Gallery on Fulton

[twoshort]

I'll wait until a better rendering surfaces, but I still don't dig the blank wall no matter what they cover it with.

[GRDadof3]

Shots of the detailed scale model brought to HPC last night:

view from CW dude park, looking at UICA

HPC gave them rave reviews for picking up details, materials, and colors presently used by the three different adjacent districts.

[scooping Jim Hartger]

Thanks Karen. I think the project looks fantastic. The wall doesn't look as bad as I thought, and I'm glad to see that wall breaks up at the corner and is completely different along Commerce (and the canopies help). Would be nice if they dressed it up a bit more. I'm with twoshort. I could see "brick" patterns in the wall in the first drawings, but that only adds SOME interest to it. It's still a wall lacking features stretching 2 - 3 stories up.

This angle is the kicker. UICA (and this entire corner) is going to jump into a different league with this facility.

[twoshort]

What's going on on the Commerce side? It looks like mostly blank wall as well...

[Veloise]

What's going on on the Commerce side? It looks like mostly blank wall as well...

Check their renderings. I believe that's retail (above would be signage, canopies, lighting, et al).

Highligh: one commish Who Shall Remain Nameless suggested that this corner pick up the little [high-pitched tone] "fwoop" triangular cut of Commerce at Fulton. Said it would be need to echo/address/repeat the San Chez building angle and the street angle. Said "fwoop" several times.

[GRDadof3]

This side, for those playing along at home. This angle would be seen (prominently) from walking anywhere in that area along Fulton or on Ionia. It especially will stand out looking up Louis (from Louis Benton Steakhouse area). I don't think a "fwoop" cut would be enough IMO. I'm perplexed why the HPC gave the Eastbrook 920 Cherry plan so much heat, yet did not raise any objections to this big blank wall. Those two walls are so far from any context in Heartside (except the police station, which isn't historic nor in the district).

Can there be something written into the code: "No blank walls anywhere, unless facing an alley"

[Veloise]

This side, for those playing along at home. This angle would be seen (prominently) from walking anywhere in that area along Fulton or on Ionia. It especially will stand out looking up Louis (from Louis Benton Steakhouse area). I don't think a "fwoop" cut would be enough IMO. I'm perplexed why the HPC gave the Eastbrook 920 Cherry plan so much heat, yet did not raise any objections to this big blank wall. Those two walls are so far from any context in Heartside (except the police station, which isn't historic nor in the district).

Can there be something written into the code: "No blank walls anywhere, unless facing an alley"

Maybe Sam's pards could create a VR walk-through at pedestrian level for when they take it to the PC in June. I think it would help greatly to have photosims showing existing old funky buildings and the scale of the new proposal. [Anyone needing a price-quality-speed provider of photosims, PM me for a referral.]

[dang I love public hearings & meetings, sincerely]

Should probably mention that the pards asked what sort of retail would work really well. (Full disclosure: I was in the Planning dept when these proposals originally came in, including the Walgreens.) I filled them in on DT's scooped ice cream deficiency...they suggested Dunkin' Donuts...I told them about the police mural ideas.

It seems that have had discussions with various potential retailers; this would be a good time to recommend or suggest others who would help fill in the blanks DT, and get in on the ground floor (literally). (The spaces are probably not large enough for a Gap.)

[torgo]

I think this looks pretty good. I'm not high on those walls either, but at least they arent at ground level. What is up with the one side of the "tower"? Or is that just that back of the model, and not what it will actually look like?

[numstead]

please define "blank".

in design and composition solids are just as important as voids.

[Mark Miller]

Why was Eastbrook given so much heat on their plan and this one passed right on through?

The Fulton and Division development was simply an adivsory opinion, whereas the Eastbrook project is going through not only a public hearing, but also a binding decision. Also, the Eastbrook project is being placed into a neighborhood where context is always scrutinized much heavier than in downtown locations.

If there ever was a building that needs to be an object building (rather than a fabric building), this may be a good location for it. For that reason, I think they have done a good job with a mix of materials, both old and new, that really speak to the different zones of the city that this building is within context to. I think that they have a little bit more lattitude to experiment here, than at other sites downtown and certainly more so than in residential neighborhoods.

Is this a perfect building? Probably not. But it is on a tough site in both size and grade differentials. It also needs to have parking, which is being placed somewhere other than at the street level.

From a pedestrian point of view it should be pretty good. It has a lot of storefront windows along most of the street level and very few blank walls. Most of the upper level blank walls will not be experienced at the pedestrian level. Does that make it OK? No. They could probably have some punched openings in these levels, to mimic windows and break up the facade.

Overall, I think they have done a good job with the building, the context analysis (without being too cute about it, by adding a bunch of frills and doo-dads) was sound and helped to inform some of their decisions. I find this building a bit more palatable than the art museum, at least at this point in time.

[wingbert]

Which project will be completed first - this one or Tall House?

[GRDadof3]

Why was Eastbrook given so much heat on their plan and this one passed right on through?

The Fulton and Division development was simply an adivsory opinion, whereas the Eastbrook project is going through not only a public hearing, but also a binding decision. Also, the Eastbrook project is being placed into a neighborhood where context is always scrutinized much heavier than in downtown locations.

If there ever was a building that needs to be an object building (rather than a fabric building), this may be a good location for it. For that reason, I think they have done a good job with a mix of materials, both old and new, that really speak to the different zones of the city that this building is within context to. I think that they have a little bit more lattitude to experiment here, than at other sites downtown and certainly more so than in residential neighborhoods.

Is this a perfect building? Probably not. But it is on a tough site in both size and grade differentials. It also needs to have parking, which is being placed somewhere other than at the street level.

From a pedestrian point of view it should be pretty good. It has a lot of storefront windows along most of the street level and very few blank walls. Most of the upper level blank walls will not be experienced at the pedestrian level. Does that make it OK? No. They could probably have some punched openings in these levels, to mimic windows and break up the facade.

Overall, I think they have done a good job with the building, the context analysis (without being too cute about it, by adding a bunch of frills and doo-dads) was sound and helped to inform some of their decisions. I find this building a bit more palatable than the art museum, at least at this point in time.

I disagree. You'd be hard pressed to find an expanse of wall that doesn't have any changes in it on the art museum that's more than 20 or 30' high or long. Not the case here. Plus, the pedestrian experience is not just relegated to the 10 - 20 seconds spent right in front of the building, 9/10's of the experience happens as you approach the building from as far away as a block. The ground floor looks pretty good (like it is "OK" on the Pearl side of the Marriott conference center), but what happens when you're on the other side of the street, or approaching it, or more than 10' away from it? Granted, I wouldn't want it to look like the San Chez building, but something more pronounced than the edges of where one "wood-grained" panel ends and another begins would be nice. (Why wood grain in an urban setting?)

It seems to me there is more credence given to "materials" than the design. Don't get me wrong, I think the design overall is great and I like the modernity of the whole thing, even in its context.

I took some photos of the entire corner this morning. I'll post those this afternoon and see what people think.

[Veloise]

I think this looks pretty good. I'm not high on those walls either, but at least they arent at ground level. What is up with the one side of the "tower"? Or is that just that back of the model, and not what it will actually look like?

This vista faces GRPD, looking through the adjacent existing buildings in Heartside. No one will see this side unless those are torn down, develop windows, etc.

[torgo]

This vista faces GRPD, looking through the adjacent existing buildings in Heartside. No one will see this side unless those are torn down, develop windows, etc.

You're right with the bottom, but I'm more concerned about the taller part. It seems like that would be visible from quite a ways out. How many floors is it, anyways?

[Veloise]

This panel is an interesting punched-out metal.

You're right with the bottom, but I'm more concerned about the taller part. It seems like that would be visible from quite a ways out. How many floors is it, anyways?

On their website, I count nine balconies on the residential.

[Mark Miller]

The tall portion of this building, facing south, is a blank wall (with the exception of some small windows right on the western edge). The reason for this is that it sits right on the property line and is required to have a fire rated construction, in the event that another building ever gets built adjacent to it. So this is a very large blank wall.

As far as the pedestrian experience, I do not disagree with you on the whole thing about the blank walls being part of the experience as one approaches the building. For the most part the connection between the street and the building is transparent, (although there are overhead doors and some minor occurances of blank walls) -this ground floor transparency is far more important than what is going on above. I don't think that justifies it, but the reality is that parking is needed and required and it is far better to put it at an upper level than at the street, in this case.

Blank space is not necessarily a bad thing when articulated properly and when it is not at the street level, particularly on an object building (if that is what this is). Is this space articulated properly? Not sure, but these blank upper walls will not be one large mass of brick or block, I think that they will have some compelling detail - just like (but better than) the "articulated" concrete of the art museum.

This project still has to go before planning commission and back before HPC. Nothing as been decided. I would urge anyone who wants to speak to this to come to these meetings and address the issue in the public comment portion of the meetings. The debate and questions that arise here are well founded and deserve consideration.

[GRDadof3]

The tall portion of this building, facing south, is a blank wall (with the exception of some small windows right on the western edge). The reason for this is that it sits right on the property line and is required to have a fire rated construction, in the event that another building ever gets built adjacent to it. So this is a very large blank wall.

As far as the pedestrian experience, I do not disagree with you on the whole thing about the blank walls being part of the experience as one approaches the building. For the most part the connection between the street and the building is transparent, (although there are overhead doors and some minor occurances of blank walls) -this ground floor transparency is far more important than what is going on above. I don't think that justifies it, but the reality is that parking is needed and required and it is far better to put it at an upper level than at the street, in this case.

Blank space is not necessarily a bad thing when articulated properly and when it is not at the street level, particularly on an object building (if that is what this is). Is this space articulated properly? Not sure, but these blank upper walls will not be one large mass of brick or block, I think that they will have some compelling detail - just like (but better than) the "articulated" concrete of the art museum.

This project still has to go before planning commission and back before HPC. Nothing as been decided. I would urge anyone who wants to speak to this to come to these meetings and address the issue in the public comment portion of the meetings. The debate and questions that arise here are well founded and deserve consideration.

I wish there were a general consensus in the architecture community as to what the best way to screen parking is. I agree that having the parking above the first floor is a definite plus, and allows for ground-floor retail. But I just can't stand it when I look at a high-rise and can TELL where the parking is. This firm has done that with several other projects:

I'd love to be a fly on the wall to hear that discussion as to why it's a more desirable look.

Anyway, I sketched up a few to get a feeling how this project will blend with the environment, based on the "context" drawing you posted with the two buildings next door. I think I'm pretty close. It's going to a great addition to this corner finally.

[GR_Urbanist]

What exactly is the first floor along Fulton supposed to to look like?

From the photo, I'm looking at posts supporting the blank wall portion of the building. Is there supposed to be glass there? If it's just supposed to be boxes on top of posts, then this is going to look horrid.

It also looks like they abandoned Commerce Ave. I guess that's why you cant find any renderings for that side. They know it's going to be nothing more than a dingy service entrance, which is the last thing that street needs.

Parts of this design are giving off a weird 60s vibe. Too much "blockiness" and blank walls on the south and western sides.

[suydam]

Parts of this design are giving off a weird 60s vibe. Too much "blockiness" and blank walls on the south and western sides.

I have to say that was my first impression. The more I look at it the more I feel that way.

60s architecture rubs me the wrong way in general.

[Rizzo]

Then again we're looking at a really simple representation of the actual product. We probably shouldn't be making large critiques on this project based on this model, especially at the size of the photo. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't make out much detail to form an opinion, which the model isn't really for.

Edited May 3, 2007 by Rizzo

[Khorasaurus]

About the south side of the building...it abuts two other buildings. Right up against them, I assume, or maybe a little alley in between. Next to the tallest part of the development, there is going to be a six story building, meaning of the "blank" south side, only the top three floors will be visible - or even have the possiblility of having windows.

As for the Commerce side, it seems like floors 2-4 are sort of blank, but there is a residential entrance or storefront there, so it's not like it isn't pedestrian friendly.

This is a great development filling in a vacant lot. Why can't we ever be satisfied with anything?

[GRDadof3]

At least the ground floor retail looks good. J/K

N/M I'll leave it alone for a while.

[Khorasaurus]

At least the ground floor retail looks good. J/K

N/M I'll leave it alone for a while.

You make a good point...still even the covered-up Peck would have looked better with a seven story tower with windows on top.

[GRDadof3]

You make a good point...still even the covered-up Peck would have looked better with a seven story tower with windows on top.

Are you sure about that Khorasaurus? Who would want to live over that?

[Veloise]

Here's the "fwoop" on San Chez.

[Rizzo]

Wait, by this "fwoop" you folks mean chamfer?