Proposal: Downtown Convention Center

[apaladin]

Was it ever really alive? 

[vicupstate]

9 hours ago, gman430 said:

I assume this is dead.

Why would you assume that?

Quote

We'll have a new convention center in the next 4-5 years according to the Mayor's comment in this article. 

Big proposals like this take time to launch.  Unity Park didn't happen overnight and is just now starting construction

[gman430]

53 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

Why would you assume that?

Big proposals like this take time to launch.  Unity Park didn't happen overnight and is just now starting construction

Because it hasn’t gone before the city or county councils yet for funding. It was supposed to only take two months but it has been much longer than that. 

[johnpro318]

27 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Because it hasn’t gone before the city or county councils yet for funding. It was supposed to only take two months but it has been much longer than that. 

It’s brought up in the 2040 survey so I’m assuming it’s still on the table. 

[vicupstate]

57 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Because it hasn’t gone before the city or county councils yet for funding. It was supposed to only take two months but it has been much longer than that. 

See County Square for the reliability of timelines.  City Council is proably a slam dunk. There is still work to be done getting state money and private funding is in the mix as well.  You put things on the agenda when they are most likely to pass, not based on a passing remark to a reporter.     

[gman430]

 It's beautiful. 

https://www.scartsandeventscenter.com

 

The following items are advancing this exciting new project:

• CBRE Market Feasibility Study

• Nelson Nygaard Traffic Impact Study

• Clemson University Economic Impact Study

Edited July 24, 2019 by gman430

[distortedlogic]

Good to see its being studied and promoted! Only thing; I know it's conceptual at this point, but that tallest building REALLY needs to be redesigned. That's a terrible looking box, with absolutely no attractive quality or redeeming trait!

[apaladin]

7 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Good to see its being studied and promoted! Only thing; I know it's conceptual at this point, but that tallest building REALLY needs to be redesigned. That's a terrible looking box, with absolutely no attractive quality or redeeming trait!

I really think that tall building is just there to make it look good. No sense in wasting time making it look pretty. Chances of the tall building being part of this project are probably slim to none.  It's not even mentioned in the link Gman provided. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by apaladin

[Exile]

7 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

Good to see its being studied and promoted! Only thing; I know it's conceptual at this point, but that tallest building REALLY needs to be redesigned. That's a terrible looking box, with absolutely no attractive quality or redeeming trait!

The whole thing needs a redo (to the extent that anything has really been done, I guess). But putting "one of the largest collections of European Old Masters" in that monstrosity would be....monstrous. If I were BJU, I'd refuse to participate.

If that and the Unity Park Jungle Gym get built according to their currently displayed concepts, I think we can safely say that Greenville will have officially run out of insightfully creative architectural brains.

[gman430]

That tall building above the conference  center and museums is the slated apartments or condos. This is just a preliminary design that I am sure will change once the project gets closer to starting construction. 

[gman]

12 hours ago, gman430 said:

 It's beautiful. 

https://www.scartsandeventscenter.com

 

The following items are advancing this exciting new project:

 

• CBRE Market Feasibility Study

• Nelson Nygaard Traffic Impact Study

• Clemson University Economic Impact Study

•  

It is beautiful. 

[sptgguy]

6 hours ago, Exile said:

The whole thing needs a redo (to the extent that anything has really been done, I guess). But putting "one of the largest collections of European Old Masters" in that monstrosity would be....monstrous. If I were BJU, I'd refuse to participate.

If that and the Unity Park Jungle Gym get built according to their currently displayed concepts, I think we can safely say that Greenville will have officially run out of insightfully creative architectural brains.

Mind if I ask why you think putting the art in this building is a bad idea? 

 

[GvilleSC]

9 minutes ago, sptgguy said:

Mind if I ask why you think putting the art in this building is a bad idea? 

 

My guess is they'd like heavy, traditional architecture? 

[gman]

1 hour ago, GvilleSC said:

My guess is they'd like heavy, traditional architecture? 

If they don't like it, they will not go in it. 

[Exile]

2 hours ago, sptgguy said:

Mind if I ask why you think putting the art in this building is a bad idea? 

 

Not at all.

I'm not a fan of glass boxes that will soon be outdated. Since we're talking about a place to house the kinds of paintings you might otherwise find in old European museums, it seems to me that the architecture should at least evoke that kind of setting, rather than going in completely the opposite direction, as the concept--hopefully just a concept and nothing else--seems to. Lasting art of this kind needs to be housed in buildings whose architecture is lasting. If it were going to be a museum of modern art, then maybe a glass box makes sense. But really, even putting Andrew Wyeth paintings in such a setting seems inappropriate.

One thing Greenville really lacks entirely is monumental buildings, in the traditional sense of that term. With both the museum and the Unity Park tower, I'd like to see something truly monumental.

BTW, I'm only talking about the museum. I'm not nearly as concerned about the design of the convention center, hotel, office building, condo tower, whatever (though I still don't like the glass box concept).

[PuppiesandKittens]

3 hours ago, Exile said:

Not at all.

I'm not a fan of glass boxes that will soon be outdated. Since we're talking about a place to house the kinds of paintings you might otherwise find in old European museums, it seems to me that the architecture should at least evoke that kind of setting, rather than going in completely the opposite direction, as the concept--hopefully just a concept and nothing else--seems to. Lasting art of this kind needs to be housed in buildings whose architecture is lasting. If it were going to be a museum of modern art, then maybe a glass box makes sense. But really, even putting Andrew Wyeth paintings in such a setting seems inappropriate.

One thing Greenville really lacks entirely is monumental buildings, in the traditional sense of that term. With both the museum and the Unity Park tower, I'd like to see something truly monumental.

BTW, I'm only talking about the museum. I'm not nearly as concerned about the design of the convention center, hotel, office building, condo tower, whatever (though I still don't like the glass box concept).

Agreed 100%.

Even though most brick buildings downtown aren't, by themselves, gorgeous, the overall theme of sort-of traditional architecture with a lot of brick walls at least is consistent.

A few monumental buildings in traditional styles--neo-Renaissance, Georgian, Regency, etc.- would really be great.  A glass box is not great; even if it looks neat now, who knows how it'll age.

[gman430]

Isn’t the Louvre which is one of the most famous museums in the world considered a glass box though?  Well, maybe a pyramid but you get my point.  

Personally, I’m tired of all of the brick downtown. It’s nauseating and quite boring which is why I am thankful for projects like the Grand Bohemian and new Federal Courthouse. Something all glass on this site would be awesome. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

The idea of building a building that represents 1400-1600’s Europe doesn’t at all seem appropriate in 2020 Greenville, does it? They’re beautiful in their stagnant context, but they represent a time AND place that is not anywhere in North America. Replicating something has a huge potential of coming across as very Disney just so the Art seems “at home” in the architecture. The reality is that the art is going to hang on a white wall with great lighting no matter the exterior facade. I think the GCMA is a gorgeous building. And you can look at the art housed at the High in Atlanta for prestige of pieces in a modern setting. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by GvilleSC

[Exile]

9 hours ago, gman430 said:

Isn’t the Louvre which is one of the most famous museums in the world considered a glass box though?  Well, maybe a pyramid but you get my point.  

Personally, I’m tired of all of the brick downtown. It’s nauseating and quite boring which is why I am thankful for projects like the Grand Bohemian and new Federal Courthouse. Something all glass on this site would be awesome. 

A pyramid that is dwarfed by the originally 13th-century castle that it is an appendage to. Not a fan of the pyramid, either, but really.

And I'm not advocating for brick---never said anything about it. There's lots of granite to be had around here (e.g.). So I'm with you on variety--just make it variety that won't be "Brady Bunch" in 40 years. I fear that a glass box, no matter who designs it, will be very Brady.

[Exile]

9 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

The idea of building a building that represents 1400-1600’s Europe doesn’t at all seem appropriate in 2020 Greenville, does it? They’re beautiful in their stagnant context, but they represent a time AND place that is not anywhere in North America. Replicating something has a huge potential of coming across as very Disney just so the Art seems “at home” in the architecture. The reality is that the art is going to hang on a white wall with great lighting no matter the exterior facade. I think the GCMA is a gorgeous building. And you can look at the art housed at the High in Atlanta for prestige of pieces in a modern setting. 

"Stagnant" and "Disney" are loaded words (but I guess I invoked "Brady", so we're even). I'm aware of the High  and other similar buildings. To me, those are far more "Disney." As for your opening question: why not? If a glass box is appropriate, if a mountain lodge just across the river is appropriate, if stick-built five- and six-story apartment buildings are appropriate, why not something more traditional? And monumental.

But I'm confused: since you've indicated that, to you, all an art museum really is is a (bunch of) white wall(s) with great lighting, why are you even weighing in?

[GvilleSC]

25 minutes ago, Exile said:

But I'm confused: since you've indicated that, to you, all an art museum really is is a (bunch of) white wall(s) with great lighting, why are you even weighing in?

Wow. That's not what I said regarding "all an art museum is". The point being: the building is meant to display art. The art should hang on well lit, plain wall so as to not take away from (or compete with) the actual masterpieces. It also lends itself to flexibility and rotation of exhibits.

As for architectural theory: A Baroque building on the exterior should also be Baroque on the interior. It should be representative of its time, and utilize the building technologies available. A highly ornamented granite or marble clad building is going to be VERY expensive today. I'd rather have a contemporary building that speaks to Greenville's future (as opposed to Europe's past), and acquire more art than spend a ginormous budget on the exterior cladding. You can have your opinion, also.

[PuppiesandKittens]

10 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

The idea of building a building that represents 1400-1600’s Europe doesn’t at all seem appropriate in 2020 Greenville, does it? They’re beautiful in their stagnant context, but they represent a time AND place that is not anywhere in North America. Replicating something has a huge potential of coming across as very Disney just so the Art seems “at home” in the architecture. The reality is that the art is going to hang on a white wall with great lighting no matter the exterior facade. I think the GCMA is a gorgeous building. And you can look at the art housed at the High in Atlanta for prestige of pieces in a modern setting. 

The architectural styles that I mentioned were used for an overwhelming percentage of buildings built until the 1920s and are still used today.   "New Classical" architecture is the term that is used for today's buildings that use historic styles.

Check out:

* the David H. Murdock Core Laboratory on the North Carolina Research Campus in Concord, NC

* 15 Central Park West in NYC

* the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville

They're all beautiful and timeless.

Since those are time-tested architectural styles, and "Le Glass Box du Jour" is not, I'd prefer to stick with what's time-tested.

Edited July 26, 2019 by PuppiesandKittens

[gvegascple]

1 hour ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

The architectural styles that I mentioned were used for an overwhelming percentage of buildings built until the 1920s and are still used today.   "New Classical" architecture is the term that is used for today's buildings that use historic styles.

Check out:

* the David H. Murdock Core Laboratory on the North Carolina Research Campus in Concord, NC

* 15 Central Park West in NYC

* the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville

They're all beautiful and timeless.

Since those are time-tested architectural styles, and "Le Glass Box du Jour" is not, I'd prefer to stick with what's time-tested.

I love how art brings out the passion in people as it should.  Says volumes to me that we are having this discussion, Greenville is an amazing art community.  Put me on the side of the building's architecture doesn't have to match the art just for the sake of it.  Architecture is an art in itself and what matters is that the architecture is great, and part of that is how it interacts with buildings around it and how it looks on its own in my opinion.  An awesome brick building surrounded by awesome brick buildings doesn't sound like it would evoke passion the way something else would.  I say the buildings architecture should stand on its own merits, as the art inside does.   I also like the concept drawings, and obviously a building housing art needs to be flawlessly designed and executed.

[PuppiesandKittens]

1 hour ago, GvilleSC said:

A highly ornamented granite or marble clad building is going to be VERY expensive today.

When entire cities of neo-Renaissance architecture were built in the 1890s, people had a lot less money than they do now, so if people over 120 years ago could afford that style of architecture, we can now.

Sticking sandstone or cement panels on the fronts of buildings doesn't add a lot of cost. 

[GvilleSC]

17 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

When entire cities of neo-Renaissance architecture were built in the 1890s, people had a lot less money than they do now, so if people over 120 years ago could afford that style of architecture, we can now.

We won't get into the economics, politics, and social structures of the time and how that impacted the expenditures. It's fair to say that it would not be tolerated today, especially in a locale that believes in private industry and free market. What you're not understanding is that while it may cost the "same" (more or less for the sake of argument and keeping things simple) to build those cities today, we have FAR greater, advanced technology at our hands that provide us with more affordable and efficient options for construction. So, yes-- it would be the more expensive option on the table and would be difficult to justify. 

But, I'll take your word for it. I'd love to see you make the request for money from County Council. "But, we need to increase the budget to appease my aesthetic desires." ...and the project dies.

Edited July 26, 2019 by GvilleSC