Jump to content

Vandenberg Center/Calder Plaza


Rizzo

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

boring ass boxes

Is this a mine? A donkey crating center? Is it located under the Calder?

So, the state of Calder Plaza aka Vandenberg Plaza, and the idea of preservation. Preservation is not about saving and/or making everything look like a Victorian Painted Lady. Preservation is about maintaining the continuum of history. When you talk about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Preservation is not about saving and/or making everything look like a Victorian Painted Lady. Preservation is about maintaining the continuum of history...Being able to have a living laboratory of architecture that spans a few hundred years is by far more interesting.

Unfortunately, most buildings that have been built since WWII are neither architecturally relevant nor constructed to last much longer than a 30-year mortgage. Do the 7-11's, Wal-Mart's, cheap 3-bedroom ranchers, wood-frame garden apartments, etc. belong in the "living laboratory"?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, most buildings that have been built since WWII are neither architecturally relevant nor constructed to last much longer than a 30-year mortgage. Do the 7-11's, Wal-Mart's, cheap 3-bedroom ranchers, wood-frame garden apartments, etc. belong in the "living laboratory"?

.

Quite a broad brush you paint with! Hmmm.... let

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that is used 15-20 times a year but occupies such an important piece of real estate should be redeveloped. It is really pathetic to walk by the plaza on a beautiful 75 degree day and see *NO ONE* using it. Let's Urban Renewal its ass. ;)

Joe

No.

Redevelop the east side of Monroe, redevelop the Federal building, and the 5/3 parking lot, heck, redevelop Ottawa Ave., but don't touch the Calder, the plaza or the city/county buildings.

I just ran the Riverbank 5K, which coincidentially culminated along Ottawa at Calder Plaza. It's a great place to mingle and have a party and it should be preserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how the Calder gets featured.

CALDER-PLAZA.jpg

If by "featured" you mean rendered insignificant, then yes these plans would've done a wonderful job of that.

Why is historical preservation ignored when it comes to this area? As I've mentioned before, the Calder is site specific. As insignificant as many may think these buildings appear, they are still integral to the sculpture, which remains the single most successful public art project in the United States.

If you remove the "boring boxes," the Calder loses meaning and as a result our city does too.

There are plenty of redevelopment opportunities over there that don't include destroying our heritage. We did that once, it sucked, let's not do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading an article during the debate about their architectural significance in which one of the designers even called them junk buildings. There are many other buildings I would like to see imploded first, but the city and county buildings are on my top 10 wish list...

Joe

I think that the historic preservation movement isn't only about saving old buildings but is also an effective way to block the construction of more junk buildings and surface parking lots (remember the fight over the old Purple east building). It can be valuable from both perspectives.

However, if someone came forward with a proposal to redevelop the Calder block in a manner that had great architecture, increased density and created exceptional urbanism, I would hope that any historic value of the SOM buildings would be seriously weighed against that proposal. That, unfortunately, seldom happens with preservationists.

BTW, the city/county buildings are possibly the most inefficient floorplates in the city. The ratio of useable space to total space is horrible. I agree that the Calder should stay but the plaza is a horribly harsh environment for all but about 6 days a year. It could be much better.

Sometimes it is very appropriate to replace old buildings with something of even more value. That, in fact, has been the history of the city, and as long as the buildings we lament loosing are replaced with stuructures of greater value, I think it's OK. The difficult question is how to define greater value. Any ideas?

72966134_15acfb2911.jpg

142329613_46d9b5b39a.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard people discuss Calder's plans and whether he even knew what the City and County buildings would look like. I have heard the story told both ways and I'm still confused about the "context". Has the "context" of the Statue of Liberty changed over the years as the New York skyline has changed? Will the context of every sculpture at the Meijer Gardens change as the Garden's mature?

I just don't think it is solid footing for an argument. The Gallium project gave the Calder sculpture the proper respect it deserved, without the black cubes in the background.

Joe

If by "featured" you mean rendered insignificant, then yes these plans would've done a wonderful job of that.

Why is historical preservation ignored when it comes to this area? As I've mentioned before, the Calder is site specific. As insignificant as many may think these buildings appear, they are still integral to the sculpture, which remains the single most successful public art project in the United States.

If you remove the "boring boxes," the Calder loses meaning and as a result our city does too.

There are plenty of redevelopment opportunities over there that don't include destroying our heritage. We did that once, it sucked, let's not do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the "context" of the Statue of Liberty changed over the years as the New York skyline has changed? Will the context of every sculpture at the Meijer Gardens change as the Garden's mature?

Well, yes it has and yes they will.

As NY has grown taller, the relative size of the Statue of Liberty has significantly shrunk, that's pretty obvious. And as the natural environment of Meijer Gardens changes, so do the context of the sculpture, but it's designed that way.

You're right, whether or not Calder knew about the city/county buildings is a non-issue, but the point remains, you change the design of the plaza, add the monumental height, the flashy glass and the stainless steel cladding and you diminish the impact of the sculpture, turning sculptural significance into a schizophrenic mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree. Many people sat around in the 60's lamenting the "ugly" County Courthouse and City Hall that we now love and adore. They also hated the Italianate look of Ledyard, and Aldrich, and Peck, and Justice & Monroe, and clad over them with aluminum and steel (they actually thought this looked better than the repulsive ornate detailing). And most of us can't figure out what these people were thinking. Will future generations think the same of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what's being said, It's very true that in thirty years someone may look back and be sad that they got rid of the black city/ county buildings. But this style of building, is not unique even today. It's a very utilitarian form. Made from cheap materials I remember last summer driving by and seeing screens from the upper floors being out of place. I can agree with preserving a peice of architecture thru time, so save one. But can we come to a consensus that the property could be much better used. Preserve our history, but give us some leg room for the future too. I envision a building there. Built very well, very beautiful. Maybe not even tall. But something that's inviting and says alot more about our city, it's vibrance and liveability. Something more than a stone wall says now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what's being said, It's very true that in thirty years someone may look back and be sad that they got rid of the black city/ county buildings. But this style of building, is not unique even today. It's a very utilitarian form. Made from cheap materials I remember last summer driving by and seeing screens from the upper floors being out of place. I can agree with preserving a peice of architecture thru time, so save one. But can we come to a consensus that the property could be much better used. Preserve our history, but give us some leg room for the future too. I envision a building there. Built very well, very beautiful. Maybe not even tall. But something that's inviting and says alot more about our city, it's vibrance and liveability. Something more than a stone wall says now.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for getting rid of the stone wall. But if you get a chance to walk through One Illinois Center in Chicago (designed by Mies but exactly the same look as our City/County buildings, only taller) they're very majestic looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that is used 15-20 times a year but occupies such an important piece of real estate should be redeveloped. It is really pathetic to walk by the plaza on a beautiful 75 degree day and see *NO ONE* using it. Let's Urban Renewal its ass. ;)

Joe

Its used by no one because its out of scale for a single individual or pair meeting up for lunch. I'll bet you wouldn't plop down in the middle of the plaza, sit cross-legged and munch on a sandwich by yourself. But its perfect for those other functions that celebrate the diversity of this city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Preserve our history, but give us some leg room for the future too.

Well said. I agree.

The original Morton House was a beautiful structure, as were others on that block.

146895912_f3b5ce6dc6.jpg

Over time they were replaced by buildings that are arguably not as architecturally significant (at least not as ornate), but that contributed significantly to the advancement of the city.

146895913_c5221e0df6.jpg

Grab Corners (1870 photo) is a facinating part of the City's history, but I'm glad we tore down the old buildings and have the McKay Tower, Pantlind/Grand Hotel, JW Marriot, etc.

BTW, notice the building with the "AUCTION" sign. Monroe used to have a 1/2 block jog at Pearl because of the feud between city father Lyon and city father Campau.

The Pantlind is directly behind the sign and Flanigans is to the right on Pearl just out of view.

146901836_d6a7c26e24.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want a PUBLIC building funded by my tax dollars "kept up" if it costs more to me to keep it up then to redue it. Sure there is history, but my relatives that work in the City Building say its time to just let go -- speaks volumes.

Frey told MiBiz that the space could be better utilized with a “much more dense, vertical” development that is more pedestrian friendly — possibly a hotel, condominiums, restaurants or a new performing arts center.

--http://www.mibiz.com/absolutenm/templates/frontpagenews.asp?articleid=9039&zoneid=7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but there's a point where your putting more money into something then its worth.

As I read through this thread I can now see why a lot of the community was poliarised on this issue. To me its a place that represents GR, its a place where I gather... it has an emotional tie to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this the same attitude that demolished the original city hall?

the question I pose to you is, Do we save everything to preserve history? Or do we save a couple, and pave way for progression. The way things are going now, if we keep the view of don't tear anything down because we'll regret it later, The changing Grand Rapids skyline, will come to a screeching hault. But hey atleast we will not have torn down any of our mediocre boxy buildings for the sake of historic preservation.

Why hasn't anyone raised a fuss about the Tower Medical Complex coming down? That ugly building has a place in time too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for getting rid of the stone wall. But if you get a chance to walk through One Illinois Center in Chicago (designed by Mies but exactly the same look as our City/County buildings, only taller) they're very majestic looking.

Yeah. Don't they have a big orange Calder sculpture too? It looks fine amongst the skyscrapers to me.

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.