Jump to content

Downtown movie theater coming


Coleco

Recommended Posts

I'm bored of this rendering already. Oh, and yet another rendering that doesn't have the virtual camera level with the virtual horizon. Notice the building seems to lean in at the edges of the image.

"E Street Theatre" makes no sense to me.

Why Arial font?

Why no scrolling marquee?

Why only one frame for movie posters?

Why Aeon flux? Probably because some "artist" had a hard-on.

Green curtain wall seems too suburban office park to me.

I'm not a fan of skywalks either.

I'll probably have more opinions later.

My guess is this rendering is as old as that movie is, so its got to be at least 8 months old now. Just like the RSC project's first rendering looked terrible, and when that new one came out that GR dad produced looked 10x better, I think that would be the case here as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I agree, I am going to hold my comment on this one for awhile to see if a new rendering comes out, or to see how it will look when it was actually built.

From the perspective of this current rending, it's okay. Not too crazy about the details, looks too busy. I was hoping for something a little more streamlined/unique/funky/modern

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the look of the renderings but people who know me say I am easily pleased.

As for the skywalks I also agree that they are probably hurting retail. As someone who goes to conventions all over the country a skywalk from your hotel to the convention center is desirable when you are bringing marketing materials from your hotel to the convention center and back especially if the weather is nasty.

I also go to a number of conventions right here in Grand Rapids at DeVos and inside the Amway Grand Plaza and I can tell you that people from out of town appreciate our skywalk system. Thats not to say they wouldn't like some ground floor retail even more.

I think there should be more retail space along the skywalk system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, with a few easy changes

187199261_6a8939a2d6.jpg

I figured out the things bothering me the most:

1) It looked like a Sam's Club warehouse without a "top" to it

2) The blank brick wall on the left was too bland

3) The weird angled walls on the right were also not right

I'll drop it now. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K., I am not trying to defend TPTA here but...Were there certain design standards that the architect had to follow from the owner. Not that I like the design but I know that most theatres have the same look to them. Look at the Celebration Cinema's. They all look the same. I thought maybe the owner needed the green glass and the weird angles and the gabled roof because that is the design standard. I can only assume that TPTA would have come up with something better. Is this is sign of what the River Grand would look like since TPTA could be the architect their? Lets hope not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of skywalks either, but I remember the developer planning a proposal for Lot 5 as well and it was going to have a bunch of residential. I think the skywalk is to connect condo owners to their individual parking spaces, which is understandable IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isnt it up to the planning commission on the use of skywalks? i could be wrong but i thought the new hotel had to go to them to get their skywalk approved.

maybe we need new planning commissioners to stop making GR the world's largest outdoor hampster cage.

As far as I'm aware, the planning commission basically has to allow anything that fits with the Master Plan and with the code.

The master plan doesn't address skywalks, and the code only addresses their design:

(8) Overhead walkways or other connections.

No connections between structures that pass over a public street may be approved except by agreement approved by the City Commission after review and approval of the Planning Commission. In evaluating a request for such a connection, the Planning Commission and City Commission shall evaluate the relationship of the proposed connection to the street, its effect on street level activities and views, and the following standards:

(a) Overhead connections shall be transparent to allow users to be viewed from the exterior. Accordingly the use of clear glass on the sides of an overhead connection is required and the use of darkened glass is prohibited.

(b) The exterior of all overhead connections shall be level. Any sloping or ramped surface between levels shall be accommodated within the bridge structure itself. The exterior height of an overhead connection is limited to a height reasonably necessary to provide one level plus any needed slope. No multi-level connections are permitted.

(c ) Bridges must be designed and constructed to provide a clear span across streets, sidewalks and other public rights-of-way.

(d) The minimum clearance of any connection above a public street or fire lane shall be 16 feet.

That's all... now, the code is being revised by the planning department, I know... but I don't know if they're addressing skywalks at all in the rewrite. :unsure: It may -ahem- be worth contacting them about it if it's really bugging you. Maybe enough public outcry can get them to take it out of the new code. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't expect the master plan to address skywalks, they really aren't master plan material. As for the code, the snippet posted above certainly appears to grant the PC the ability to deny them if they want to.

Planning Commission and City Commission shall evaluate the relationship of the proposed connection to the street, its effect on street level activities and views

So if the PC agrees that a skywalk would have a detrimental effect on street level activities, they could deny it.

But you're right Lplan, a planning commission is going to have a hard time denying something that is clearly permitted in the zoning ordinance. They can deny it anything they want, but they risk getting a big fat lawsuit if they aren't careful about it.

The new ordinance will address skywalks (and it should) because we already have a whole bunch of them, but I hope that they severely restrict their construction in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't expect the master plan to address skywalks, they really aren't master plan material. As for the code, the snippet posted above certainly appears to grant the PC the ability to deny them if they want to.

So if the PC agrees that a skywalk would have a detrimental effect on street level activities, they could deny it.

But you're right Lplan, a planning commission is going to have a hard time denying something that is clearly permitted in the zoning ordinance. They can deny it anything they want, but they risk getting a big fat lawsuit if they aren't careful about it.

The new ordinance will address skywalks (and it should) because we already have a whole bunch of them, but I hope that they severely restrict their construction in the future.

The developer doesn't own the street. A private building that spans a public street right-of-way is not "by right" in any situation. Without permission from the city for the air rights there could be no skywalk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I am a huge fan of skywalks myself, but don't forget what "street" we are crossing. This is really an exit ramp for North Bound traffic to enter the City. This ramp can be pretty busy at times for concerts and other events downtown. It also is a deceleration ramp for vehicles going 60+MPH on US131 to slow down and connect with 25MPH city streets. It doesn't matter to me to look both ways and cross the street, but many overly protective parents with younger children may think differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I am a huge fan of skywalks myself, but don't forget what "street" we are crossing. This is really an exit ramp for North Bound traffic to enter the City. This ramp can be pretty busy at times for concerts and other events downtown. It also is a deceleration ramp for vehicles going 60+MPH on US131 to slow down and connect with 25MPH city streets. It doesn't matter to me to look both ways and cross the street, but many overly protective parents with younger children may think differently.

[/quote

Good point. I don't think that there could be much street level retail here anyway. I guess this could be one of those times when a skywalk would be more necessary. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI: The City has erected a "Lot For Sale" sign on the Area 5 parking lot now (on Ionia). It says to call to bid on the lot.

City Listings

I just read this article that states that Rockford Construction will be involved in the Area 4 Theater project. I've read several things now alluding to this being a done deal. Why did the Area 4 lot not go through an RFP process like the other city-owned lots?

GR Press article - page 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI: The City has erected a "Lot For Sale" sign on the Area 5 parking lot now (on Ionia). It says to call to bid on the lot.

City Listings

I just read this article that states that Rockford Construction will be involved in the Area 4 Theater project. I've read several things now alluding to this being a done deal. Why did the Area 4 lot not go through an RFP process like the other city-owned lots?

GR Press article - page 4

I wonder if these are somehow connected...

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ss....xml&coll=6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

That's a pretty informative blog, It sounds like the theatre thing, could still happen, and with something possible also coming from Rockford Construction as well. Anyone want to take bets on the likliness of this coming to fruition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

so the article says the dda hasn't accepted the original offer for the lot that would be the movie theater, are they waiting for the developer to get a theater operator first? or are they still reviewing the original proposal?

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.