Jump to content

Hinman project - new 13 story hotel at 10 Ionia


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, GR8scott said:

Nice! I  The way I understood it, the HPC didnt have an issue with the design other then the lack of detail. I think they said something to the affect of approving the height depending on the plans, which they did not have enough information on at that time. I hope theres very little change and no problem 

So these are just old pictures, which is good.  "Lack of detail" can have two meanings.  First would be the lack of detailed plans.  Second would be the lack of architectural detail in the design.  There were issues with both.

18 hours ago, MJLO said:

essentially across the street from the historic neighborhood,  but allow a giant hideous Microfiche reader to be built on Commerce, which is the gateway to all of those "historic structures".  There needs to be an amendment in the HPC's charter to allow for common sense, logic, and discretion.  Otherwise I don't see why they can't get rid of 

Now that is a very, very good question.  There is absolutely nothing about that plug-ugly turd that says it's in a historic district that was preserved for some sort of architectural value.  Heck, that's true for most of the new consturction in Heartside.  Almost none of it fits in, and most of it looks like crap.  I'm thinking they've probably learned from past mistakes and are going to be more careful, particularly given the height of this?  

I'm also guessing Hinman is going to come back with something a lot better.  They seemed pretty excited to have 40 stories of "pure awesome", and their first design was less than that.  All of the "awesome" was in the height and not in the design and the details.  Their architect is clearly capable of doing 40 stories of awesome design, and I think they will now that they have basically been told they can.  And to be fair, this is still better than most recent proposals.  The bar in Grand Rapids lately has just been very, very low.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Considering the shape and size of the lot, the only way I could see this improving is maybe an angled top as opposed to a flat top. Otherwise, this is a giant step in the right direction compared to some of the crap that has been built downtown lately. I personally love the design now that I have seen these pictures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you just imagine the view from the top of this?

Based on its elevation above the river, this building will be the only tall structure that is visible from the eastern part of the city. All of the other tall structures are too far down into the river valley to be seen. Only the very top of the Amway by sheer luck is visible from the corner of Lake Dr and Diamond. This will be on a slightly higher elevation, is far taller than the Amway, and is further to the south which makes all the difference, so it may easily be visible from East Hills at the very least if the sight-line is just right and too many trees aren't in the way. Hopefully I can see it from my window too. I've always wanted to have a view of a tall building from my house!

 

Also Riverhouse's top is visible from the D&W on Lake Michigan Drive, and this may easily be as well from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost want those thin columns that Yamasaki is known for in some of its work.

World Trade Centerimage.jpeg

One Woodward Ave - Detroitimage.jpeg

Torre Picasso - Madrid, Spain

image.jpeg

It'd be nice to see such detail and for those traveling to Grand Rapids seeing it and saying "Wow! That's from Yamasaki."

image.png

I'm not sure how those thin columns would look on this but those wide windows really make the tower look squat from this view.

Edited by WMrapids
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WMrapids said:

I almost want those thin columns that Yamasaki is known for in some of its work.

World Trade Centerimage.jpeg

One Woodward Ave - Detroitimage.jpeg

Torre Picasso - Madrid, Spain

image.jpeg

It'd be nice to see such detail and for those traveling to Grand Rapids seeing it and saying "Wow! That's from Yamasaki."

image.png

I'm not sure how those thin columns would look on this but those wide windows really make the tower look squat from this view.

Keep in mind that those are old buildings. Like any other architect, Yamasaki has likely modernized a familiar look - which is evident in this rendering. I, myself, prefer this look over the thin columns. With this look, neither the windows, nor the rows and columns, dominate the building. It's the perfect combination of the two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, GR8scott said:

agreed and ad to that two floors/Windows per column, it could almost appear to be an oversized 21 story building 

 

1 hour ago, joeDowntown said:

Personally, I think you'll see a very similar design with a bit of cornice work on the second and 6th story to break it up a bit. I don't think they have room to change the design too much / add setbacks, etc.

I think both of your comments are accurate.  Cornice work a few stories up and then again at the height of nearby buildings would help, along with more detailing which would increase visual appeal from a pedestrian level.  Some stepbacks on the upper floors would be help it be a more appealing building, but are not absolutely necessary if the rest of the design is really good.  Most flatirons don't have a stepback, but pretty much none of them are 40 stories, either.  Personally, I'm not a big fan of the little notch in the building.  Going to a full fledged step back would make a lot more sense.  

The column design is also a little lacking.  It's a very vertical building that does not really take advantage of its height.  Cut out any given story and it does not really affect the building.  That isn't generally true of even the shorter buildings in Heartside.  When they had multiple stories, they used it to good advantage.  With some careful massaging, hopefully they will sail through HPC.  I don't know that something like the older Yamasaki buildings would be appropriate in Heartside, but I do like them more than this one.  Of their more recent work, I'm partial to  Yeomchang-Dong Siver Town and the Shinyoung Royal Palace Suites.  I think I posted both of them earlier.  Well, and the traditional 180 Pierce in Birmingham, MI.  I could definitely stand 40 stories of that in Heartside, and it would sail through HPC like greased lighting.  I doubt they'll go that direction, though.

A quick refresh, in order (because photos are always fun): 

perspective-01(s).jpg

sps.jpg

371_00_medium.jpg

 

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, x99 said:

I don't know that something like the older Yamasaki buildings would be appropriate in Heartside, but I do like them more than this one.

 

I'm not looking for the exact thin column look because it looks a little dated like the 5/3rd Building, but maybe they could make the window panes a little thicker to give it a taller appearance. I'm just not a fan of those wide windows. A setback might help just as much though but might be difficult since there is little room already.

A glowing cornice like Torre Picasso would be nice though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always liked those thin column buildings. They might look dated but that isn't necesarsarily a bad thing. Lots of classic buildings look old but have a timeless design. the bigger problem for grand rapids is we already have a couple of those, albeit much shorter. something like this should stand out as a statement, at least in the community.

 

Keep in mind also that the HPC guidelines expressly prohibit things that look like they were original. They mostly dwell on topics like massing and materials. There is plenty of room for a more modern design. A lot of it does come down to local interpretation of the rules. 

Edited by jas49503
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2016 at 7:23 AM, jas49503 said:

Keep in mind also that the HPC guidelines expressly prohibit things that look like they were original. They mostly dwell on topics like massing and materials. There is plenty of room for a more modern design. A lot of it does come down to local interpretation of the rules. 

Um... This is not 100% accurate.  The rules actually state that the architectural features of the new work has to be compatible with the existing buildings.  Yeah, it does have to "differentiated" somehow, but when you're dealing with a 40 story building, that isn't the problem.  Making 40 stories fit with Heartside .... now that's a challenge, and I don't think Hinman's there yet.  If they have not massively reworked their proposal, I think they're in for a really rough go of it.  

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that prohibiting replicas is detailed in the secretary of the interior historic preservation guidelines. Maybe prohibiting is too strong a word. When I reviewed GR's HPC guidelines the first thing to "consider is height, form, massing, proportion, size, scale, and roof shape".  Secondary concerns are, "Materials, building features, and details typical of buildings along the streets ape or block will provide additional vocabulary. .." Whatever that means. It is so subjective that you could put almost anything in there if your materials are compatible and the committee is feeling generous. There are tons of examples of modern looking buildings being approved that have nothing in common design wise other than high quality materials and the first requirements. 

 

That site is helped by not having any neighbors to be compatible with. The biggest obstacle would probably be window/door design since a glass tower doesn't have the proper historic window proportions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jas49503 said:

I believe that prohibiting replicas is detailed in the secretary of the interior historic preservation guidelines. Maybe prohibiting is too strong a word. [...] There are tons of examples of modern looking buildings being approved that have nothing in common design wise other than high quality materials and the first requirements. 

That site is helped by not having any neighbors to be compatible with. The biggest obstacle would probably be window/door design since a glass tower doesn't have the proper historic window proportions. 

You're right that the guidelines are a little ambiguous.  Still, most of the pictures in the Guidelines of "compatible" buildings are now of buildings and additions that are generally in the same architectural style.  With 40 stories, it's going to be a tall order not to stand out like a sore thumb.  They do have the Trade Center at 50 Louis right across the street.  That's a very nice building.  They also have the buildings GR Brewing and San Chez are in across Fulton.  

And the Agenda says this isn't up for approval.  They just looking for advisory feedback tomorrow.  That is a very, very good sign.  It will be interesting to see what has changed.  I suspect it will be a much better building.  In GR the HPC process at least recently has worked well at encouraging better designs. Some real stinkers in the past, but not for awhile now.  If Hinman is willing to play ball, I think we'll get a good building.   I doubt it will happen, but If its a gorgeous traditional skyscraper I'll be totally :wub:.   Or even if it's got just some really good, strong vertical design elements.  It completely confuses me why so many tall buildings now don't have them.  It's fun for me to dream about what could be done with a 10--not to mention 40--story canvas, but so many architects just seem to say "meh"....  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jas49503 said:

I believe that prohibiting replicas is detailed in the secretary of the interior historic preservation guidelines. Maybe prohibiting is too strong a word. When I reviewed GR's HPC guidelines the first thing to "consider is height, form, massing, proportion, size, scale, and roof shape".  Secondary concerns are, "Materials, building features, and details typical of buildings along the streets ape or block will provide additional vocabulary. .." Whatever that means. It is so subjective that you could put almost anything in there if your materials are compatible and the committee is feeling generous. There are tons of examples of modern looking buildings being approved that have nothing in common design wise other than high quality materials and the first requirements. 

 

That site is helped by not having any neighbors to be compatible with. The biggest obstacle would probably be window/door design since a glass tower doesn't have the proper historic window proportions. 

I always love an architectural review board who says "We'll know it when we see it." :rolleyes: That's basically what happens when it's a subjective review. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, x99 said:

You're right that the guidelines are a little ambiguous.  Still, most of the pictures in the Guidelines of "compatible" buildings are now of buildings and additions that are generally in the same architectural style.  With 40 stories, it's going to be a tall order not to stand out like a sore thumb.  They do have the Trade Center at 50 Louis right across the street.  That's a very nice building.  They also have the buildings GR Brewing and San Chez are in across Fulton.  

And the Agenda says this isn't up for approval.  They just looking for advisory feedback tomorrow.  That is a very, very good sign.  It will be interesting to see what has changed.  I suspect it will be a much better building.  In GR the HPC process at least recently has worked well at encouraging better designs. Some real stinkers in the past, but not for awhile now.  If Hinman is willing to play ball, I think we'll get a good building.   I doubt it will happen, but If its a gorgeous traditional skyscraper I'll be totally :wub:.   Or even if it's got just some really good, strong vertical design elements.  It completely confuses me why so many tall buildings now don't have them.  It's fun for me to dream about what could be done with a 10--not to mention 40--story canvas, but so many architects just seem to say "meh"....  

I don't know this for fact but I think very few architecture schools spend a lot of time on high rise design, because it's such a small fraction of the architecture jobs after graduation. Suburban hotels, schools, churches and medical buildings is probably what most grads are spending their time doing. Unless you get an internship at a Chicago firm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I don't know this for fact but I think very few architecture schools spend a lot of time on high rise design, because it's such a small fraction of the architecture jobs after graduation. Suburban hotels, schools, churches and medical buildings is probably what most grads are spending their time doing. Unless you get an internship at a Chicago firm. 

In that case, shouldn't it be on the builder to hire an architectural firm with the right competencies? (though, in this case, I'm actually fairly pleased with what they have so far)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there's an mLive article up now, with what I assume are the updated images submitted to HPC for the comment period tomorrow.  Same thing as last time.  Just more pictures.   I cannot imagine why you would submit the same thing twice after it got panned the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

mlive has "new" renderings (according to them), but I think they are the same poster here. Anyone notice any differences?

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2016/08/new_renderings_show_how_much_h.html

Joe

I'd love to see a rendering from the west, facing the rounded side.

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.