Jump to content

Grand Bohemian Hotel – 15 Floors – 254 Rooms – Boutique Hotel


Guest

Recommended Posts


11 hours ago, southslider said:

Neo-traditional so value-engineered that it looks post-modern.

I think it looks good, lets just hope it lasts or is maintained. IMO if these materials had been available to builders of the past, they'd have used them too. Back in the day the decorative elements of a building served a dual purpose, today a bare bones structure would be what results from no decorative elements being added, VE or otherwise. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, tozmervo said:

Cheap materials were available to the builders of the past. Those buildings no longer exist. 

Those buildings were also built without modern technology. Today's engineers can literally build a skyscraper out of wood if it was deemed cost effective. Buildings in the past were over engineered because people didn't know the exact tolerances that needed to be met, if you want a modern building constructed in a classical style, I'm afraid value engineering is going to be the way to go with any private developer. If you want to see modern buildings constructed the old way, look at the Feds and the courthouse expansion.

With that being said, I recognize that the long term durability of this structure, at least the exterior with require care from the developer or any future owners, I concede to you that the "old way" does hold up better to neglect, but if you honestly think any Joe Schmoe walking down the street could tell the difference, then I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SentioVenia said:

Not saying you're wrong, but you do know @tozmervo is an architect, right?

That’s great, but this a public forum, so while my comment did address him/her it really was a general comment to all who care to engage. I gathered from their comment that they at least had a general interest in architecture. My statement, plain and simple, is that most people who aren’t privy will not know the difference. If it means we can get some “old style” buildings without the old style cost then I’m for it. We’ll see how it holds up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the general public that tears out faux granite laminate countertops for real granite, I think they will plainly see that this building is pretty much crap next to the real granite Carillon building.    

 

Almost all buildings lately are built with a lower finish, so eventually it will just be a sign of the era:  treated lumber structure, plastic stucco, and 8 colors in the lighting.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dubone said:

For the general public that tears out faux granite laminate countertops for real granite, I think they will plainly see that this building is pretty much crap next to the real granite Carillon building.    

 

Almost all buildings lately are built with a lower finish, so eventually it will just be a sign of the era:  treated lumber structure, plastic stucco, and 8 colors in the lighting.  

Agree D! I really wish we had some higher quality finishes. I get that developers want to save money, but there is a reason buildings like the Chrysler building (or even our own BOA tower)  remain timeless. 

A2

Edited by A2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tozmervo said:

We often debate the 99% rule. If 99% of people don't notice something cheap, does it really matter? It usually depends on a lot of factors: how close are you to the material or detail? Can you touch it? Do you interact with it? Does it truly achieve the overall appearance and feel of the nice product, or are there subtle aesthetic trade-offs? 

When complete, the Grand Bohemian may be very well detailed and finished, and 99% of folks won't notice (or care), but something will seem slightly off. Something will seem slightly not real or not correct. You can already see it on the back side: the panels don't come in sizes and configurations normal for stone, so it already seems "not quite right." It will also seem much flatter than it should. This is a problem in most economical construction. Deeper walls and thicker materials get valued down, so you suddenly have very shallow windows, shallower reveals, and thin shadow lines. It's a tell-tale sign of modern construction methods on a building that is trying to look older and more traditional. It will feel a little bit "plasticy" and Disney compared to more authentic materials. For those 99% of people? It's the difference between "this is a nice building" and "this is a gorgeous building that will stand the test of time."

This is all gray area, and there's no clear right or wrong way to do it. EIFS is cheap and can get you a certain look, but it's also very environmentally tenuous and requires a construction crew with meticulous attention to waterproofing. And don't get me wrong: the "old way" is not always the right way (frankly, it's rarely the right way). There are more reasons than cost that we don't build solid masonry buildings anymore. 

I should probably just clarify to the forum that I would LOVE to see buildings finished the old fashioned way with real stone, etc. I was just stating my personal belief that EIFS is not the worst thing in the world, and it can be done well, and as I said before, if it means we can get more buildings, I'm fine with it. We're in a quantity phase now, I feel like the next major cycle will be the start of the quality phase. Though a lot of our MAJOR buildings are high quality in and of themselves, opinions on Legacy aside. 

I don't pretend to be an expert, I guess just take it as the layman's view on things. I work in business, so this is a side passion for me, but a passion nonetheless. All the respect to everyone on here though, didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, uptownliving said:

I just still find it astounding that it took an architectural firm 2 years to come up with this design. I mean really?!? 2 years, for this?

Okay, first, most architecture firms (especially in this current market) are working on more than one project at a time. So it most likely didn’t take them two full solid years. 

Second, most architects love to use the ‘real’ materials and their initial design includes these materials. But then the projects are priced and come in too high, so alternate products have to be selected. (This saves money, lowers the perceived quality, and takes TIME.)

Third, there is quite a bit of time to get through Meck Co commercial permitting. If you’ve ever tried to take a large project through that process you will understand the time (and numerous revisions) required to navigate that process.  It is not fun at all but a necessary step. 
 

Fourth, just because you finished the design and permitting of a project doesn’t mean it’s ready to build. The developer and GC need to line up schedules/financing/etc. 
 

So can we please lay off the architects here?  They usually aren’t the ones that jump at the less expensive building materials but are often forced to find a decent alternative because of cost.  And they are also often pushed to work harder and faster only to have other folks sit on the project for months. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, nakers2 said:

When complete, the Grand Bohemian may be very well detailed and finished, and 99% of folks won't notice (or care), but something will seem slightly off. Something will seem slightly not real or not correct. You can already see it on the back side: the panels don't come in sizes and configurations normal for stone, so it already seems "not quite right." It will also seem much flatter than it should. This is a problem in most economical construction. Deeper walls and thicker materials get valued down, so you suddenly have very shallow windows, shallower reveals, and thin shadow lines. It's a tell-tale sign of modern construction methods on a building that is trying to look older and more traditional. It will feel a little bit "plasticy" and Disney compared to more authentic materials. For those 99% of people? It's the difference between "this is a nice building" and "this is a gorgeous building that will stand the test of time."

I have certainly noticed this on those South Park buildings that aspire to classical forms and elements with columns, capitals and domes, among other features. These elements are all non functional. Then the fenestration (windows) is far too large and numerous for this classical style and gives the appearance that the building should be unstable. EIFS lintels, even if they are added, add to the effect of awkwardness.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looking on the website link that @KJHburg provided and it really ticks me off when hotel or really any venue website makes no mention of transit accessibility. They didn't mention the Sprinter as an option to the airport, nor did they mention the blue line, bus stops, or the citylynx gold line as accessibility options, but they sure do mention their 35 dollar parking.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
13 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

Hotel today and some photos of the 129 West Trade tower renovations.  First exterior renovation since KJ's mom walked into this building as a Wachovia employee in 1958.  Long overdue. 

IMG_7892.JPG

Actually its the second, it was WAY more modernist originally. What was there previously was likely around 1982. I'd say. I can look into the history in the morning.

image.png.a075c89a037b4e81097a9d98005437fc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.