt Place - Lyon and Ottawa/Pearl and Ottawa

[Guest]

12 Weston is Secchia, not Orion.   The bank in the offer tower is publicly traded and new to Grand Rapids.   I don't think the size will change.   

[joeDowntown]

17 hours ago, urbanland said:

12 Weston is Secchia, not Orion.   The bank in the offer tower is publicly traded and new to Grand Rapids.   I don't think the size will change.   

I know who's building what. My point is that 12 Weston seems a little premature/in a lousy location for class A office space. If I were Orion, I'd be contacting potential tenants of 12 Weston. That's all I meant by the first post. Seems like the Warner tower is an ideal location for anyone looking at new space in the core and I'm still hesitant about 12 Weston getting built (though I was hesitant about the venue tower and it's already well underway; I've been wrong before )   

Joe

 

 

[x99]

On 3/30/2016 at 11:54 AM, JP9 said:

Wow, this rendering makes me really sad... lol.  -Would've been nice...

Does anyone know who owns the large surface lot between Ionia and Division?  (just NE of the Lyon/Ottawa site)

It's still far and away the crown jewel of anything proposed for downtown in the last 20 years, in my book.  Something like that could have made a real difference.  'Twas not to be.  Have any renderings of the actual proposed building been posted yet?  Why the ongoing cloak and dagger?

[mpchicago]

At long last.....Warner Tower.....

[GRDadof3]

More elevations. I sometimes long for the days of Icon on Bond.  

I don't understand, on the high profile North side of the building, why they can't carry the horizontal architectural elements across the parking levels. At least SOME of the elements. It can't really be that expensive in relation to the entire project. The added bonus for Warner Norcross and Judd is that it makes their office presence LOOK bigger. It'll look like they have a 14 story office building (the tallest in the land) instead of a 7 story office building plopped on top of a parking garage. 

*I'm thinking that the North side of the building is going to be the highest profile because you'll be able to see it from a greater distance (the courthouse is stepped way back from the property line), and it's a major gateway into downtown off the Ottawa exit. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.968408,-85.6700912,3a,75y,180.64h,95.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2AZwmjpHoh2YZiQOKpnsYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mpchicago]

Unless I'm reading the materials schedule incorrectly, the parking garages for BOTH the office and residential towers will be clad in the below Atlas - Belvedere aluminum wall system.  So apparently this is what you would see coming all the way up Ottawa for six floors.  Someone, please tell me I reading the schedule wrong!   The exception being the south side of the residential tower. Parking levels would be exposed - no screening.  Great for those looking out the windows of the Michigan Trust building! 

Edited April 25, 2016 by mpchicago

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, mpchicago said:

Unless I reading the materials schedule incorrectly, the parking garages for BOTH the office and residential towers will be clad in the below Atlas - Belvedere aluminum wall system.  So apparently this is what you would see coming all the way up Ottawa for six floors.  Someone, please tell me I reading the schedule wrong!   The exception being the south side of the residential tower. Parking levels would be exposed - no screening.  Great for those looking out the windows of the Michigan Trust building! 

I know this is a small town and my words will probably come back on me some day, but why are these guys being held up as the architecture gurus in Grand Rapids? 

http://www.grbj.com/articles/84854-future-of-citys-skyline-shaped-by-past-and-present

How does this statement: “Today, architecture is just as important as in any era of our country. It is critical when we design/assist our architects that they understand the longevity of what they are doing to our community.”

..jive with what they are presenting with this design? It's almost like a big inside joke that I'm not getting. I know we all want density and continued rejuvenation of downtown, but this is a 100 year building they are creating. At least I would hope it lasts 100 years. 

[GR8scott]

looks very suburban Chicago to me, too bad it takes up one of the few remaining prime spots for something tall....I mean iconic tall in the center of the skyline

[x99]

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I know this is a small town and my words will probably come back on me some day, but why are these guys being held up as the architecture gurus in Grand Rapids? 

http://www.grbj.com/articles/84854-future-of-citys-skyline-shaped-by-past-and-present

How does this statement: “Today, architecture is just as important as in any era of our country. It is critical when we design/assist our architects that they understand the longevity of what they are doing to our community.”

..jive with what they are presenting with this design? It's almost like a big inside joke that I'm not getting. I know we all want density and continued rejuvenation of downtown, but this is a 100 year building they are creating. At least I would hope it lasts 100 years. 

Allow me to offer my wonderful little extended opinion:  I hope it never gets built and that if it is built, it falls over or is demolished because it is so offensively ugly.  Warner and Orion should be ashamed of themselves for imposing this giant piece of steaming architectural sewage on our fair city.   

These quotes from John Wheeler, in light of these elevations, are downright hilarious:  

"It is critical when we design/assist our architects that they understand the longevity of what they are doing to our community.”  REALLY?  SERIOUSLY?  HOW ABOUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE PERMANENTLY F---ING UP OUR CITY WITH CRAP THAT LOOKS EVEN *WORSE* THAN THE STUFF THEY BUILT DURING URBAN RENEWAL?  NOW THAT TAKES *REAL* TALENT, JOHN!  AND YES, I "AM SHOUTING BECAUSE THE CRAP YOU BUILD REALLY IS THAT AWFUL.  CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP! UGLY UGLY CRAP!

"Wheeler said to ensure the architect understands the gravity of adding a major building to downtown, he chooses local talent, as they are 'as skilled as anywhere in the country.'"  Oh, come on.  10 years ago Concept Design showed that someone over there had some talent with the then-proposed design for this corner.   Scale that down and you still have something pretty good.  But now.  Oh, my.  That talent has either evaporated or gone elsewhere based on their stuff of late.  Progressive?  Bah.  They have shown time and again that they have little understanding of how to design a good urban building, in my view.  That visual expertise simply does not appear to be in their wheelhouse.  I have yet to see any recent project from a local architect that would prove that local firms around here have as much skill as great firms elsewhere, if you judge them by the visual quality of the finished projects.  They are simply not on par with the big boys.  Lately, it has been PURE CRAP.  Now, how much of this has been driven by Orion and others DEMANDING garbage is hard to say.  It would be interesting to know what GVSU paid to construct the shell of the Seidman center (designed by... ta dum.. a nationally known New York architect) vs what Orion is paying for this sort of visual filth.

" where, 50 years from now, they will look back and say, ‘That was a great time in the city’s history.’”  No, we'll still be regretting all of it, and fantasizing about tearing down just about every darn thing you ever laid a hand on.  Actually, we'll probably be fantasizing about this before it ever gets built.  This building will be so bad and supremely sh---y that we'll forget about knocking down the Urban Renewal Zone because it will look sophisticated and thoughtful by comparison.  We'll be pondering, in 50 years, how it is that some 65 year old Ellis Parking  or Monroe Center ramp still looks better than a 14 story building designed by an honest-to-goodness professional architects.  Then, hopefully, we as a city will band together to collectively purchase what will be, by then, an abandoned eyesore, burn it to the ground, and rejoice as the column of smoke promises something that isn't an offensive blot on all that was ever right and good about architecture.

I pray to god this project dies on the vine.  I had a hard time imaging how you would make the Fifth Third Center look good.  It seems Orion found a way.  Build more of their disgusting, hideous garbage next to it.  Now THAT is talent--making people scream "OH MY GOD THIS IS COMICALLY AWFUL!! Shameful, nasty, awful, disgusting S__T!! WHY OR WHY COULDN'T YOU AT LEAST HAVE MADE IT AS NICE AS THAT UGLY BUILDING SITTING NEARBY" so loudly that they start treasuring URZ stuff they previously hated.  Something that makes them long for Brutalism, shag carpet, and woodgrain paneling.  I cannot believe Warner would pay more to be in this place (I assume) than their current quarters.  It looks more like a building being built by and for the cheapest little low-rent firms in town, not the priciest.  If this building were being built in Chicago, Legal Aid would turn up its nose.  It's THAT BAD.  Of course, that genuine architectural treasure with a hole in the side that Orion put up for Miller Johnson at Arena Place wasn't much better.  So maybe there's a competition among big law firms to see who can partner up with Orion to pop up the nastiest piece of putrid crap of a building in town?  Varnum's gotta be just rolling in the aisles wondering just how it is their 20+ year old building can still blow these other guys out of the water.  Now that's a nice, modern building.  That whole thing is just classy.  What had been proposed here 10 years ago was classy.  This is just NASTY.

... and  Cue joeDowntown ragging on me for hating everything.  So let me respond.  Look Joe! A GARGANTUAN EXPOSED CONCRETE PARKING RAMP.  It's the nastiest ramp and the nastiest building built in decades, all coupled together into one unholy union.  Well, nastiest other than Arena Place.  Which is just suuuuper duuuuuuper naaaaasty.  Hey, who needs to speak like they have class when the builders don't even bother to pretend they have a drop of it?  Maybe they can even add some vinyl siding to this one!  

So, um, that's my elongated opinion.  All optimism or hope that I might have had for this project is dead and buried.  It is flat-out UGLY.  The parking lot is better, because then at least you see the Trust Building when you get off the highway and not this hideous piece of "s".  Excuse me while I take a break.  I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.  Blech.  Or maybe that was just the taste this building left.  YUCK!

Nice square cube that looks like a vertical office trailer park sitting on top of a concrete bunker, losers.  

Edited April 25, 2016 by x99

[Guest]

Hey x99, have you seen the renderings of this project? 

[mpchicago]

34 minutes ago, urbanland said:

Hey x99, have you seen the renderings of this project? 

I haven't, and would love too.   Didn't Wheeler say we would see renderings by the end of the first quarter of this year? I will say it's really hard to get a good feel for the project with just black and white elevations.  You don't get the depth, color and feel for the materials.  However, if they are really cladding the six floors of parking along Lyon in that aluminum siding, I'm not sure that a rendering is going to help. None the less, show me the money (renderings)!

Edited April 25, 2016 by mpchicago

[MJLO]

1 hour ago, x99 said:

 

So, um, that's my elongated opinion.  All optimism or hope that I might have had for this project is dead and buried.  It is flat-out UGLY.  The parking lot is better, because then at least you see the Trust Building when you get off the highway and not this hideous piece of "s".  Excuse me while I take a break.  I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.  Blech.  Or maybe that was just the taste this building left.  YUCK!

Nice square cube that looks like a vertical office trailer park sitting on top of a concrete bunker, losers.  

I do agree with your opinion, and feel like we as a community should take this to the city to stop Orion and the vertical mobile home park they've been making downtown.   However in the meantime I recommend

[x99]

42 minutes ago, urbanland said:

Hey x99, have you seen the renderings of this project? 

... Do they magically have a building that looks nothing at all like the elevations?  Because that would really be something.  You know, something more like this, which would still look awesome in an elevation drawing: 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This building was AWESOME.   BEAAUUUUUUTIFUL!  CLASSY!  The parking screen is logical, it makes sense (although the faux windows could be done a little better--an easy fix), and the building as a whole is simply very well done.  It honors the historic buildings surrounding it, while still doing its own thing.  You could carve out the corners for some balconies, and Bob's your uncle, still works.  I'd be proud to have that building in our town.  Fabulous.  Gorgeous.  Wonderful.  

The newly proposed piece of garbage looks like urban blight before they even turn a shovel. Irredeemable

Edited April 25, 2016 by x99

[WMrapids]

13 minutes ago, MJLO said:

I do agree with your opinion, and feel like we as a community should take this to the city to stop Orion and the vertical mobile home park they've been making downtown.

Where do I sign up? 

[GR_Urbanist]

If they had managed to stop just at the lower portion of the old Lyon/Ottawa proposal, and do the tower at a later date, that would be a major improvement over doing something that will never look good. At least the streetwall would be complete.

[Allison Slater]

5 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

...but this is a 100 year building they are creating. At least I would hope it lasts 100 years. 

With this design, I hope it doesn't...

[GRDadof3]

3 hours ago, mpchicago said:

I haven't, and would love too.   Didn't Wheeler say we would see renderings by the end of the first quarter of this year? I will say it's really hard to get a good feel for the project with just black and white elevations.  You don't get the depth, color and feel for the materials.  However, if they are really cladding the six floors of parking along Lyon in that aluminum siding, I'm not sure that a rendering is going to help. None the less, show me the money (renderings)!

Exactly. No rendering can fix that up. 

This is the third building in a row (Arena South, Icon II and now this) where Concept Design Group has proposed open "obviously visible" non screened parking levels. At what vaunted architecture school is this taught to be an OK thing to do? 

I agree with x99 too that at least with a parking lot, you get a nice view of one of downtown's nicest buildings, the Trust Building with its reddish brown stone work. This will completely cover it up. 

 

 

[joeDowntown]

x99- wow, you called out every architecture firm in the city AND took a shot at me in the meantime. Impressive rant.

I actually agree with what you're saying (Although you need to take a Xanax)- design something that will have a meaningful impact on the city for years to come or leave it to someone else who can. The question I have is is this something the city can enforce (good design, and who gets to decide?). I'd hope that these "good stewards" of the city would look at the buildings from all angles, all viewpoints and try to come up with something pleasing to the eye (whether it is covering up parking or visually breaking up large swaths of empty space). I'm sure it costs the developer more, but honestly, I think it's probably a cop out on the developers part to say that building something with a bit more thought and respect for the neighborhood costs that much more. Harder? Yes. But it's worth it in the long haul. 

How can we open a dialog with the city and developers and have them actually listen?

Joe

[GRDadof3]

8 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

x99- wow, you called out every architecture firm in the city AND took a shot at me in the meantime. Impressive rant.

I actually agree with what you're saying (Although you need to take a Xanax)- design something that will have a meaningful impact on the city for years to come or leave it to someone else who can. The question I have is is this something the city can enforce (good design, and who gets to decide?). I'd hope that these "good stewards" of the city would look at the buildings from all angles, all viewpoints and try to come up with something pleasing to the eye (whether it is covering up parking or visually breaking up large swaths of empty space). I'm sure it costs the developer more, but honestly, I think it's probably a cop out on the developers part to say that building something with a bit more thought and respect for the neighborhood costs that much more. Harder? Yes. But it's worth it in the long haul. 

How can we open a dialog with the city and developers and have them actually listen?

Joe

I'm on it and I will let you guys know where you can voice your concerns. 

[RegalTDP]

On 4/26/2016 at 7:40 PM, joeDowntown said:

x99- wow, you called out every architecture firm in the city AND took a shot at me in the meantime. Impressive rant.

I actually agree with what you're saying (Although you need to take a Xanax)- design something that will have a meaningful impact on the city for years to come or leave it to someone else who can. The question I have is is this something the city can enforce (good design, and who gets to decide?). I'd hope that these "good stewards" of the city would look at the buildings from all angles, all viewpoints and try to come up with something pleasing to the eye (whether it is covering up parking or visually breaking up large swaths of empty space). I'm sure it costs the developer more, but honestly, I think it's probably a cop out on the developers part to say that building something with a bit more thought and respect for the neighborhood costs that much more. Harder? Yes. But it's worth it in the long haul. 

How can we open a dialog with the city and developers and have them actually listen?

Joe

I think the question is: What are the incentives for developers to encourage better design?  You can't just tell them to spend more money.  If one architect firm can put up the same building over and over, still be hired for future projects, and then be hailed as visionaries by local media, clearly we have a development market that's incentivizing poor design.  And it's not like these projects are cheap, either.

I thought this quote (with X99's retort) was telling:

On 4/25/2016 at 10:08 AM, x99 said:

"Wheeler said to ensure the architect understands the gravity of adding a major building to downtown, he chooses local talent, as they are 'as skilled as anywhere in the country.'"  Oh, come on.  10 years ago Concept Design showed that someone over there had some talent with the then-proposed design for this corner.   Scale that down and you still have something pretty good.  But now.  Oh, my.  That talent has either evaporated or gone elsewhere based on their stuff of late.  Progressive?  Bah.  They have shown time and again that they have little understanding of how to design a good urban building, in my view.  That visual expertise simply does not appear to be in their wheelhouse.  I have yet to see any recent project from a local architect that would prove that local firms around here have as much skill as great firms elsewhere, if you judge them by the visual quality of the finished projects.  They are simply not on par with the big boys.  Lately, it has been PURE CRAP.  Now, how much of this has been driven by Orion and others DEMANDING garbage is hard to say.  It would be interesting to know what GVSU paid to construct the shell of the Seidman center (designed by... ta dum.. a nationally known New York architect) vs what Orion is paying for this sort of visual filth.

Well, Mr. Wheeler, now that you've cited a "local first" philosophy in your business model, you've got me wondering if our local architects are really being challenged to produce better work without having to compete with firms from outside the region.  Now, I'm not going as far as X99 to say our local architects aren't talented people; I'm just suggesting when you have a developer willfully cutting itself from the vast talent pool outside of GR, you're severely limiting the possibilities of what your buildings can achieve, and encouraging your local architects to produce the same product over and over.  You're insulating yourself, putting GR in a bubble, and it's not healthy.  All it takes is an architect from another state to come in and say "I can design you something better that you can build at the same cost" and we can pop this bubble.  This is LYON AND OTTAWA, people - this is the primest of the prime piece of land in all of GR.  We should be scouring the world over to find the best design for this parcel.

Look what's happened to the culinary scene - our local restauranteurs now have to compete with the likes of Wolfgang Puck and Ruth's Chris.  And they should!  I'm confident the best of our local chefs can hold their own in the presence of national brands.  Should we not hold local architects to the same competitive standard?

I'm no expert, just making an observation.  And I'm open to any local architect or developer chiming in to school me on how this really works.

Edited April 27, 2016 by RegalTDP

[x99]

1 hour ago, RegalTDP said:

 Now, I'm not going as far as X99 to say our local architects aren't talented people;

That came with a caveat:  I'm judging them by the finished products, and only taking about some of the "big guys."  There are some exemplary residential architects around here. Still, whether Progressive or Integrated did this, it doesn't much matter. They're both pretty rote architecture firms, in my view.  Most of their buildings are either forgettable and uninteresting, or interesting only because they are completely bizarre.  I haven't been impressed by anything either of them has done in a built urban environment, although as I recall Integrated finally did some fairly good work on that Cherry/Diamond project after HPC led them by the nose.

The quickest way to fix this?  Push for a historic designation on the site since it would obstruct the sitelines of the Trust Building, which is a real treasure.  Heck, all of the buildings there are pretty good.  Waters and Ledyard are nothing to sneeze at, either.  Or just whack a few stories out of the old Concept Design proposal.  Even with a historic designation, I suspect that design would still sail on through for the most part.  It really was that good.  

[GRDadof3]

Email Suzanne Schulz:

[email protected]

I don't know when this project goes before the planning commission, but with form-based zoning, I think they have a lot of power to reject a plan for architectural reasons. 

You can also reach out to individual planning commission members, or send your email to the planning department and address it to the planning commission:

http://grcity.us/design-and-development-services/Planning-Department/Pages/Planning-Commission---Board-Members.aspx

A well reasoned and well written email is very much appreciated by these people. 

 

3 hours ago, x99 said:

That came with a caveat:  I'm judging them by the finished products, and only taking about some of the "big guys."  There are some exemplary residential architects around here. Still, whether Progressive or Integrated did this, it doesn't much matter. They're both pretty rote architecture firms, in my view.  Most of their buildings are either forgettable and uninteresting, or interesting only because they are completely bizarre.  I haven't been impressed by anything either of them has done in a built urban environment, although as I recall Integrated finally did some fairly good work on that Cherry/Diamond project after HPC led them by the nose.

The quickest way to fix this?  Push for a historic designation on the site since it would obstruct the sitelines of the Trust Building, which is a real treasure.  Heck, all of the buildings there are pretty good.  Waters and Ledyard are nothing to sneeze at, either.  Or just whack a few stories out of the old Concept Design proposal.  Even with a historic designation, I suspect that design would still sail on through for the most part.  It really was that good.  

I think one issue is that a lot of architecture "designers" have left for bigger markets. There's only a handful around from the old Design+ and Beta Design Group days. Most of the architects around here work on car dealerships and credit unions. 

 

 

[WMrapids]

On November 9, 2015 at 1:36 PM, ctpgr34 said:

More space in the 5/3 building now.  The taller of the 2 5/3 buildings will need to find new tenants or possibly move all of their employees from smaller building.  That corner building of 5/3's could be a hot commodity.

 

Someone was right on the money.

Since this has a completion date in 2019, when do you think we will see more?

Edited June 9, 2016 by WMrapids

[ctpgr34]

8 minutes ago, WMrapids said:

Someone was right on the money.

Since this has a completion date in 2019, when do you think we will see more?

How long would a building(s) of this size take to build from first shovel to move in?  From today until the end of 2019 we have 3 1/2 yrs.......

[WMrapids]

On April 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM, joeDowntown said:

Personally, it seems like Orion could sink the plans for 12 Weston and lure potential tenants into a larger Warner building. 

Joe

So now that 12 Weston has sunk, I wonder what Hinman's proposal might do for this? I know this is office but it has the residential as well.