Division / Wealthy and ICCF

[sfloria]

Well, there is one thing I don't like. The massing is mostly on the side-street perpendicular to Division, whereas the Division-facing side is rather low. Each time I look at the rendering, I visualise Division having the side with the trees -- it feels natural that way -- but I have to remind myself otherwise.

Thats exactly how I felt too. Its a shame it'll be a one story building along Division. I guess they wanted to smooth out the transition to the Dollar Store...

[Veloise]

Huh? This school is being built right out on Division. It's a block (parcel) away from Wealthy...

Silly me, thinking that the thread was about Division/Wealthy and ICCF.

Carry on.

[Allison Slater]

It's being built on Parcel C. It is part of Division / Wealthy ICCF, but not immediately at that corner.

[GR_Urbanist]

So where is this thing going? According to the diagrams, Parcel C is supposed to have apartments on most of the space. Is this going to take up all of that?

#2 How far of a setback will this have? in the rendering (north-west elevation) the big white thing with almost no windows is jutting out from the big gray thing with no windows and there is some weird overhang that runs south, down its length, until you get yet another blank wall that holds that whole end part up.

If this is being built on Wealthy, this stuff is not going to fit unless it is built back from the street to an extent where the street wall is obliterated.

Edited May 1, 2012 by GR_Urbanist

[Gorath]

I may be wrong, but I believe it is being built on the Southeast corner of Division and Logan.

[andrew.w]

I agree with Jeff and Joe. It does look like a school, and I think it could turn out either great or terrible -- probably not at all in between. I'll reserve judgement until I see materials and execution. (If brick is used in any part, those brick panels that have become popular will absolutely kill it. I hate seeing visible separations between whole areas of brick.)

I am assuming you are talking about pre-manufactured or precast brick panels that come already assembled to a concrete backer? Because modern brick is always going to have joints; veneer systems need to have control (expansion) joints on long surfaces and between floors to prevent cracking. The only way to avoid this is to build the building out of solid masonry, and even then control joints are usually provided.

Personally, I think a panelized system could be done quite well if the joints/panels are celebrated in a modern fashion (I have the brick on the Ottawa side of the new courthouse in mind).

I also don't think the rendering is making any sense with the site plan. Our site plan seems to show the short side of the corner building facing division, while the rendering suggests the long side in that direction. If that is the case then I would say that one or both of the division facing apartment buildings have definitely been nixed.

[GRDadof3]

I also don't think the rendering is making any sense with the site plan. Our site plan seems to show the short side of the corner building facing division, while the rendering suggests the long side in that direction. If that is the case then I would say that one or both of the division facing apartment buildings have definitely been nixed.

The foundation that is in the ground already is fronting right out to Division and Logan, and runs quite a ways South (almost to the next street South I think).

[Mark Miller]

I think that this building does indeed look like a school. The problem is that the school typology, for whatever reason, has digressed to take on the characteristics of a minimum security detention facility.

So when someone says that it looks like a school, they are showing that they have been conditioned by this morphed typology. The only thing missing is the chain link fence that surrounds the yard (playground).

Take a look at nearly every new school building, particularly those that have been built in small rural towns - they are prisonesque architecture. I was just admiring one a few weeks back in Manton, Michigan....a real gem, including the surrounding chain link fence.

This has nothing to do with modernism nor materials and everything to do with execution, typology and details. If we are holding out hope that somehow the materials for this building are going to save it, then we have already failed.

[gvsusean]

elementary schools and middle schools should spark creativity, i think the building should look as craqzy as possible like the Guggenheim had sex with a childrens museum.

[sfloria]

elementary schools and middle schools should spark creativity, i think the building should look as craqzy as possible like the Guggenheim had sex with a childrens museum.

Would that be Statutory Facadomy?

[wingbert]

Would that be Statutory Facadomy?

All I know is I'd be careful which two words I use together when posting on the internets. And I'm not talking about Guggenheim and museum.

Edited May 3, 2012 by wingbert

[GRJohn]

What an ugly building. It's like Urban Renewal all over again.

[x99]

I think it's interesting. You definitely can tell it's a school, and not some fake old architectural interpretation of a school. And at least all the parking is hidden in the back!

Oh, come on. It's barf solidified into brick. They should be ashamed to be permanently blighting the landscape with this architectural abomination. I could design a better looking building in about 15 minutes on the back of a greasy napkin with a crayon. This is absolute trash, no matter how you try to spin it. Hideous, disgusting, nasty, and vile. ZERO aesthetic merit, and bulldozer food from the day it reluctantly rises out of the earth. All of the work that ICCF put into their renderings (and the two buildings they have already built) is going for naught with this pig-ugly kid prison. Shameful. Why don't we just bring back Brutalism if we're going to build scum like this?

Edited May 4, 2012 by x99

[joeDowntown]

Wow, tell us what you really think.

Rapid Growth put a couple of different renderings on their site. I like them. I'll wait until I see the final product:

http://rapidgrowthmedia.com/devnews/UPrep0503.aspx

Joe

[GRDadof3]

Oh, come on. It's barf solidified into brick. They should be ashamed to be permanently blighting the landscape with this architectural abomination. I could design a better looking building in about 15 minutes on the back of a greasy napkin with a crayon. This is absolute trash, no matter how you try to spin it. Hideous, disgusting, nasty, and vile. ZERO aesthetic merit, and bulldozer food from the day it reluctantly rises out of the earth. All of the work that ICCF put into their renderings (and the two buildings they have already built) is going for naught with this pig-ugly kid prison. Shameful. Why don't we just bring back Brutalism if we're going to build scum like this?

I'm with Joe, I'll withhold judgment until I see it built. I hated Icon on Bond until it was built, and actually like it now.

I'd like to see that napkin sketch, actually.

[GR_Urbanist]

The new renderings are leaving me even more confused.

One is making the building look more massive with more ground transparency, while the second has these weird green slopes coming off the building and lots more empty surfaces.

Both still have way too many blank walls facing Division. I still cannot figure out why that upper story part jutting out from the building is not all glass instead of slits for windows!

What is the point of it, if no one can see out of it?!

[andrew.w]

I think both renderings are of the same model. You can see the green slope on the far right of the almost colorless corner shot (shown above). The ground in that rendering seems to be for some reason transparent, so it is less noticeable, but it definitely looks like the building will be raised up on slopes. The brick that shows up on the far right of the color rendering is in the corner shot too, it's just hard to distinguish it from the wall of glass adjacent to it. There's no conflict between the renderings; they just aren't doing a very good job of accurately portraying their proposal.

Actually I'll take that back. The clerestory above the long window wall in the color rendering is definitely not in the other. Besides that, the two are consistent.

As far as the upper story, I guess we will have to wait for a floor plan, but the swath of glass in the middle definitely looks like the end of a hallway. The tall, windowless vertical section on the end probably houses a stair and elevator, meaning those spaces flanking the hallway probably aren't classrooms, and may be service areas that require smaller windows. Then again, we can see down the side that all of the glazing is really narrow, so maybe the designers are still clinging to the belief that too many windows distract from learning.

[Allison Slater]

so maybe the designers are still clinging to the belief that too many windows distract from learning.

They certainly did me, but then I was an ADD kid.

[andrew.w]

They certainly did me, but then I was an ADD kid.

Okay, I'll give you that windows that look out on an active urban space can actually be distracting. But taking daylight away can be potentially just as bad, because many people can't focus in totally artificially lit environments. The way to solve this would probably be long horizontal bands of glass that are up just high enough to block out the activity of the street when students are seated, rather than all of the vertical strips.

Although I can say that vertical slit windows are very trendy in modern architecture right now. Our college of Medicine building at the University of Cincinnati was just reclad with all windows that are about 1'-6" wide and 10 foot tall, and I have seen them crop up in my fellow grad-students designs as well.

[GRDadof3]

As someone who has spent time in an elementary school in the last 5 - 6 years (kids), every blank wall in these classrooms is used for something (white boards, hanging projects, digital monitors, signs, etc etc). A few well placed tall vertical windows near the corners of the rooms gives plleennntttty of light for a classroom.

In addition, these renderings show that about 80% of the ground floor is glass facing Division. Seriously, it needs more glass on the ground floor?

[wmrharris]

The glass on the main floor looks as if this may be a public transition zone. The glass presents a transparency to the idea of education, rather than walling it off (think of the great steps up to the old Central, or the incoherency of the Ottawa HS offices. Visually, the use of glass seems to "float" the classrooms, easing the bulk -- the prison/fortress look of earlier renderings.

[AvtpeasK]

To me this building resembles the Ross Business School at the University of Michigan. Looks kinda neat and modern at the start, after about 5 years it becomes an eye sore. I don't understand why these architects do not take lessons from the terrible designs of the 60's and 70's and make buildings that are actually appealing to the eye. The rest of the ICCF project looks pretty good and I believe will continue to look good as the years go by. Not to mention other new building at UoM, which are just amazingly done ($$$).

[GRDadof3]

Some new pieces of news on this tomorrow. (hint: in Rapid Growth)

[GRDadof3]

http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/devnews/TapestrySquare0524.aspx

[Veloise]

Tapestry Square

I like it.