Contemporary Rental Housing

[civitas]

How about red instead of the green? Or "tomato-soup", like this:

Otherwise, it's great!

Gotta love SketchUp!

[Rizzo]

There you go, minus the corrugation -- I'd rent that place to someone...

[numstead]

Civitas, I'm not a big fan of those sketches. Take the following as sincere constructive criticism.

To me, the design lacks a certain consistency. I'd use the graphic design term "clown's pants effect", that is, it seems to be a confusing jumble of mixed graphical forms without any visual hierarchy of importance.

Barrel vault vs. Slope roof

Banded block vs. Clapboard Siding vs. Corrugated Metal

Red awning vs. Blue awning

Honestly, I just don't get it. [shrugs shoulders]

[Allison Slater]

I could see myself living in the white or green, but not tomato soup. I wouldn't mind seeing buildings like these up by W Leonard... it'd sure look better in place of the strip mall by the railroad tracks.

golscorer: that's the beuty of it, to me. It varies within the building, being itself both a positive and negative like a magnet, if you will.

[civitas]

Honestly, I just don't get it. [shrugs shoulders]

Thanks Golscorer4. I do appreciate all comments.

Frankly I'm not personally a fan of contemporary architecture. I am, however, a big believer in niche marketing and have a gut feeling that there is a small market for contemporary living. More importantly, it is a small market that is not being served in this town.

Therefore, I've started this conversation and offered a few examples in an effort to better understand the desires of the market. I do believe that UP is likely representative of the hip, urban and contemporary market so these comments are especially valuable.

In that light harsh negative criticism is just as valuable as praise.

The design, BTW, was done by Brian Barkwell at VIA Design. Brian is a modernist at heart and I put very few constraints on his work. I'll share all comments with him.

[numstead]

Below is quick study I did a couple months ago for a young developer in the area. I think he had some problems aquiring the property and has moved on to some other ones.

Nineteen 780ish square foot apartments, 1450 sf of retail, tenant parking and storage lockers in the basement.

[CK1]

Below is quick study I did a couple months ago for a young developer in the area. I think he had some problems aquiring the property and has moved on to some other ones.

Nineteen 780ish square foot apartments, 1450 sf of retail, tenant parking and storage lockers in the basement.

The one thing that I really like about the drawings Civitas put up versus this one is that Civitas' renderings show distinct "blocks" that would house individual dwellings - you can see and feel the uniqueness of each apartment - whereas this building seems very close to many that are already on the drawing board and under construction in GR, with apartments lined up one next to eachother with no specific distinction where one ends and the other begins. Should I have to chose between living in one or the other, with costs being roughly the same, I would lean towards one the more "unique" one. Just personal preference.

[GRDadof3]

I like the tomato soup. If it's like most of the older neighborhood centers around GR, there are probably alot of orange brick buildings in the area that it would nicely "co-mingle" with.

What if the the barrel vaulted ceiling were just flat, but still 2' higher than the rest of the roof? Which I'm guessing would give you 10' ceilings in the "living rooms" of the apartments above.

golscorer, that's a great design! Has a 1960's "space age" feel to it. Although it looks more like an office building than residential.

[snoogit]

golscorer, that's a great design! Has a 1960's "space age" feel to it. Although it looks more like an office building than residential.

It looks like a great New Technology/Internet economy-type of office complex. Although I agree its not so "residential" feeling.

[Mark Miller]

Civitas

While I am not a huge fan of much of the "contemporary" architecture that I see being built in West Michigan, I do think that there is certainly a market for it here, when it is done correctly.

I have the following comments about your proposed concept:

I appreciate the fact that there is a mix of uses and that you have properly engaged the streetscape by having storefronts AND by placing the building at close to a zero setback. By doing this, I feel that contextually this fits into most traditional neighborhoods...Wealthy Street, West Fulton, East Fulton, East town, etc. I can not image the HPC having difficulty with this as it would appear to meet the infill guidelines in concept.

The massing and composition of the building without a doubt fit in contextually.

From a material standpoint, I really think that the split face block thing does not work. There are other masonry products which would be more appropriate. Split face block seems to have been played out and I think its lack of quality detail really compromises the pedestrian experience. I also think that there are just too many materials working together here. Including the striped block at the base. Modern buildings should be more simplified in their material, maybe having only two materials would make it more simplified and more coherent.

I am not sure of the mix of different cap types, one with a shed and one with a vault. The project over on Plainfield, north of Knapp, seems to do some of this (although not to this extreme) and works ok. There was once a design similar to this one for that site and I think it was too funky for some of the neighbors.

What is good about this is that from a massing and composition standpoint it follows the model of traditional urbanism and when I look at it I know what it is. I can tell it is a retail space with residential above, a true mixed-use typology.

What is always troubling is when I look at a "contemporary" building and can not tell if it is a residential building, a school or a factory. This confusion of typology is what turns me off to much of the contemporary stuff. Case in point would be what golscorer4 posted, where the one building example used for housing is actually a school. (and in fact could be any kind of building located almost anywhere).

One other question about the original project in Big Rapids. $1,680 for 4 bedrooms in BIG RAPIDS!!? I suspect that you could buy quite a house for that price, especially in Big Rapids. I hardly think this is affordable, particularly for a family, college or not. Maybe I am just way off here, but I know what my mortgage in GR is and it doesn't come close to this. I do not know how a family could afford to pay this much for housing. I realize that we are primarily talking about college students and $420 per month is more palatable, but one of the kids family could buy a house and rent to the others and actually have something at the end of the tour of duty. This makes little economic sense. Maybe that is why the average household in America is at a net deficit when it comes to saving money.

[dbrok]

Civitas, I'm not a big fan of those sketches. Take the following as sincere constructive criticism.

To me, the design lacks a certain consistency. I'd use the graphic design term "clown's pants effect", that is, it seems to be a confusing jumble of mixed graphical forms without any visual hierarchy of importance.

Barrel vault vs. Slope roof

Banded block vs. Clapboard Siding vs. Corrugated Metal

Red awning vs. Blue awning

Honestly, I just don't get it. [shrugs shoulders]

Civitas, personally I like the original design you posted with the green coloring. I think the parking lot is too large, but I like the sloped roof and the contrast between corrugated materials and brick/stone.

Golscorer, I understand your point that the drawing seems to lack consistency. I had the chance a couple months ago to tour Integrated Architecture's headquarters on East Paris and one thing I took away from there is that 'it' doesn't have to make sense. IA's interior could definitely be considered disjointed; they have metal palm trees, an exposed elevator and a bridge leading to their library. But it all works overall from a visual standpoint. I'm a huge fan of traditional architecture from before WWI, but I think there's also a place for contempory design; it's important to have both and they can work together (i.e. Prague).

[civitas]

From a material standpoint, I really think that the split face block thing does not work.

I am not sure of the mix of different cap types, one with a shed and one with a vault. The project over on Plainfield, north of Knapp, seems to do some of this (although not to this extreme) and works ok. There was once a design similar to this one for that site and I think it was too funky for some of the neighbors.

Thanks.

Is this the funky Cheshire design?

I think I agree about the split face block. To simplify...

[numstead]

I understand the take about my concept not looking "residential", but I would argue that the beauty of modernism is its simplicity, efficiency, and adaptability. Buildings of disjointed forms are not as efficient to detail and build.

From where I'm sitting, the only affordable way to do contemporary urban rental housing is to make it as efficient as possible. Thats where we're having problems over on the West Side with our Lake Michigan Drive project. To make the project affordable to the developer, and to the prospective tenants in turn, we had to really make it a dense complex and simplify the overall form of the building. The retail portion isn't designated by some funky shape, but fits snuggly into the building and draws attention to itself merely through its logical location in the overall complex. [sorry, I don't have a picture to post right now]

Civitas, that most recent iteration is a step in the right direction.

[ccbarnes]

I think I agree about the split face block. To simplify...

[gvsusean]

i wish buidings were designed like older arch. on the outside but modern on the inside, surely people would want those??? Like old french archi.

[Ted]

yes, like old french architecture...

[gvsusean]

http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/2001...raffic.half.jpg

like these, i love those buildings

[GRDadof3]

http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/2001...raffic.half.jpg

like these, i love those buildings

Very expensive.

[Mark Miller]

I understand the take about my concept not looking "residential", but I would argue that the beauty of modernism is its simplicity, efficiency, and adaptability. Buildings of disjointed forms are not as efficient to detail and build.

From where I'm sitting, the only affordable way to do contemporary urban rental housing is to make it as efficient as possible. Thats where we're having problems over on the West Side with our Lake Michigan Drive project. To make the project affordable to the developer, and to the prospective tenants in turn, we had to really make it a dense complex and simplify the overall form of the building. The retail portion isn't designated by some funky shape, but fits snuggly into the building and draws attention to itself merely through its logical location in the overall complex. [sorry, I don't have a picture to post right now]

Civitas, that most recent iteration is a step in the right direction.

I think that is the rub. When modernism was born, its creators called for a simple and efficient machine age architecture. One that was "off the shelf" and "available to the masses". Conceptually that is great, but practically speaking it has not panned out. The great works of modernism, while simple, were/are not efficient, especially in regards to construction costs. LeCorbusier's best work is prohibitively expensive, Gehry's work is likewise, very expensive to construct and certainly not available to everyone.

As far as the adaptibility of modernism, I have yet to see that. Traditional buildings have forever been adapted to new uses, factories changing to residential / offices / restaurants are all prime examples, today. Traditional architecture has always reinvented itself. Modern office buildings, like the city building, are not practical to adapt to much of anything other than office.

Lately, the use of the term "modern" has led us down the path of cheap materials and banal design, not to mention the advent of "modern" planning which led us to the tower in the park concept, which is a universal failure. I have heard of strip malls being called modern buildings because of their pure simplicity and excellent efficiency.

I have no problem with modernism, but it needs to be properly sited and as importantly needs to be well designed. Much of what I see is neither and to even call it modern is a bit of a misnomer.

In any case, whether traditional or modern, it needs to be done well.

BTW- when does the era of modernism end or has it already?

[civitas]

BTW- when does the era of modernism end or has it already?

GK Chesterton said, "The life of a thinking man will probably be divided into two parts -- the first in which he desires to exterminate modern thinkers, and the second in which he desires to watch them exterminating each other... Suppose, for instance, there is an old story and a new skeptic who is skeptical of the story. We have only to wait a little while for a yet newer skeptic who is skeptical of the skeptic. He will probably find the old notion actually a help in his new notion. This process is an abstract truth applying to anything, apart from agreement or disagreement."

For me there are many architectural styles that I can appreciate when done well. The distinction I make is simply pre-WWII and post-WWII. Before the war we understood how to design meaningful places and, for some reason, after the war we forgot. Before the war most everything was at least contextually good and public space was generally wonderful. After the war most everything is crap and public space is mostly a place for transportation and utilities. There may be examples of great traditional and great modern buildings here and there, but they hardly ever work as well as they might in the context of the crap that surrounds them.

So I am Chesterton's newer skeptic who points to the past to show how bad the current condition really is...but I think the point is more about context than the differences between one architectural style or another.

[Ted]

GK Chesterton said, "The life of a thinking man will probably be divided into two parts -- the first in which he desires to exterminate modern thinkers, and the second in which he desires to watch them exterminating each other... Suppose, for instance, there is an old story and a new skeptic who is skeptical of the story. We have only to wait a little while for a yet newer skeptic who is skeptical of the skeptic. He will probably find the old notion actually a help in his new notion. This process is an abstract truth applying to anything, apart from agreement or disagreement."

For me there are many architectural styles that I can appreciate when done well. The distinction I make is simply pre-WWII and post-WWII. Before the war we understood how to design meaningful places and, for some reason, after the war we forgot. Before the war most everything was at least contextually good and public space was generally wonderful. After the war most everything is crap and public space is mostly a place for transportation and utilities. There may be examples of great traditional and great modern buildings here and there, but they hardly ever work as well as they might in the context of the crap that surrounds them.

So I am Chesterton's newer skeptic who points to the past to show how bad the current condition really is...but I think the point is more about context than the differences between one architectural style or another.

Chesterton? Chesterton??? The dickens with that skepticsim hoo haa! Context? Context is for longhairs and modernists! Next you'll be lecturing on Pragmatism and the ornamentation of Louis Sullivan!

Give me more of that French crap only cheaper! I want it just like Paris or one of its more pedestrian suburbs!

Vive la France (on the southeast side of GR where it belongs)!

[tamias6]

I like modernism and the clean and uncluttered look it offers. But what I don't like is how unforgiving it is both to designers and those that have to live with it. It has to be excecuted to absolute perfectlion and maintianed to the best of upkeep because of modernism's clean and minimalistic look. Just one single thing out of place stick out like a sore thumb. Add in a mordernist building's owners that maybe be cutting corners on the buildings construction and maintainace to cut costs plus an architect that misunderstands the innerworkings of modernism and... Oh! Let's throw in incompetent contractors and subcontractors for drill and presto! We see a picture perfect example of urban blight right before our very eyes. I'm not knocking modernism as I like this style of architecture very much. But, due to its unforgiving nature, it needs an extremely skilled architect who knows the ins and outs of the style, and a client willing to shell over the monies needed hire the right building trades to construct the building exactly to the architect's vision and willing to maintain the building in a prestine state.

[MAU]

BTW- when does the era of modernism end or has it already?

Technically we've been through Modernism, Post Modernism and are now into Contemporary.

[snoogit]

Technically we've been through Modernism, Post Modernism and are now into Contemporary.

as far as I know we are still considered in a post-modern era. Although I imagine every style was called "contemporary" until a few years later when it got its actual name

[GRDadof3]

I think a loft project like this one that was featured in Dwell Magazine, 5 Delaware in Kansas City, would do very well here:

It was done very inexpensively and sold for less than $80/sf at white box shells, then the homeowner could come in and do the finishes probably for about $25 - $35/sf depending on tastes. The floors and ceilings are all concrete, with the floors being highly polished concrete and 11' ceilings throughout. Radiant floor heating could probably be done in all the concrete floors, with area rugs to soften it up a bit. The top floor penthouses were all two-story units.

What do you all think (other than the blank concrete wall on that one side)?