Ugliest Buildings in the Core

[andrew.w]

I don't know if Prankster was saying that the trend is to build replicas of late 1800s/early 1900s buildings but only that the styles of those buildings are becoming a trend again. Take the Macatawa & Grand Bank Building or the building on the corner across Monroe from the Pantlind for example. Both did or are replacing their old modernist facades for designs based on historical styles. The Gaslight Village development, though not downtown is another instance.

But either way, it can be agreed that we no longer have the view that these buildings or their style is old and tired as they did in the 50s-70s.

[tamias6]

In my humble opinion the buildings I would not hasitate to call ugly are the Grand Rapids Press HQ and the Ford Federal Building. The GRP looks like a gigantic Nintendo Entertainment System. The Federal Building on the other hand reminds me a of a scaled up version of my grandmother's tissue box. Tear these monstrosities down and let's go for somthing more 21 cewntury here.

[snoogit]

No one will agree with me on this, but the Amway Grand is showing its age...

[civitas]

No one will agree with me on this, but the Amway Grand is showing its age...

I never cared much for the glass tower, but in general, the Grand Plaza is one of the best maintained buildings in Grand Rapids.

The old Pantlind portion is a timeless design. Do you mean that the design of the tower is dated?

[snoogit]

I never cared much for the glass tower, but in general, the Grand Plaza is one of the best maintained buildings in Grand Rapids.

The old Pantlind portion is a timeless design. Do you mean that the design of the tower is dated?

the tower part is getting dated yes.

[torgo]

No one will agree with me on this, but the Amway Grand is showing its age...

I think the tower looks ok, but I dont like all that damn concrete they have along Pearl in front of the river. It looks like hell. It could be a lot better if you ask me.

[andrew.w]

I would also like to see the hotel with an updated entrance/base but I don't have any problem with the tower.

[MJLO]

I agree that the towers starting to show it's age, but more in the way you can tell that when it was built it was considered modern, and with new design, it's starting to take a place in history. I think one reason I think it's boring, is because for 25 years it has been the single most recognizeable peice on a skyline that's boring. I think if there were a bunch more towers around it, I might be more interested. I guess i'm just tired of the same ole' status quo.

[Prankster]

I don't know if Prankster was saying that the trend is to build replicas of late 1800s/early 1900s buildings but only that the styles of those buildings are becoming a trend again. Take the Macatawa & Grand Bank Building or the building on the corner across Monroe from the Pantlind for example. Both did or are replacing their old modernist facades for designs based on historical styles. The Gaslight Village development, though not downtown is another instance.

But either way, it can be agreed that we no longer have the view that these buildings or their style is old and tired as they did in the 50s-70s.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks for the help clarifying it.

[snoogit]

another one to add to the list:

anything built for GRCC except the Main building.

[numstead]

the tower part is getting dated yes.

Getting dated? Of course its dated.

I had a brief discussion about this notion earlier today during a design review. The question was posed to me "Do you think this will look dated in a few years." You would think that a designer would take offense to that question, but I didn't. The simple answer was "yes, of course it will look dated, styles change on a monthly basis". The fact (technicality) is... everything is dated. The works of Richard Meier, Rem Koolhas, Santiago Calatrava, Louis Kahn, Mies Van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, Daniel Burnham, Gustave Eiffel, Thomas Jefferson, & Andrea Palladio (et. al.) are all dated. The new JW Marriott, the Van Andel Institute, Plaza Towers, Amway Grand, 5th/3rd building, Ford Museum, Voight House, Pantlind Hotel, & GR Art Museum (current location) (et. al.) are all dated.

So the question to I would pose is "how well does the building represent the qualityof construction, aesthetics, and design ideals of the era it represents (dates)?"

[Allison Slater]

So the question to I would pose is "how well does the building represent the qualityof construction, aesthetics, and design ideals of the era it represents (dates)?"

Aesthetically, at least for the tower part, I would say it does a good job. I've always been a fan of well-designed glass buildings (no cubes or rectangular prisms please... those are just ugly). Although the Amway for the most part is much like a rectangular prism, the sideways stepladder effect on the one side and the slant makes it a very beautiful building imho.

To me a beautiful city is one that incorporates low, mid, and high-rise structures made of stone and brick facades, much like the old styles... with glass skyscrapers rising high above the rest. The Amway, Bridgewater, and JW do this well. They stand out, they are focal points. They may not be much to look at from up-close, but they are when you're across the river or a few blocks down, where it is towering over the other buildings. The non-glass more traditional buildings are really nice up close, but from afar are not as appealing. When coming from south of town, the first building that really grabs my attention is not those condos... it's the Amway. The reflectivity of the glass makes it seem almost as a diamond amidst a bunch of rocks.

[mpchicago]

I would also like to see the hotel with an updated entrance/base but I don't have any problem with the tower.

While the concrete remains, didn't the Amway Hotel Corp. recently update their motor lobby? One thing I do not like is the Amway

[allbusiness]

Not only is the post office ugly, but it's completely inadequate. Cars line up on Pearl just waiting to get in the parking lot.

If cars are lining up on Pearl Street to get into the Post Office we really DO have problems!

That "International Style" of architecture was big in the 60s and 70s and seems to have been marked by the use of large sheets of aggragate concrete. It's pretty... excuse me... "butt" ugly.

I've seen one "International Style" building renovated rather than demolished and it turned out OK. The Herrick District Library in Holland:

http://www.christmanco.com/experience/expe...xp_herrick.html

[GRDadof3]

While the concrete remains, didn't the Amway Hotel Corp. recently update their motor lobby?

They did dress it up and add more landscaping, so it does look a lot better. I think it was 5 or 6 years ago now.

I don't think the tower portion is dated looking.

At least it's not that highly reflective yellow glass like they did in Southfield or in Texas cities.

Every time I watch The Apprentice, I think Trump Tower and the Amway Grand have a very similar look.

with obvious height differences.

[civitas]

Getting dated? Of course its dated.

I had a brief discussion about this notion earlier today during a design review. The question was posed to me "Do you think this will look dated in a few years." You would think that a designer would take offense to that question, but I didn't. The simple answer was "yes, of course it will look dated, styles change on a monthly basis". The fact (technicality) is... everything is dated. The works of Richard Meier, Rem Koolhas, Santiago Calatrava, Louis Kahn, Mies Van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, Daniel Burnham, Gustave Eiffel, Thomas Jefferson, & Andrea Palladio (et. al.) are all dated. The new JW Marriott, the Van Andel Institute, Plaza Towers, Amway Grand, 5th/3rd building, Ford Museum, Voight House, Pantlind Hotel, & GR Art Museum (current location) (et. al.) are all dated.

So the question to I would pose is "how well does the building represent the qualityof construction, aesthetics, and design ideals of the era it represents (dates)?"

You can "date" all architecture, but becoming "dated" is to suggest that it is no longer appealing. Although the concept of a building becoming dated may have a degree of truth with all architectural styles, it is significantly less true of properly designed traditional buildings. Buildings like the Pantlind Hotel are considered "timeless" by most critics while most of the public schools built in the 50's are considered "dated".

Some retailers actually design their buildings to the current trends and remodel them as times change (Meijer is on a 7-year cycle).

[GRGyp]

Some retailers actually design their buildings to the current trends and remodel them as times change (Meijer is on a 7-year cycle).

So I'm going to have to wait 7 years before I can grocery shop at Meijers and not have to walk clear across the store in order to buy toothpaste?

[Allison Slater]

54th St. Meijer just moved all hygenic products near the main entrance, where the landscaping stuff used to be.

[Mark Miller]

All of the buildings mentioned, the Grand Rapids Press Building, the post office, the 5/3 building and the federal building are atrocities. They were designed to be timeless or at least representative of buildings "of their time." Unfortunately, they all represented a time in planning and architecture when "all that old crap needed to be cleansed".

They are also essentially "towers in the park", unfortunately the leftover space of the "park" is abysmal and the tower is a cold, heartless, non-contextual insertion into the city. These were all done by architects who were not particularly good at the craft of producing good modernism.

I would contend that the city and county buildings along with the Calder sculpture and the plaza would be substantially better if the surrounding buildings were better. If the 5/3 and federal complexes were removed and replaced with better buildings AND all the other debris, which surrounds the plaza and city/county buildings, did a better job of creating better urbanism and better architecture, then very few people may have a problem with the city/county complex.

In other words the city/county buildings and the plaza are not the problem, it is all the other stuff that defines this area. All of the other adjacent buildings degrade the civic realm and are very poor representations of modern design.

Another building that bothers me is the Van Andel Institute. I think not only is it ugly and very anti-pedestrian, it also represents one of Vinoly's worst works (IMO), which is too bad, because he can do so much better than this building.

Others on my list are:

BETA's headquarters on Ionia (replaced the Milner Hotel)

The North wall of the Devos Convention Center.

[FilmMaker]

As a planner, I am also guilty of complaining about certain eyesores on our visual horizon, however my targets are typically sites that are underutilized or completely blighted.

When it comes to architecture, a topic in which I have a college degree, I would much rather ponder how we might complement the existing city scape by being innovative in the empty spots within our midst - not tearing down useful bldgs and replacing them with something that will merely beg for destruction again two decades from now. I'm not saying many of the bldgs listed here aren't good candidates for replacement, instead I am saying let's also put some energy into envisioning what could rise out of the empty lots or unremarkable sites within the city core.

Want an example? Visit the following web sites and look around a little:

http://www.columbus.in.us/page.asp?page=Architecture

http://www.columbus.in.us/page.asp?page=Ar...tureTourMapList

The small town of Columbus Indiana may arguably have the most diverse architecture of any city in America. I have visited this town and become quite enamored with its eclectic mix of different styles by many of the world's most reknowned architects: Eliel Saarinen, Skidmore Owings Merrill, IM Pei, Gwathmey Siegel to name a few.

My point being, every era has good and bad examples of its form. What seems to make Columbus work so nicely is the absolute diversity of design across so many years, styles and trends. Unfortunately, here in GR we have too often ridden style horses way past their prime. This is obvious as you read the comments in this thread.

What we really need is thoughtfully designed buildings that strive to stand on their own unique merits... NOT variations on previously used themes. I know many will remind us that economics plays a role in every project, but that certainly has not stopped Columbus Indiana from pursuing some delightful outcomes.

Given that we don't have an obvious ethnic or geographic legacy of specific architectural design (like say Milwaukee or San Francisco), wouldn't it be cool if GR instead developed a reputation for diverse design similar to Columbus Indiana?

For those who might wish to make the drive to Columbus, it is about an hour south of Indianapolis. A short vacation to there might include a swing past Indiana University in Bloomington and a side trip through Brown County state park. Many might be surprised to learn that Indiana is actually a pretty scenic place south of Indianapolis.

[snoogit]

I'm surprised we dont see much Dutch inspired architecture in Grand Rapids

[LA Dave]

I'm surprised we dont see much Dutch inspired architecture in Grand Rapids

Look at the Southeast side. There are tons of Dutch Colonial homes. Even though this was a very popular style in the 1920s, GR seems to have more than its share.

[joeDowntown]

I think he might mean the "stepped" facades you see in the Netherlands. A classic example would be the big brick house on the corner of Fulton and College. I love that house.

Joe

Look at the Southeast side. There are tons of Dutch Colonial homes. Even though this was a very popular style in the 1920s, GR seems to have more than its share.

[snoogit]

I think he might mean the "stepped" facades you see in the Netherlands. A classic example would be the big brick house on the corner of Fulton and College. I love that house.

Joe

exactly! although I would say the new Courthouse bears a similar resemblance to the new ABN AMRO World HQ in Amsterdam, only red instead of gray

Maybe GR is emulating modern dutch architecture.

[GRDadof3]

As a planner, I am also guilty of complaining about certain eyesores on our visual horizon, however my targets are typically sites that are underutilized or completely blighted.

When it comes to architecture, a topic in which I have a college degree, I would much rather ponder how we might complement the existing city scape by being innovative in the empty spots within our midst - not tearing down useful bldgs and replacing them with something that will merely beg for destruction again two decades from now. I'm not saying many of the bldgs listed here aren't good candidates for replacement, instead I am saying let's also put some energy into envisioning what could rise out of the empty lots or unremarkable sites within the city core.

Want an example? Visit the following web sites and look around a little:

http://www.columbus.in.us/page.asp?page=Architecture

http://www.columbus.in.us/page.asp?page=Ar...tureTourMapList

The small town of Columbus Indiana may arguably have the most diverse architecture of any city in America. I have visited this town and become quite enamored with its eclectic mix of different styles by many of the world's most reknowned architects: Eliel Saarinen, Skidmore Owings Merrill, IM Pei, Gwathmey Siegel to name a few.

My point being, every era has good and bad examples of its form. What seems to make Columbus work so nicely is the absolute diversity of design across so many years, styles and trends. Unfortunately, here in GR we have too often ridden style horses way past their prime. This is obvious as you read the comments in this thread.

What we really need is thoughtfully designed buildings that strive to stand on their own unique merits... NOT variations on previously used themes. I know many will remind us that economics plays a role in every project, but that certainly has not stopped Columbus Indiana from pursuing some delightful outcomes.

Given that we don't have an obvious ethnic or geographic legacy of specific architectural design (like say Milwaukee or San Francisco), wouldn't it be cool if GR instead developed a reputation for diverse design similar to Columbus Indiana?

For those who might wish to make the drive to Columbus, it is about an hour south of Indianapolis. A short vacation to there might include a swing past Indiana University in Bloomington and a side trip through Brown County state park. Many might be surprised to learn that Indiana is actually a pretty scenic place south of Indianapolis.

Columbus, IN was mentioned previously on this forum. Although, some concerns were brought up regarding it's urbanism:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...opic=25553&st=0

Interesting place nonetheless.