Jump to content

PROPOSED: Parcel 12 (Triangle Parcel)


Recommended Posts

Maybe Thom could give out our link to a member of the design reiew committee!!!?!?!?! We could make an actual difference.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that members of the various design review committees are already reading.

Anyways i agree... i like the old intercontinental render better as of now.. unless they go taller. The rumor is a W brand hotel. So that means upscale. The design should reflect that.

Unlike Sierra Suites, the quality of the brand leaves me very optimistic about the final quality of this building. I'm rather surprised that the first proposal wasn't more modern.

Is there any chance that the next proposed downcity hotel could give us some cheap rates? I feel like we are building too many 'luxury' hotels at the moment.

Well, the one on Charles Street is affordable. I hope we'll see something in the Jewelry District or near the hospitals eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 311
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I dont have a problem with it either (at least going by this rendering). I would love to see it taller. IMO the quality of details and materials will make or break it.

I was just in Providence and took a walk around this parcel. This rendering will run into some noise about the top section but to me the real issue is that the footprint is too big, the height too short.

Narrow it, raise it to 20-22 floors, make the top less of a weird design, and as you say, quality details and material - and it will be a great addition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind some aspects. I like some of the detailing and all the balconies, but the building it is too short! It looks like it's squatting in this form. If it were 30 or more stories maybe, but less than 20...I don't know. This is one I'd have to get used to if I can.

I 100% agree with you. I wonder how much of a chance there is for them to add 15 or so stories of office space on the bottom floors. I'd like to see a few storefronts on the bottom, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine yourself standing in Burnside Park and looking right at the point of the triangle; the three arched poticos are on that point. To the left and right is the facade on the side streets. Parking is internal above the ground floor and rises 3 or 4 stories. The design is such that the floor pattern could be repeated to make the building taller. At this time, this is all hotel, but if the market were strong enough, I could see some condos happening.

If I'm reading this right, the facade should actually recede from the viewer to the right and left of the rendering, as we're looking at the corner of the site and seeing two facades at once. So, in reality this won't look quite as squat as the 2D rendering suggests. Also, I'm assuming that the 3-4 levels of parking are in the base of the building, giving it a total of 4-5 stories. That will likely put it at about the height of the surrounding buildings, as brick hoped. If I had to guesstimate, I'd put the tower at around the height of the Waterplace condos, which shouldn't be too bad for the site.

I'm liking the neoclassical detailing of the base, but only if quality materials are used. Nothing ruins that style more than cheap, obviously modern materials. I haven't quite decided how I feel about the top of the tower yet, other than that it vaguely reminds me of the Westin. I'd also like to see how this will interact with Memorial Boulevard. This design has real potential, but I'll wait for more info before I decide whether I like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I'm not an architectural scholar, either.

You should not have to be an architecture scholar to like a building or comment on it. The beauty of architecture is everyone has their own opinion of a structure's appearance and function and no one is necessarily right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should not have to be an architecture scholar to like a building or comment on it. The beauty of architecture is everyone has their own opinion of a structure's appearance and function and no one is necessarily right or wrong.

Oh don't get me wrong. This is a public forum. There are no elitists here, right? :rofl:

I don't believe one needs to be an architectural scholar to like a building. That's just having an opinion. Nor do I believe one needs to be an architectural scholar to comment about a building one likes or dislikes. That's just articulating the opinion one has. But when one (with no credentials) presumes to start talking about schools & influences, well, perhaps one needs to admit to oneself that one is really just blowing smoke out one's ... OK, I trust you see where I'm going with this.

Anyway, all I'm saying is, take it with a grain of salt, but I see as much City Hall here as I do Westin.

Materials will make a difference, as already noted in this thread. So will colors, I think. But there's a lot of potential here. There is, if nothing else, a notion of style in this render. It's a far cry from Sierra Suites. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the top. There are similarities to the Westin, but looking at the two buildings together, I see very different influences behind their design. I see as much City Hall in this render as I do Westin.

I can see that as well. While we're at it, the three arches at the entrance remind me of the one at Union Station, the more I look at the rendering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cotuit my love, was this the big secret that was talked about at the last meeting in which you rated a 14 or higher depending on the design and insisted on keeping it from us for a month?!?!!?

Nope.

AND IF NOT... it's time to spill it :):wub:

Not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that members of the various design review committees are already reading.

You should not have to be an architecture scholar to like a building or comment on it. The beauty of architecture is everyone has their own opinion of a structure's appearance and function and no one is necessarily right or wrong.

Here's another 2 cents. I agree with it all, except there is definitely "good" architecture and this is not good architecture. While my personal preferences run much more to the contemporary, one can critique this design on its architectural merit and competency. This building does not have a "style", and while that may not be essential to good architecture, if you intend to borrow from so many historic periods, you ought to at least try and do it well.

A second empireish roof with the oval occulus -??- on a poorly proportioned "top" with no end to the gratitious detail including the quoined corners sitting on - something (the middle)- which is sitting on a neo-classical base with worse proportions than the top. While I am clearly not an architectural historian, I would leave that to Mack Woodward (I wonder what he would say about this?), this building design lacks an understanding of proportion, scale, and history.

Honestly, if we as a city do not start getting higher quality design on these big buildings, it is questionable as to whether they should be enclouraged. As a major proponent for density, I cringe when I see designs like this. Design review will never save this project. You have to start over and without the hand of a good designer, it will always be fighting to get something that is merely acceptable. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with no end to the gratitious detail

I think the fact that so many have seen so many different buildings reflected in this design speaks volumes. Pick one thing and do it right, not everything and do it wrong.

It would be great if one of these hotel projects or condo towers included a restaurant/bar on the top level. The views would be incredible, and I'm not aware of any place like that in Providence now.

Another rumor that came out of the last forum meeting was a proposal for a tower near Dominica Manor that might have a skydeck or penthouse restaurant.

Are you keeping secrets?

More like protecting negotiations. We've discussed before Buddy's tendancy to run off at the mouth and how that may have cost us some projects. There's something that should be announced very soon if negotiations go well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another 2 cents. I agree with it all, except there is definitely "good" architecture and this is not good architecture. While my personal preferences run much more to the contemporary, one can critique this design on its architectural merit and competency. This building does not have a "style", and while that may not be essential to good architecture, if you intend to borrow from so many historic periods, you ought to at least try and do it well.

A second empireish roof with the oval occulus -??- on a poorly proportioned "top" with no end to the gratitious detail including the quoined corners sitting on - something (the middle)- which is sitting on a neo-classical base with worse proportions than the top. While I am clearly not an architectural historian, I would leave that to Mack Woodward (I wonder what he would say about this?), this building design lacks an understanding of proportion, scale, and history.

Honestly, if we as a city do not start getting higher quality design on these big buildings, it is questionable as to whether they should be enclouraged. As a major proponent for density, I cringe when I see designs like this. Design review will never save this project. You have to start over and without the hand of a good designer, it will always be fighting to get something that is merely acceptable. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen in this case.

Well said, Dexter. To me the most ironic part is that we're trying to position ourselves as a "city of designers", a creative hotbed. So much of the recent development and planning undermines one of the City's pillars of economic development, and makes a lie of our claimed aesthetic acumen. I really believe that fostering good (dare I say great) architecture needs to become a top priority of the City.

PVDJack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A second empireish roof with the oval occulus -??- on a poorly proportioned "top" with no end to the gratitious detail including the quoined corners sitting on - something (the middle)- which is sitting on a neo-classical base with worse proportions than the top. While I am clearly not an architectural historian, I would leave that to Mack Woodward (I wonder what he would say about this?), this building design lacks an understanding of proportion, scale, and history.

You're right. They should scrap the whole idea and just build a glass box instead. <_<

There are three distinct sections to this design, and I see two problems:

1) Each section is designed in a different style.

2) The proportions of the different sections relate to each other awkwardly.

I don't know what can be done about the middle section. As currently conceived, maybe it's doomed to be unnattractive. But as for the top and bottom sections, the solution is pretty simple: redesign the bottom to match the top. I'm assuming (because the top is so unusual) that that's the style they would prefer to keep, if made to choose between the two. They went out of their way to get that look. OK, so make the bottom conform to the top. And try to reconcile the middle section to them, if possible.

As for gratuitous detail ... look around. It's everywhere in Providence. And it's perfectly lovely. :P

As for the problems with the proportions, I don't know what to say. If the dimensions have to be altered too much, the project is probably in danger. Because of the unusual shape of the plot, not to mention the need for self-contained parking, I doubt they can do much to change the footprint. As for the height, if they had wanted to build a 25-story tower, that's what they would have proposed. This looks to be about 15 floors. Would a couple of stories make that much of a difference to you? They wouldn't to me. If anything, I believe I would like the shape of that building even less than this one.

If I had my way with this render, I'd like to see the base the same width as the middle section (as it is now, ie, I don't want to see the tower simply widened to match the current width of the base). And I'd like to see the top section widened ever so slightly. I would like the basic shape of that building. Then again, that building would look somewhat more like the Westin. Which might be a bad idea, as mentioned before.

I'm going to try -- try -- to play with this render some to show what I mean. I make no promises, though. I'm not visually inclined, and I'm nobody's idea of an artist. If I can't turn my ideas into something presentable ... well, as they say, if you can't draw something nice, don't draw anything at all. Or something like that.

As for the idea that every new project introduced into the city must exhibit superior architecture, that's ridiculous. Adding new buildings whose design is of average quality isn't going to take away all the beautiful buildings we already have, for which we've garnered some renown. As long as we don't build anything downright ugly, I think we're fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, no laughing. Here's what I ended up with:

Parcel12roughedit.jpg

And here, for reference, is the original again, so you can see what I've done to it:

Parcel12.jpg

Take away those extra wings on the side -- wings, or whatever you want to call them -- and the proportions of the building look immediately better. It no longer looks squat.

I couldn't do everything I wanted: I wish I could lessen the width of the base a little more, but I'm not expert enough to do that. And you still have the problem of two different styles at work in the cap and the base, but (IMHO) it's not so pronounced -- and the more the width of the base matches that of the tower, the less pronounced it becomes.

Also, with the width of the tower reduced, I see much less of "the radiator effect."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like protecting negotiations. We've discussed before Buddy's tendancy to run off at the mouth and how that may have cost us some projects. There's something that should be announced very soon if negotiations go well.

I take it this more of a 110-level project than a Parcel 12 or a Grant's Block.... at least that's what I'm hoping for. Possibly that rumored Citizen's tower?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as the thought of a "W" coming to PVD exites me, I'm not crazy about this design. I do like the bottom, but the upper floors... yuck! It looks as though the developer can't decide on one style. I liked the previous design much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.