Jump to content

PROPOSED: Hotel Sierra (aka Sierra Suites)


Recommended Posts

I'm not gonna lie, I don't see a lot of problems with the second design.

Not having seen a color rendering, and not knowing exactly what the materials will be (from the rendering above, I would guess red and yellow brick), I'd have to agree.

The Majestic garage entrance is indeed, not their fault, but I'm still not thrilled with the hotels auto portal. Understanding that the developers have a stake (ownership) in the Majestic Garage, I don't understand why no one is asking them to make the Majestic's entrance work as an entrance for the hotel. In doing so, we could see a redesign of the Majestic's facade and improvements where we wouldn't have seen them before.

The blank wall between the two auto entrances is unfortunate, but easily overcome, plant a big tree, hang a large vertical scupture, or a lit sign like Hotel Providence has... it can be overcome.

I much prefer what I'm seeing at the streetfront. Better integration into the existing streetscape. The tower is still a little ugly, but far better than the first go. I'd prefer the windows to be more vertical than square as they look now.

I'm curious to see the Fountain Street side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

My guess is their issue was with the roofline. In my opption the old one (on the right) tends to look more suburban. There is nothing worse than a suburban looking building in an urban setting. Picture the Hamton Inn or Courtard Marriot typical building style... now put it in downtown, it just doesnt work, some changes are necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing worse than a suburban looking building in an urban setting. Picture the Hamton Inn or Courtard Marriot typical building style... now put it in downtown, it just doesnt work, some changes are necessary.

I think everyone here can agree on that. Just curious. Have your seen the Courtard Marriott in downtown Providence?

http://marriott.com/property/propertypage/PVDDT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is their issue was with the roofline. In my opption the old one (on the right) tends to look more suburban. There is nothing worse than a suburban looking building in an urban setting. Picture the Hamton Inn or Courtard Marriot typical building style... now put it in downtown, it just doesnt work, some changes are necessary.

I agree. I don't have any huge issues with the current roofline. This will never be an achitectural gem. Like Thom said, we need to balance our desire for asthetics with the possibilty of driving the developer out of town and getting nothing. I think the street facade has vastly improved. If that is done right and the tower isn't egrigeously ugly, then I'd be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, not a huge issue with the current roofline. Like I said, some detail in the cornices would be nice but I don't expect it. I think with yellow brick that is a structure that looks at home in the middle of that area of the city.

I always forget that they own the Majestic Garage. I still think it would be too expensive for them to integrate the new structure with the garage. However it should be possible for them to have use only the existing entrance. Hmm. I've never actually been inside the Majestic so I don't know how hard it would be to integrate.

The Fountain St. side is an interesting question. If Fountain doesn't have the same setback then it will be uggo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone here can agree on that. Just curious. Have your seen the Courtard Marriott in downtown Providence?

http://marriott.com/property/propertypage/PVDDT

I forgot that was a courtyard, i was refering to the more suburban design. But the Providence courtyard is a good example of how the typical designs have to be changed to fit into urban settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much, much better. It's amazing how much a little detailing and urban sensibility can change what is essentially the same design.

- Set back streetscape with increased detailing works well, and will fit into the rest of the street. Well done...

- The "squaring" and "de-airport-ing" of the tower design works far, far better. It looks far less like the Fargo Airport Residence Inn and far more like an urban hotel. The lack of symmetry still is a bit odd, but it works well enough...

- Please, please, please light the top of the building!

- Little will be able to be done about the Mystic garage entrance/hotel entrance. Remember, that opening at the left base is the portal for the main entrance to the entire hotel, which sits between Washington and West Fountain. I think it's the city's own zoning rules which mandate the entrance there. I agree with Cotuit that if you put a tree, a sign, or better yet, a vertical banner (!! :) !!) in that space, no one will notice...

- If I recall, the actual garage component of this (and its entrance and exits) are on West Fountain. That opening in the left base is not for the garage, but for the auto drop-off (baggage, etc) at the main doors.

If we had seen this render first rather than the airport special before, I think we all would have been saying, "Ok, not a landmark, but this isn't bad! Light the top, a banner here and there, and we're in business!"

I hope they don't get frustrated and pull out, because with this design, they're 90% of the way there... I'll be there next month to hopefully encourage them, rather than roast them.

- Garris

PS: They were dead set against retail in the building last time. Did anyone hear if they rethought that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Little will be able to be done about the Mystic garage entrance/hotel entrance. Remember, that opening at the left base is the portal for the main entrance to the entire hotel, which sits between Washington and West Fountain. I think it's the city's own zoning rules which mandate the entrance there. I agree with Cotuit that if you put a tree, a sign, or better yet, a vertical banner (!! :) !!) in that space, no one will notice...

PS: They were dead set against retail in the building last time. Did anyone hear if they rethought that?

I dont think the main entrance is between Washington and W. Fountain anymore. Also, retail has been added I thought.

I base this from this line from the Projo article:

"They moved the main entrance from an interior parking tunnel to Washington Street and created retail space on the Washington Street and Fountain Street sides. "

Seems the not only added retail, but doubled it from both sides!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings--the developers thought they addressed concerns from the January meeting. They've made some progress but have more work to do.

Massing and texture of the rendering is still really clumsey not befitting Providence. We need much more as a trade off for losing a city street and a contributing building within the National Regster district, not to mention two viable businesses: New Japan and Cuban Rev.

j.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much, much better. It's amazing how much a little detailing and urban sensibility can change what is essentially the same design.

- Set back streetscape with increased detailing works well, and will fit into the rest of the street. Well done...

- The "squaring" and "de-airport-ing" of the tower design works far, far better. It looks far less like the Fargo Airport Residence Inn and far more like an urban hotel. The lack of symmetry still is a bit odd, but it works well enough...

- Please, please, please light the top of the building!

Totally agree with your assessment and your hope for lighting. Looks like a very nice fit now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need much more as a trade off for losing a city street and a contributing building within the National Regster district, not to mention two viable businesses: New Japan and Cuban Rev.

j.

Is there still a suggestion that New Japan and Cuban Rev will move into a renovated building to the left of this structure? That was the rumor initially.

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but how realistic is it that they will light the top of the building and cover the blank area with a nice tree??

Does the design committee have a history of caring about lighting and adding some trees??

canopy cover is a requirement of land developments and redevelopments in Providence, but i am not sure whether being downtown somehow exempts them from that zoning ordinance. Downtown stuff doesn't go before the CPC so i am not exactly sure whether there are special/different rules than the ones enforced at the CPC...

I have some neat pictures from Chicago where the trees are actually planted in bumpout planters off the sides of buildings...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, his article is actually spot on. He probably read these forums to get it, but spot on nonetheless. Objectivity and a connected sense of purpose amongst all these commisions is something they sorely lack. I agree with their intention, but thier execution leaves a lot to be desired.

How does one get to be on these commisions? What qualifications are necessary? Is it a shining example of cronyism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of his better columns, Recchia's comment forced me to read it against better judgement.

However...

the committee's mission to protect the historic character of downtown

I agree that the DDRCs mission is to protect the historic character of Downcity, I don't think that means every new building needs to be a postmodern, victorian or greek revival clone of an earlier age.

If I were on the committee, I'd tell Sierra Suites to polish the streetfront. Make it brick, embelish the sh!t out of it, look around town and make it fit in. Then I'd say, stop screwing with the tower, just make it a glass box, and light the top for Garris.

Any architect worth his salt should be able to come to Providence, walk around for an afternoon, and bring a design to the DDRC that will pass easily out of their committee. I don't see how hard that is. This architect is obviously not good, they're not going to be able to create an entire tower that looks good, so make them focus on the first 5 floors, the most important part, then glass box the tower, that's easy to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Design review in Providence should demand architecture the public will love. The design reviewers all know pretty much what that is."

I don't understand this quote by Brussat. What is it that everyone loves? Are they essentially historic replicas? If so, of which era? Is the architecture demanded realistic from a cost standpoint? Are there any examples of new buildings in Providence that do fit this bill? How would the Sierra Suites change to fit Brussat's view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, his article is actually spot on. He probably read these forums to get it, but spot on nonetheless. Objectivity and a connected sense of purpose amongst all these commisions is something they sorely lack. I agree with their intention, but thier execution leaves a lot to be desired.

How does one get to be on these commisions? What qualifications are necessary? Is it a shining example of cronyism?

some commissions have particular "seats" attached to them. such as "architect" and "developer" and "environmental" and "property management". I am unclear what the guiding principals are for the downcity design committee. I do know that the CPC uses the comp plan (when convenient-- :thumbsup: ) and the development review regulations as their 'bible' but i don't know what the other commishes use...anyone?

neither one of those designs for sierra suites is anything to write home about. They are both fugly, and i find it hard to believe that the architect had the stones to whine that he doesn't know what the commission wants. I think it is clear that the commission wants the best possible design to show up in front of them. Not the least common denominator design that looks like it was plucked like an ear of cow corn from some midwest suburb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it, from today's column, that Brussat doesn't like the Westin either. Odd. He might be alone in that one.

Not that he cares. Polo anybody?

If anything, I might dislike the new Westin tower. But the old tower is just fine IMO. Very nice.

But I hafta admit, I mostly agreed with what he had to say today. He was his usual melodramatic self, but I agreed with most of the article. Which actually had me confused for a little while ...

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.