Jump to content

Hinman project - new 13 story hotel at 10 Ionia


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, MJLO said:

I consider this one of those rare cases where I'm ok with Hubris/ego/Pride.

Oh yeah I wasn't knocking it. Skyscrapers don't usually get built by committees, they're usually built by one passionate egomaniac going against other passionate egomaniacs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


7 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Roger Hinman is a really cool guy, and smart businessman as well. I'm fine with him wanting to own the biggest building in GR and Kalamazoo. :) It also adds a bit of development diversity. Seems like everything large is being built by a few companies (not that I'm complaining, just nice that other developers find GR a good place to invest). 

Joe

 

Me too. Bob Grooters ego brought us River House. Certainly not a bad thing, and he's certainly not a bad guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2016 at 8:49 PM, ctpgr34 said:

This building should turn out to be pretty interesting. The architect quoted in the article who is representing Hinman is Robert Szantner, Principal at Yamasaki, Inc. 

http://www.yamasaki-inc.com/

Based in Birmingham, Michigan, designed the World Trade Centers and other international projects. And coincidentally they also designed the cantilevered building in Seattle posted earlier. ^^^^

The connection is most likely that Yamasaki worked on the Battle Creek Tower that Hinman owns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2016 at 9:41 AM, GRDadof3 said:

This building should turn out to be pretty interesting. The architect quoted in the article who is representing Hinman is Robert Szantner, Principal at Yamasaki, Inc. 

http://www.yamasaki-inc.com/

Based in Birmingham, Michigan, designed the World Trade Centers and other international projects. And coincidentally they also designed the cantilevered building in Seattle posted earlier. ^^^^

Now that's interesting.  I didn't realize they had actually brought in pretty good architecture firm on this project.  Probably because design iteration #1 was so ... well, boring.  I don't want to sound rude, but their portfolio indicates the ability to do much more.  My guess is they sort of took that "first crack" that architects some take at historic districts by being very inoffensive and a little bland. But I don't think anyone would call McKay Tower, People's Building, Trade Center, or the Michigan National building bland.  They were artistic from afar and up close when built.  No reason an architect can't do just that in a historic district today, with a more modern take.   For example, that decade-old Concept Design proposal for Pearl/Ottawa, for example, was modern yet classic, and I think would go well in a historic district.  

This building might be a little bit of a challenge, but I think they're up to it.  It could certainly be an opportunity to "branch out" a bit and shoot for a timeless appeal.  But they've already done a few buildings that could be a good stylistic jumping-off point:  

perspective-01(s).jpg

2.jpg

1.png

I could see something with a nice good street presence like that second building on the base of something that goes a little more modern on the way up, like that first building.  They really have quite a few good buildings, many a lot more interesting than their proposal on this site.  And I think this is probably an older project, but they did this too: 

1135.jpg

And I could definitely see some arches with Trade Center across the street.  The only thing that worries me a little is that the building above already feels a little dated.  Ideally, something in a historic district wouldn't ever feel dated.  I think that's the biggest challenge.  Nailing the details so the building fits right in at the street level until you all of a sudden look up and realize... "Wait!  It's brand new! And it just keeps going up...."  I've always thought it was pretty cool when architects pull that off, because it's very, very hard to do, but it was basically the design concept for many of the early skyscrapers.  I think these guys have the capability to pull it off, though, if they go that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, x99 said:

I could see something with a nice good street presence like that second building on the base of something that goes a little more modern on the way up, like that first building. 

 

 

Well if you like that idea, then you'll love this one in Bucharest...

3-Old-New-Building.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, x99 said:

Now that's interesting.  I didn't realize they had actually brought in pretty good architecture firm on this project.  Probably because design iteration #1 was so ... well, boring.  I don't want to sound rude, but their portfolio indicates the ability to do much more.  My guess is they sort of took that "first crack" that architects some take at historic districts by being very inoffensive and a little bland. But I don't think anyone would call McKay Tower, People's Building, Trade Center, or the Michigan National building bland.  They were artistic from afar and up close when built.  No reason an architect can't do just that in a historic district today, with a more modern take.   For example, that decade-old Concept Design proposal for Pearl/Ottawa, for example, was modern yet classic, and I think would go well in a historic district.  

This building might be a little bit of a challenge, but I think they're up to it.  It could certainly be an opportunity to "branch out" a bit and shoot for a timeless appeal.  But they've already done a few buildings that could be a good stylistic jumping-off point:  

perspective-01(s).jpg

2.jpg

1.png

I could see something with a nice good street presence like that second building on the base of something that goes a little more modern on the way up, like that first building.  They really have quite a few good buildings, many a lot more interesting than their proposal on this site.  And I think this is probably an older project, but they did this too: 

1135.jpg

And I could definitely see some arches with Trade Center across the street.  The only thing that worries me a little is that the building above already feels a little dated.  Ideally, something in a historic district wouldn't ever feel dated.  I think that's the biggest challenge.  Nailing the details so the building fits right in at the street level until you all of a sudden look up and realize... "Wait!  It's brand new! And it just keeps going up...."  I've always thought it was pretty cool when architects pull that off, because it's very, very hard to do, but it was basically the design concept for many of the early skyscrapers.  I think these guys have the capability to pull it off, though, if they go that direction.

I can pull out one of my favorite buildings of all time!  Just make it taller. But I love the thick bands between the windows, the way the windows are recessed in several areas, the ledge that sits two floors from the top (makes it look like an old building that was added onto), the bottom floors and the slight arch at the top. Nothing too showy. 

Now make it 42 stories in the shape of a flatiron. 

2438063966_c8dfd27434_o.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wingbert said:

 

Well if you like that idea, then you'll love this one in Bucharest...

3-Old-New-Building.jpg

 

Okay, I deserved that.  Not exactly what I had in mind .... :)  Maybe  I should clarify:  Something more along the lines of a postmodern building like those Johnson/Burgee were doing in the late eighties and early nineties.  A lot postmodern stuff was awful, but Johnson/Burgee was pretty darn good toward the end of their partnership.  Here's One Atlantic Center in Atlanta: 

89895288.EHFIc5Es.jpg

They also did One Detroit Center, but I don't think it's as good.  They also did 190 South LaSalle in Chicago, which is pretty great: 

1.jpg?i10c=img.resize(height:160)

gallery190sl-exteriorphoto.jpg

Now that might be a little too heavy on the base for this location, but the idea is there.  Pulling something off as good as Johnson/Burgee were able to do would be a real challenge, but I think its doable.  And maybe they could win some sort of award if its really good, since postmodernism has basically been left for dead.  More likely is something like this, with a nice traditionally-inspired facade and a more modern-style on top.

bernardinefacade.jpg

(Bernardin Condos in Chicago)

 

I don't even dare hold my breath for a full on classically styled building.  No has actually built a true classically styled tower in decades.  And I rather doubt they would ever redraft the proposal on this site heavily enough to try to pull it off.  Rick Robertson floated a few proposals in LA a decade ago, but they went nowhere.  Now, these are maybe a little too boring.  The verticality is really lacking since its just a bunch of limestone with punches holes.  

 

4ced6f9b4ea9c-preview-300.jpg

I much prefer something like this: 

0ca1d643364300c19d457a6eef623738.jpg

The bright side is, if they were actually to propose something like this, I'm pretty sure they could snag a Driehaus Prize.  But seeing an actual proposal with a shot of being built like this would be pretty earth-shattering, since its been so long since one these actually got built.  It's actually one of the few ways some 40 story, 400 foot tall midwestern building could actually get "on the map".  I suspect news of something like this would travel like a rifle shot.

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

14 hours ago, gvsusean said:

That Two Hudson building *swoon im in love

It was drawn for part of a series by City Journal about what Hudson Yards would look like if traditional architects were given a chance to design for the project.  http://www.city-journal.org/html/reimagining-far-west-side-12822.html.  Of course, none of them actually were, but it was a nice thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Are these new renderings?  If so, it doesn't appear to have changed much if at all from before, so I don't see how this gets them past their HPC problem.  The message seemed fairly clear that 40 stories would be okay only if it was the right building, and that the building being proposed was not it.  I would be hard pressed to understand why the same design would still be on the drawing board.  Frustrating, if this is some sort of actual, updated rendering.

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, x99 said:

Are these new renderings?  If so, it doesn't appear to have changed much if at all from before, so I don't see how this gets them past their HPC problem.  The message seemed fairly clear that 40 stories would be okay only if it was the right building, and that the building being proposed was not it.  I would be hard pressed to understand why the same design would still be on the drawing board.  Frustrating, if this is some sort of actual, updated rendering.

These are from previous meeting but I think very few of us saw these.  This was my first time, I do not see them in the thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that the HPC simply functions off of their charter but good grief.  I think that building looks bad ass from the views they show.  How do they push back on a building that is 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 the people on the HPC and just replace them with a computer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

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.