Archived

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

vicupstate

Architects website shows 323 Duval St Bldg

Recommended Posts

I came across the website for Rink Reynolds et al (URL below) and for the 323 Duval project they are showing several renderings of a design I had seen before and two renderings of a different building. Are there going to be two buildings in that project or is it a webmaster mistake? Anyone know? Any which design do you like best.

http://www.rrdfw.com/boards/boards.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


323 Duval is supposed to include two twin 10 - 12 story 100,000 sf office buildings. It looks like each building will have its own architectural style instead of being carbon copies of each other. That sounds fine to me. BTW, I like the original modern building (pics 1,2,4,6) much better than the second tower (pics 3,5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the second tower (#3,5) more, but that's just my taste. I've never seen those pics, I didn't even know there was another tower in that project. Well, the first tower will be nice to have, as it will kinda break the architecturally conservative style in Jax. Not that conservative style is bad, because too much modern can get tacky, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of this project is that pics of the more modern tower were the original scheme and design intention, however, for reason not known to me, they had to redesign. Pics 3 and 5 are the redesign. I could be wrong, but that what I have heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to like 3 & 5 much better than the original design. I find them more asthetically pleasing, with what appears to be a better scale for human interaction. Plus it is still unmistakably contemporary, despite the arguable neocalssical elements.

However, I generally do like both designs, and would be quite happy with either design (or perhaps a mix of both, if we are so lucky as to actually see two buildings constructed.) As always, I'll take what I can get these days, especially concerning office development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I feel that either design will fit into Jacksonville and will look really neat when it is done. It will serve as nice filler for the downtown area and will boost downtown a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know... i had taken some time off from the forum due to the frustration with some of the thinking and ideas exposed, but once again i am amazed at what some people consider "good" architecture. if you expect me to believe that the more 'classical' version of the building has the best "scale for human interaction"... the i am sure that no one has taken a stroll recently down monroe street by the new library??? yeah, there is some human interaction with a building?, that is if your manic depressive and having a heated discussion on politics with the BRICK WALL!!! but i digress... if my sources are correct (more like rumor) this building was being built by a consortium that included the likes of famed TV lawyer Eddie Farah and is close to where the new county courthouse will someday be... thus the change in design. the modern designed building won a design award from the AIA>>> not that it means squat! but recently in TU it stated that with the courthouse project on hold, this project was on hold as well......... the point to all this, will someone please explain how the redesign has any human interaction?? how contemprary design can get "tacky">>> with the imminent demolition of the hayden burns library, it seems that Jacksonville architects have a choice to make: love the fake columns and motifs of a time gone by or risk becoming a punching bag for the misguided and misinformed. will Jacksonville ever be a metropolis>>> no. will Jacksonville ever be respected for its progress into the future... sadly no. i think i have said enough>> emotions because this is home, and wish so much more for it>>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy Cuban, personally, I agree with your view, on the conservative approach this town, in general, takes toward architecture. The first design is not only more impressive, it also seems to fit well in its setting with the new Federal Courthouse and planned 31 story JEA tower addition. All three would add a nice touch of progressive modern architecture in an depressed area of downtown.

As far as the courthouse, hopefully the delay will offer the opportunity to change the architectural style of the original design. The 1880's era has passed us by, lets preserve the treasures we have left, from that era, instead of continuing in vain to attempt to re-create it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuban ... some of your post could be copy/pasted into a 1960's defense of housing projects, mega-blocks, brutalism, or demolition-heavy urban renewal. If you like all those things, that's fine. But I don't. That opinion makes me neither misguided nor misinformed. Nor will any amount of chiding about how "backwards" my taste is cause me to change my mind about my very well considered architectural preferences.

And yes to me, the 2nd design has better street interaction than the first design, and yes the Stern library design has better street interaction than all three of the other designs it beat. Your complaints about the absolute quality of such street interaction are generally correct (indeed, I can't stand those stupid bricks on the new library) However, your overall argument is incomplete because the progressive architects you laud don't seem to have done any better. In other words, your attacks on 2 won't convince me of a thing unless you could show how 1 is better.

And to answer your question, 2 has better human scale because it emphasizes the horizontal at ground level, includes a shade awning, and appears like someone could walk alongside it without noticing that it was a 10-12 story building. Design 1 does the exact opposite. It wants you to look up; the two story glass base is meant to overwhelm and dwarf. To be perfectly clear, I want to repeat that I liked BOTH designs just fine. But I think my conclusion about 1 is quite accurate.

Obviously, I tend to prefer traditionalist elements in my architecture. Conversely, I love various forms of modern architecture, but stark buildings, monoliths, "deconstructed" geometric shapes, and concept pieces typically aren't my bag. For example, I would contend that Sir Foster and Helmut Jahn represent successful modernism done with taste and class, whereas Ghery or Liebeskind demonstrate mere concept artists who rope people in with the fallacy that uniqueness yields progressivism and merit.

But in any event, these are my opinions and my taste. I don't market them as otherwise. It sounds like some people are trying to turn architecture into a moral choice ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuban, take it easy... I don't necessarily disagree, but you sound like you're going to blow a gasket.

By the way, I know the property borders Duval, Julia, Church, and Clay. However, what elevation are those renderings from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And yes to me, the 2nd design has better street interaction than the first design, and yes the Stern library design has better street interaction than all three of the other designs it beat. 

...Design 1 does the exact opposite. It wants you to look up; the two story glass base is meant to overwhelm and dwarf.

... whereas Ghery or Liebeskind demonstrate mere concept artists who rope people in with the fallacy that uniqueness yields progressivism and merit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1- Take a walk around 3 sides of the 4 streets that bordet the Stern Library then check back in about your comment. Talking about overwhelming and dwarfing. 30 feet of brick and precast with no opening in site 5 feet off of the curb somehow does not sway my arguement that the Stern library had NO street interaction.

2- Design 1 has a transparent ground floor intended to extend outside in and inside out. With your arguement, are you saying that anything that has an awning thrown over it for someone to walk under has better human interaction than something that allows pedestrians to see in and become an active part of the interiors view out?

3- not that I am a Ghery or Liebskind fan by any means, but at least they are practicing what they preach and actually constructing their concepts. Not sure if you have been in any of their space but some of them are quite phenomenal (in all aspects of the word). Yes they are "kitchy" and object0like, however, these are two architects that are changing the way the profession designs and constructs their buildings. Ghery is at the forefront of computer aided design and 3d modeling, pushing that into his Construction Documents, changing the way architects, engineers, and contractors alike think about and put together a building. The second design, in my opinion is more object-like than 2 and severely lacking expression and creativity. 2 is a acontextual building, meaning it can be put anywhere in this city or any other for that matter. The first at least attempts, or appears to, reconcile some contextual issues through its architecture and concept. It looks llike almost every other office complex going up around southpoint and gate parkway right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, folks... don't get me wrong, it just a willingness to fight for what i believe in... as for the captain; look i agree on the the fact that some modern architecture is anything less than human... Libeskind does nothing more than repeat himself all over the world; i doubt that he even considers what a city is about or its people. and mr. gehry does the same, i have visited the concert hall in LA and admit a wonderful structure, and supposedly a very good concert hall, does it fit anywhere, no. should there be a gehry in every city, no. modern architecture should not be devoid of the human factor, it should consider that it is a building with function and art.

now for the facts that i don't agree with: "2 has better human scale because it emphasizes the horizontal at ground level, includes a shade awning, and appears like someone could walk alongside it without noticing that it was a 10-12 story building"... ok, how does a vertical building emphasize the horizontal? is it because there is an awning? if you look at the last image, that seems like a pretty horizontal and vertical building? "It wants you to look up; the two story glass base is meant to overwhelm and dwarf"; as compared to the 2 story stone base on the second design? transparency versus solidity??? looking up is one of the great things of a multi-story building. and i return to the stern library, does that building not want to make you look up, when all you see in front of you is brick?? at least klutho gave us wonderful details to consider at the base of the buildings, stern gave us a field of brick. Is there possibly a modern building that relates to the issues you bring up: Lever House in NYC>>> horizontal/ vertical and human scale?

it's not anger, it's conviction: if you believe in something then believe in it, the christians to the lions>>> and not change your belief system on a whim or what is fashionable at the moment, but you do have to defend it. and scongro, the gasket was blown so long ago, it's a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.