River House Condominiums

[GRDadof3]

Has anyone else downloaded the RiverHouse flyby Quicktime video?

http://www.grriverhouse.com/html/floor_plan_overview.html

I am wondering if it is worth the 40 minute download time (even with my high speed ).

[GRDadof3]

Has anyone else downloaded the RiverHouse flyby video?

http://www.grriverhouse.com/html/floor_plan_overview.html

I am wondering if it is worth the 40 minute download time (even with my high speed ).

Wow, double post. How did that happen

[GRDadof3]

OK, I downloaded it. "Flyby movie" is a misnomer. It is just a 3D CAD file that you can move around. One thing I do like to see is that the North face of the building looks exactly like the South, with patios and the white stripes like the river side of Bridgewater I. I wish you could zoom out on it though (hint to designer).

And is that a small garden between Tower II and the parking deck at ground level? I see that #2 does not meet the ramp like #1 does (narrower footprint).

[RustTown]

I wrote the people at Riverhouse by email concerning the height now, and the women told me approximately 400'. I'm writing back to see if I can get a definite height. I suspect the 391' number is probably the right one.

[GRDadof3]

I wrote the people at Riverhouse by email concerning the height now, and the women told me approximately 400'.  I'm writing back to see if I can get a definite height.  I suspect the 391' number is probably the right one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I think we have a flag on the play. Just counting floors in the two renderings, I count at least 2 more floors. Mrknowitall, how much do you know (and when did you know it?)?

[designcritic]

Yeah,  I think we have a flag on the play.  Just counting floors in the two renderings, I count at least 2 more floors.  Mrknowitall, how much do you know (and when did you know it?)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I have heard the overall height has stayed about the same but the floor to floor height has shrunk. Thus, more floors can fit in the same height.

[RustTown]

I got a reply back from the representative for River House today, and she informed me that the tower will be exactly 381' tall. Hope that helps.

[torgo]

Exactly 381', huh? I better break out the tape measure when they finish...

[RustTown]

Well, that's what it's planned for. Of course, buildings are sometimes built a few inches either way from their planned heights. What I meant is that it is now planned for 381'.

[GRDadof3]

Exactly 381', huh?  I better break out the tape measure when they finish...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was going to say, we're going to have to hold her feet to the fire now Thanks LMichigan (how embarrassing that an out-of-town forumer had to dig this up for us )

[RustTown]

Don't worry, I do this for a lot of different cities. I'm a researcher for skyscrapers.com (www.emporis.com) so I do this on a daily basis.

[snoogit]

I noticed that River House has their new rendering in their Grand Rapids Press ad.  A much "crisper" version, and some of the patio layouts have changed.  Their website has not been updated yet.  Just peak in the Real Estate section if you want to see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps its just that we are looking at it from a different angle then the first rendering?

It seems awfully similar to me, but then again I was comparing the small original image to the new render.

[GRDadof3]

Perhaps its just that we are looking at it from a different angle then the first rendering?

It seems awfully similar to me, but then again I was comparing the small original image to the new render.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would say its a different image. The first one looked more like an artists rendering, and the second looks like (is) the CAD file that downloads off of the Quicktime video from the website. I could be wrong though

[GRCentro]

Here's the rendering evolution:

[GRDadof3]

Niiiice, GRCentro. Great compilation.

[snoogit]

I like the newer rendering better, since it doesnt look like the building is on fire.

[RustTown]

It also seems more cartoony, blockish, and less refined. I like the older renderings better. They are much more realistic than the Sim Cityish portrayal in the third computer rendering.

[torgo]

It also seems more cartoony, blockish, and less refined.  I like the older renderings better.  They are much more realistic than the Sim Cityish portrayal in the third computer rendering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I like the building not-on-fire , but the last rendering does look like a cartoon. Aside from its height, the building strikes me as being quite unremarkable. I'm just excited about the influx of DT residents.

[GaryP]

I'm just excited about the influx of DT residents.

I would be too, but I think the building location isnt any good. Well it could be good for bridge street, but all the destinations dt are a good hike from bridgewater.

[Budgie Frisket]

I would be too, but I think the building location isnt any good.  Well it could be good for bridge street, but all the destinations dt are a good hike from bridgewater.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that could be a good thing. Get people out walking off all that fat. (The ones who are fat, that is.)

[GRDadof3]

I was driving in from the North side on 131 today, and was trying to picture Tower II being just to the right of and about 30 - 40% taller than Tower I. It is going to be huge! (by GR standards) It will be weird having 4 distinct tall towers on the skyline instead of being used to 3 for so long. And then when the Marriott starts going up....

[snoogit]

I think that could be a good thing. Get people out walking off all that fat. (The ones who are fat, that is.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

now wait here just a minute, just because I like my chinese buffets..

[Josh]

I was driving in from the North side on 131 today, and was trying to picture Tower II being just to the right of and about 30 - 40% taller than Tower I. It is going to be huge! (by GR standards) It will be weird having 4 distinct tall towers on the skyline instead of being used to 3 for so long. And then when the Marriott starts going up....

Now we need some actual downtown height away from the river. We lack height beyond our 3 (soon to be 5) distinct structures. A few office towers in the empty spots we have discussed would be nice. Our streetscape DT is great, but lacks needed height. Where are you, Lyon @ Ottawa?!

[d59]

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I am a lurker that just registered. I've been keeping track of this site since late 2004. I love architecture, and I love Grand Rapids. I really like the information posted on this site and I visit it daily.

I just noticed on SkyscraperPage.com that River House is now considered under construction. Why did they make this designation. I thought I would hear it from this site first. The people here seem to be more "in-the-know". Did I miss something?

[GRDadof3]

Hi,  I'm new to this forum.  I am a lurker that just registered.  I've been keeping track of this site since late 2004.  I love architecture, and I love Grand Rapids.  I really like the information posted on this site and I visit it daily.

I just noticed on SkyscraperPage.com that River House is now considered under construction.  Why did they make this designation.  I thought I would hear it from this site first.  The people here seem to be more "in-the-know".  Did I miss something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome d59! 2004? What took you so long There are a lot of people "in the know" here, and I have probably learned more about GR here in the past 6 months than I could have learned in a lifetime elsewhere. Skyscraperpage may be referring to the footing work, drilling and surveying that has been going on: