Jump to content

Metropolitan Park Apartments - Construction


daniel nudnik

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 235
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To be fair, lets also look at what was done right. There is a fair amount of street-level transparency, it is built to the street, and there are quite a few well-proportioned windows. The tilted walls in the front, the red things and small horizontal windows leave something to be desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The color choice for the entry ways isn't inviting, but other then that I say its "growing on me." You really can't expect much if the tenates are low to moderate income levels...

I guess a part of architecture is designing something functional yet pleasing enough to live in, while keeping it cost effective... I see it serves both requirments. Utilitarian to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's why I hate it - it appears uninviting, utilitarian,

and institutional. I really bristle at the idea that just because

it is for a low(er) income demographic that it can't be exciting

and appealing. Being in a lower income bracket doesn't

cancel out a possible tenants aesthetic discernment. Nor does

it let the designer or developer off the hook. Otherwise, why

not just continue with the warehousing of lower income

people that occurred in the 60's and 70's? Sure, good design

will cost more. But 'you get what you pay for' is more than

a simple cliche'. Do it right or don't do it at all. Anything

less is insulting to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The color is the only saving grace of the building. Why not add a floor of retail shops on the ground? This would help the building pay for itself. I realize that a few small steps have been made here, but why not put public space at ground level? I wouldn't want to live in any city at the ground level. Just a few ideas....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, A lot different than the original rendering. The original rendering had more of a Courtyard Marriott feel to it. This is quite different.

I guess, again, it all depends on the materials and the extent to which they do the design justice, or make a half-assed attempt at a modern building. I'm hoping for the best :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to see the materials to judge.

I'm always big on honest structure. I really disklike wrapped on facades.

(This doesn't mean I dislike ornamentation on older buildings... ornamentation was applied strategically back then. But ornamentation (as someone mentioned above doesn't do all that well on contemporary buildings)

But back to the wrapped on facade thing.... I always felt it was a cheap way of design. I'm incredibly into buildings that influence their design through their structure, or at least implied on the facade. If it's not that, the building is implying volumetric relationships, which it does somewhat on the front, but the sides kill it.

Oh, and the blue, gray, and white were working well until the red killed it.

"Be kind, the designer may poke his head in here"

Shig.... I wish someone could have said this to the reviewers who critiqued my work every week in architecture school. Architecture can only be valued when people are honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the overall shape of the building. I think some of the coldness can actually be an affect of the rendering. The sky seems dark and cloudy and the surrounding are barren and kind of dull.

Another might be the use of what appears to be primarily metal. I like the rendering of the other project better because of the use of a warm collored brick. I would like to see a similar brick on the entire front of the first floor of the apartments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's why I hate it - it appears uninviting, utilitarian,

and institutional. I really bristle at the idea that just because

it is for a low(er) income demographic that it can't be exciting

and appealing. Being in a lower income bracket doesn't

cancel out a possible tenants aesthetic discernment. Nor does

it let the designer or developer off the hook. Otherwise, why

not just continue with the warehousing of lower income

people that occurred in the 60's and 70's? Sure, good design

will cost more. But 'you get what you pay for' is more than

a simple cliche'. Do it right or don't do it at all. Anything

less is insulting to everyone.

Well said.

Ditto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have to say that I like this building. Its even stating to grow on me more then when I first saw it.

Looking at all the things we like to see in a downtown residential project I have yet to see where it is lacking.

* We have a first floor. No, it does not have retail. However, I would not expect all residential buildings to have first floor retail. In many large cities, they dont. Not having retail allows for more living space for more DT residents which is far better than a blank wall that contains a parking garage on the other side like ICON.

*It is built to the street. Although I hope the back is as well. Not having it behind a surface parking lot is a plus itself.

*It is at least 4 stories . The standard height of most buildings in Heartside.

* As for the ornamentation. Building designs differ greatly. Most new buildings today just dont do fancy ornamentation unless they are trying to copy a previous architectual style. And for the most part, when that happens, it never looks correct. Yes, not having the ornamentation can give the impression of being cold, but it is just a trick from the drawing. I have to remind myself of that whenever I look at a drawing of Riverhouse.

The colors are definitely new for he area. I will admit I winced at the red at first. But why not? With the drabness of Winter in GR, Some bright colors may just work.

It is a great building. I think the thinking behind the design is similar to what goes on in European cities. It is the idea that a residential building is just the place where you sleep and keep your stuff. Most of your life takes place in the surrounding urban environment . Who needs a too fancy building when you work and go to school most of the day and when you are not doing that, you are shopping or enjoying yourself at an entertainment venue. I think that exactly whats going on here. I hope future projects think along the same lines. Just make the buildings taller. We need to stuff DT with lots of bodies!

Um, live ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.