New Grand Rapids Art Museum

[GRDadof3]

Wow, seen from this angle, it really looks to be coming together. Thanks for the shots sparky05.

You really can't compare the Art Museum to a tower project, or even to a standard 4 story office building. They are basically just shells. Although trying to figure out the first four floors of the Marriott is a bit of a puzzle to me.

[MAU]

Considering all the issues they had in the first year of construction, they've made amazing progress over the past 4-6 months. Some project just don't run as smoothly/quickly as a lot of you assume they should.

[civitas]

I believe the image below is also from the southwest. It is beginning to make a little sense.

[numstead]

I'm going to go on record right now and say that I really like the look of the new art museum with all of its in situ concrete and modern design. Blank wallks Shmank walls, its about the materiality and sculptural quality of architecture. I think its going to be a gem downtown.

I do wish that the actual concrete being poured out there had a little less yellow pigment in it.

[civitas]

I'm going to go on record right now and say that I really like the look of the new art museum with all of its in situ concrete and modern design. Blank wallks Shmank walls, its about the materiality and sculptural quality of architecture. I think its going to be a gem downtown.

I do wish that the actual concrete being poured out there had a little less yellow pigment in it.

I would like to see a view from Ottawa and Monroe. The architecture obviously favors the west and south. If it turns a big in situ modern blank shmank yellow concrete wall to the intersection I'll be very disappointed. No, I'll be VERY disappointed.

Are there any images from the NE?

[GRDadof3]

I would like to see a view from Ottawa and Monroe. The architecture obviously favors the west and south. If it turns a big in situ modern blank shmank yellow concrete wall to the intersection I'll be very disappointed. No, I'll be VERY disappointed.

Are there any images from the NE?

There are a couple of other angles floating around. I'll see if I have them on my hard drive. Anyone know (or care to guess) what this material is? It's not concrete.

Based on all of these images,

http://www.gramonline.org/expansion/images.html

it looks like it's at least glass along most of the first floor, including Monroe Center and Ottawa. Above the first floor is probably mostly flat concrete though, based on the big sections they are putting up along Ottawa right now.

Looking straight ahead in this image is the corner of Monroe Center and Ottawa (NE), which is all glass:

[downtownGRguy]

For the wall you were asking about GRDad I will venture a guess. My guess is that it is spandrel glass. Just a guess though.

Spandrel Glass: spandrel glass is typically specified for buildings' nonvision areas to mask construction materials. Even refurbished buildings covered in a combination of vision and spandrel glass can appear to be constructed entirely of glass

[GRDadof3]

For the wall you were asking about GRDad I will venture a guess. My guess is that it is spandrel glass. Just a guess though.

Spandrel Glass: spandrel glass is typically specified for buildings' nonvision areas to mask construction materials. Even refurbished buildings covered in a combination of vision and spandrel glass can appear to be constructed entirely of glass

You might be right downtownGRguy. This is that same section at ground level, and it appears to be a bit reflective:

[Kayak1]

You might be right downtownGRguy. This is that same section at ground level, and it appears to be a bit reflective:

If not spandrel then metal wall panels?

[Allison Slater]

I'm wondering if it might just be some kind of polished stone or concrete, with added reflectivity in the rendering to overexaggerate the reflectivity, making it prettier than it really will be? I'm hoping I'm wrong, though.

[gvsusean]

i think all the concrete looks like s**t

[mpchicago]

It's pretty sad how we have to try piece this thing together. The architects and the museum have done a poor job of providing the public with information! How about a decent rendering?

While I'm still not 100% behind this thing, I'm getting more excited to see it come to fruition.

[numstead]

It's pretty sad how we have to try piece this thing together. The architects and the museum have done a poor job of providing the public with information! How about a decent rendering?

While I'm still not 100% behind this thing, I'm getting more excited to see it come to fruition.

whats wrong with the renderings posted above?

[Rizzo]

Don't just trust renderings... when specific to materials. There are many variables that can create an impression of one material when it could be taken as another. I would deduct glass, and move on to a metal material just based on specularity, reflection, and reflective color and the basic architectural features. The renderings are good BTW.

[mpchicago]

I disagree; these computer renderings look flat, like they don't have depth. The drawings for the JW are much better, and they are computer, right?

I would also like to see the north and east sides of this building, along with a due east elevation.

[torgo]

I think I would like the renderings better without the ghost children

[michaelskis]

i think all the concrete looks like s**t

Well said and I agree!

[GRDadof3]

I wonder where this model is?

Probably in England. I'm sure even after the Art Musuem is finished, there will be people who like it and people who hate it. I think I'll be one of the "like it" ones. I'll be glad when that area is no longer in a state of chaos (although, it might be more "chaotic" when finished).

[Rizzo]

mpchicago- You really can't compare renderings of one building to another.... You can't compare renderings to those of other Architects and software because there are so many variables and types of situations that produce different results.

Sometimes in the case of renderings, you can apply the adage "You get what you pay for."

Illustrators/Architects have a specific style and in that style they also have to work in the realm of the software, which at times can produce an effect which doesn't correspond correctly with what was intended. Sometimes it's too perfect.

The first rendering Dad circled in Red instantly jumped out to me as a glass. In the second illustration, a very lightly brushed aluminum or any polished metal came to me.

In the first case, I guess I would err on the side of just glass because it seems as though the artist appeared to be imitating the natural color of "thick" glass by using a green tint.

The trick is not emulating the physics or accuracy of the material in question, but creating a believability by using cleverly placed objects to create reflections so you instantly know that it is high polished.

[numstead]

I disagree; these computer renderings look flat, like they don't have depth. The drawings for the JW are much better, and they are computer, right?

Depth? This picture soesn't have depth?...

More detail in the foreground (flowers on the bushes), less detail farther away (no flowers on bushes). There is a vanishing point created by the building, bushes, and bus (nice alliteration btw [pats self on back]). Even the trees on the left diminish in value and sharpness as they recede into the background.

I wouldn't call the JW renderings better, even though they are very professional, they're just in a different style for a different client. Oh, and the museum renderings were done on a computer too. I think the only people in the world not using computers these days are the lovely folks over at Design+ who can't seem to put down their Prismacolor markers.

I would also like to see the north and east sides of this building, along with a due east elevation.

dude, beggars can't be choosers

I think I would like the renderings better without the ghost children

Oh c'mon, whats wrong with the ghost children? Ghost people are the way to go. They give you a sense of scale and hint at action/usage without distracting the viewer from the architecture the way that photographic people do. Its also handy for the graphic artist putting the image together becuase he/she doesn't have to worry about the ethnic mix of the renderred population.

[mpchicago]

Golscorer - I simply do not like their renderings, or I guess a better way to put it is I don't like the computer program they used. I understand that both the GRAM and the JW are computer generated, but I personally feel that these guys could have done a better job of relaying their vision; Just my opinion. I

[GRCentro]

I agree with you mpchicago. These renderings do a poor job of communicating the whole final project. Perhaps an additional site plan would have helped to "figure it out."

While I'm sure there are greater reasons other than the renderings, it doesn't suprise me that they fell short on the funding campaign; people aren't going to pay for something they don't understand. But then again, as the commercials say, you can be the one to complete the canvas!

Its also handy for the graphic artist putting the image together becuase he/she doesn't have to worry about the ethnic mix of the renderred population.

Funny!

[civitas]

View from above the crane...

[MJLO]

In one of the renderings, it shows that circle part of the Rosa Parks thingy, as a reflecting type pool. Do you think that is just jazzing up the rendering or do you think they're actually gonna do that.

[GRDadof3]

Art Museum Panorama: