Jump to content

126 Ottawa NW Makeover

GRDadof3

By GRDadof3
in Grand Rapids

Recommended Posts

tamias6 Town

tamias6

Posted
Posted

This is one of those cases of Hell if you do and Hell if you don't. If the developer chose to replace the existing facade with an ultra modern bleeding edge looking one, then there would be rants about the building ruining the fabric of the surrounding area. But if the facade was replaced by the new "old" look as was done in 126 Ottawa's case, then we get the Jim Hargers out there saying that the architect coped out for not designing a modern looking building. Is there a happy medium? I doubt it. But who cares what the critics say as long as the building looks good, enhances its surroundings and above all serves well at its designed purpose.

The new facade is a hundred times better than the old. All the criticism of the "new" old looks irks me anyways. We all walk around marvelling at the old buildings and the ornamentation, and ask ourselves "why don't we build stuff like that any more?" Then someone actually tries to do it, and there is all this criticism about it looking cheap and fake. Is 126 Ottawa perfect? Of course not, but maybe the next building to get a facelift can take a couple lessons from what works and what doesn't. IMHO. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ArsEcclesiae Unincorporated Area

ArsEcclesiae

Posted
Posted
The new facade is a hundred times better than the old. All the criticism of the "new" old looks irks me anyways. We all walk around marvelling at the old buildings and the ornamentation, and ask ourselves "why don't we build stuff like that any more?" Then someone actually tries to do it, and there is all this criticism about it looking cheap and fake. Is 126 Ottawa perfect? Of course not, but maybe the next building to get a facelift can take a couple lessons from what works and what doesn't. IMHO. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
e49418 Unincorporated Area

e49418

Posted
Posted

I agree with all (other than Jim Harger) that the new facade is much better than the glass facade that it replaces. The glass looked to be poorly done, and certainly did not blend in with the rest of the block. Saying it had significant historical value is like saying disco has significant historical value - sure, they were "the thing" of that time, but they both sucked.

Is it just me, or do those corbels seem a little heavy for the rest of the building?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mpchicago Burg

mpchicago

Posted
Posted

I like this new facade. However, I don't really care for the choice of brick and mortar. I think a smooth, uniform, darker colored red brick; with mortar tinted the same color would have looked better.

When all is said and done it would have been nice if no one had ever touched the original facade, which IMO was the best of them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tamias6 Town

tamias6

Posted
Posted

Perhaps its the newness of the bricks and not the choice. I think that over time the bricks will get some character as normal wear and tear take their toll. We'll see what happens in about ten to fifteen years.

I like this new facade. However, I don't really care for the choice of brick and mortar. I think a smooth, uniform, darker colored red brick; with mortar tinted the same color would have looked better.

When all is said and done it would have been nice if no one had ever touched the original facade, which IMO was the best of them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeDowntown Metropolis

joeDowntown

Posted
Posted

Are there any pictures out there of the building in its original form before people started messing with it? (I like the new look but would like to see the original just for fun).

Joe

When all is said and done it would have been nice if no one had ever touched the original facade, which IMO was the best of them all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wolverine Town

wolverine

Posted
Posted

One thing I think architects should go through is a course on how to properly design retro-facades. What architects DO tend to do poorly these days are correct proportioning and and balance. We end up with oversized features, jumbo cornices, bad pilaster depth, I could go on. I think you wouldn't see so much criticism if it was actually done right. If I'm to be entirely open on this building, I'd give it an 7/10 of what its trying to convey. I think the balance and proportion is way off. The windows are too flush with the facade as well. I would have shrunk those brackets down a bit, perhaps place a columns beneath them, added more cornice to the top, and pushed the arched windows back a little. The rest is pretty good. But I have to agree that this facade is WAY WAY better than the original. Sure the glass curtain wall was innovative for it's time, but SOM was doing many other buildings which used that system. Actually the curtain wall has been around for a very long time. The fact that its the first in GR is no big deal at all. I don't really see any merit to that argument.

As far as "buildings of our time" vs retro. The whole argument is a waste of time. People end up defending their personal tastes over what is truely valuable. You will always have the modernists on one side and classicists on the other. IMO, the architecture of a building should embody the spirt of the client's preferences in architectural taste and the experience he wishes to convey within the building. It's the architect's job to carry this through and do it well.

For example, some day I want to live in a house that looks like it was built in the 1890's. I know they are hard to come by since they are protected historical landmarks, so if I have the money, I'll just rebuild it the way I want. But I don't need people telling me that my house is wrong because it doesn't physically convey the technological accomplishments and design ideas of the 21st century. I build it the way I want because I like it that way. The architect takes that vision, throws in a bit of innovation, maybe some enviromentally sensitive technology, maximizes the type of experience desired, and constructs a design that exceeds the client's expectations. Of course, planning will always be the ultimate decision on where my house may or may not go.

This is all my own opinion, but I think it's a good one because I feel the new vs old argument is a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeDowntown Metropolis

joeDowntown

Posted
Posted

Thanks but what I am looking for I guess isn't the original facade by the facade that SOM did before it was messed with:

"The SOM design was innovative for its day, featuring double-paned insulated windows and an abstract mosaic using black, brown and ochre colors."

Also, when you look at the original facade, you realize it's brackets were as big as the new ones. Maybe not as thick, but just as big.

Joe

Here is a link to a picture of the original facade.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
tamias6 Town

tamias6

Posted
Posted

I think it will take a very long time for copper around here to completely tarnish to green. The Arnie's Bakery on Lenard St. just west of Alpine Ave. had a copper awning added over the entrance to its building about 10 years ago and its still not green, though it acquired a brownish texture intermixed with shiny copper a couple of years ago.

It's not the salt. The green patina is caused by acids in the air. The best results show up in areas with acid rain conditions.

You can also age copper by applying an acid like vinegar. Or do what they used to do in colonial New England: Piss on it! Animal urine was oftened used to age copper and bronze. Today, through the miracle of chemistry, there are chemical treatments that are used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
civitas Burg

civitas

Posted
Posted
I think it will take a very long time for copper around here to completely tarnish to green. The Arnie's Bakery on Lenard St. just west of Alpine Ave. had a copper awning added over the entrance to its building about 10 years ago and its still not green, though it acquired a brownish texture intermixed with shiny copper a couple of years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheshireguy Whistle-Stop

cheshireguy

Posted
Posted

I think the patina (green reaction on copper by atmospheric conditions) looks so good on old buildings, and IMHO the copper product looks spectacular throughout the patina stages. Bright, new and shiny to a dull, cloudy metallic, to the green antique patina look. Copper for president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.