PROPOSED: Parcel 12 (Triangle Parcel)

[xine]

The design is like a lovechild between a 5th Avenue hotel and a Miami high-rise.

The base and top are just so at odds with the middle. I just think they should go modern like 110 or Waterplace.

I agree. I think it looks like a Las Vegas idea of what "traditional" architecture looks like - overblown, ill-proportioned, and historically laughable.

If you look at the older buildings most people love in this city, they have a certain simplicity and grace, even those that have a fair amount of ornament.

Perhaps they should abondon the other proposed casino locations and just use this building - it's certainly tacky enough to qualify for the genre..

[CtownMikey]

the design review committee will take care of it all though.... riiiight!?

Happy EasteR!

[dexter]

You're right. They should scrap the whole idea and just build a glass box instead.

Not a bad idea!! There are some fabulous glass buildings eg the Swiss Re building by Foster in London. In the end, it is not the material, it is the designer. This building sucks.

As for the idea that every new project introduced into the city must exhibit superior architecture, that's ridiculous. Adding new buildings whose design is of average quality isn't going to take away all the beautiful buildings we already have, for which we've garnered some renown. As long as we don't build anything downright ugly, I think we're fine.

I was not saying that every new project in Prov must be "superior architecture", although the possibility does... nah, fuggadboutit. What I meant was that when new BIG buildings are proposed, they need to be well designed. These big projects have a great potential to become character changing, as in the proposal on the corner of Atwells and Knight, which makes good design even more essential. There is a greater design burden on large projects as opposed to smaller infill type projects that become part of the city fabric. We have not been getting very good new BIG buildings, and there are more on the horizon. If this continues, we will become as well known for our ugly new big buildings as we are for our incredible intact historic downtown and neighborhoods. It doesn't really matter stylistically what flavor the building is as long as it is well designed (Grants Block, for instance, is not a contemporary building but is well designed). As I said earlier, I am a strong proponent of greater density in our city, for many reasons. However if it comes at the cost of having ugly, poorly designed big buildings, I think I will opt for less density.

[CtownMikey]

well maybe in 40 years we'll have the money to knock down all of these new buildings unlike last time when cities destroyed them all

[Lone Ranger]

Not a bad idea!! There are some fabulous glass buildings eg the Swiss Re building by Foster in London. In the end, it is not the material, it is the designer. This building sucks.

No, this building sucks.

If that's what you consider to be a fine example of modern architecture, then you & I might as well save ourselves the trouble, skip right to inevitable ending of this discussion, and simply agree that we disagree.

Let's see, which building would be more ruinous to the character of a little city like Providence, the flawed "radiator" proposal that is currently on the table or a tower like your Swiss Re building?

Neither would be good, but your building would be a disaster -- along the lines of the bizarre behemoth they want to build in Louisville right now. Or along the lines of what (in my opinion) GM Renaissance Center does to Detroit, or what Empire State Plaza (again, in my opinion) does to Albany. It would steal the spotlight from our existing buildings, it would conform with nothing we have now, and it would offend the sensitivities of more people than not. Myself among them, obviously.

The current proposal wouldn't be good, and ten more just like it might be damaging, but in no way would have the extreme (and in my opinion, negative) effect of architecture such you're proposing.

But as I said, we should probably just agree to disagree.

[damus]

Neither would be good, but your building would be a disaster -- along the lines of the bizarre behemoth they want to build in Louisville right now. Or along the lines of what (in my opinion)

Off topic, but oh my god. I clicked on that link thinking you were exaggerating just a little bit... but this thing is spectacularly odd. Here's a more unflattering (in my opinion) photo of this thing, in case none of you checked out the site. This is truely unbelievable.

[Dan]

No, this building sucks.

That thing ought to be the headquarters for Amazing Superstores.

[Lone Ranger]

And furthermore, buildings like that Swiss Re are not only not very attractive to my eye, but they're also not even very original anymore. Cutting edge, maybe, but original, no. They used the same concept in Barcelona, and proposed another such building in Dubai. And if the concept isn't even original, I fail to the see point of building such a tower. Originality, at least, would provide some explanation for wanting to build a building like this.

[webbage]

I think that maybe it's too early to pass judgement on this. I mean, this is only a 2D drawing, and the building is going to be triangular, no?

[brick]

St. Mary Axe is fine in it's environment. I don't think it has a place in Providence. I wish every discussion didn't get so polar, although I guess that's part of the charm of a message board.

I think they can do something without scrapping the entire idea of that render. As many have said, it is only 2D. It's hard to capture the details of the balconies, etc., in a 2D. In fact I think if you go look at other threads, you will see that people hated all the "Excessive detail" of Westin II, 110, and Waterplace. The proportion issues may also be a problem here. This seems to be right at the worst ration of tower to base width. I think a wider or slimmer tower (either way) would look better.

I wouldn't mind a more modern building here, and I also agree that the first render was better, but I don't think saying that this needs to be completely scrapped and build a glass box is the right thing either.

[MikeR]

Am I the only one who really doesn't mind the design? Maybe cause I haven't seen it in color yet.

I don't mind the design, either. I wish it was a couple of stories taller, though. Not having a color photo makes it hard to judge it. I do appreciate some of the classical features of the structure. It could use some vertical accents, but overall, its' a fine 1st design attempt.

[Dan]

The proportion issues may also be a problem here. This seems to be right at the worst ration of tower to base width. I think a wider or slimmer tower (either way) would look better.

Agreed, and I'd like it to be slimmer (maybe taller?) for that location. Are the balconies at least "real" in this render?

[eltron]

Neither would be good, but your building would be a disaster -- along the lines of the bizarre behemoth they want to build in Louisville right now. Or along the lines of what (in my opinion) GM Renaissance Center does to Detroit, or what Empire State Plaza (again, in my opinion)

Love that OMA building in Louisville. Love it!

Providence W Hotel? Not so much...

[Liamlunchtray]

Love that OMA building in Louisville. Love it!

Providence W Hotel? Not so much...

I think that Louisville building looks really cool. Maybe I'm nuts, but I completely dig it. The Swiss Re building on the other hand looks like a giant buttplug. Good for butts, not for skylines.

Back to the issue at hand - I think the Parcel 12 building (like the rest of you) is ok, but looks strangely squat in this render. I'll hold out for a 3d render to pass judgement. Depending on materials it could be ok.

[Thom]

Wow, I'll have to get renderings on line as quick as I get them. Learn a lot reviewing the debate. I will email the link to all the members of the Capital Center Design Review Committee. I'm only one vote on the committee, but I think all the members would find your discussions interesting.

[pdxstreetcar]

I cant stand the proposed Louisville tower, I feel sorry for the people in Louisville who will have to look at it. Plus it has a terrible interaction with the street that makes "Towers in the Park" look like an excellent urban design strategy...

Model Louisville Base

More Model Photos

Every part of the design looks like a joke.

[provid]

Poor as the design is image if they built away from street edege....Does anyone else think the building would look greatly isolated from the city? Its already pulled away from the city (other buildings) becasue its built on a triangle lot surround by roads.

( drastic example )

[Recchia]

Worst than the design....Does anyone else think the building is going to look greatly isolated from the city if they don't build to the street edge? Its already pulled away from the city (other buildings) becasue its built on a triangle lot surround by roads. Building the hotel within a parking lot is going to look and be horrable for the city.

Thanks Wingate Hotel for brining suburbia to our renaissance city!

......" The hotel will sit in the middle of a parking lot, though it will be a well designed parking lot with lots of landscpaing (more then we can require by zoning) and a street edge created by a steel fence. The buidling will be brick on the facade with some accent materials and will follow the typical sububan pattern of efis on the other sides. "

Ugh that would be horrible. I'm hoping you made up that quote and it really doesn't have to do with this project.

I'm thinking that stubby building would be too wide to have surface parking around it as well though.

[Dan]

Thanks Wingate Hotel for brining suburbia to our renaissance city!

( example )

......" The hotel will sit in the middle of a parking lot, though it will be a well designed parking lot with lots of landscpaing (more then we can require by zoning) and a street edge created by a steel fence. The buidling will be brick on the facade with some accent materials and will follow the typical sububan pattern of efis on the other sides. "

I believe the quote pertains to the hotel to be built at 450 Charles St. There was confusion over the franchise flag, which is either Wingate Inn or Comfort Suites. We've also discussed both projects extensively in the wrong thread.

I have to say there isn't room for surface parking and a 10 story hotel on that lot.

[provid]

I think I have two project mixed up. I looked through each topic and found the same maps and images. Sorry about that.

[Cotuit]

I believe the quote pertains to the hotel to be built at 450 Charles St. There was confusion over the franchise flag, which is either Wingate Inn or Comfort Suites. We've also discussed both projects extensively in the wrong thread.

Yes, that quote relates to the hotel on Charles Street near the Walmart that is going in the old Ames location (I feel like a real Rhode Islander talking about things that aren't there anymore ).

this thread

This, the triangular parcel 12 project, has come up in many threads, I think because people are so eager to see something built there.

[MikeR]

I expounded on Lone Ranger's suggestion on a thinner building and came up with the following (It is rough as I have only so much time on break here at work!

I restored the base of the building back to it's origanal width, and attempted to make the 3rd floor somewhat wider than the floors above - this would give the structure a "stepped back" look. I added two floors to the image to make up for the lost rooms in the original render - I assume the developer is looking to build a minimum # of hotel rooms and this hopefully makes up for it. I think it makes the proportions better between the top and bottom...

[Cotuit]

Wow, I'll have to get renderings on line as quick as I get them. Learn a lot reviewing the debate. I will email the link to all the members of the Capital Center Design Review Committee.

That would be great, and they are certainly welcome to register and join the debate/discussion.

Mark me down as liking the Gerkin (butt-plug/Swiss Re), though I wouldn't want to see a litteral interpretation of it in Providence. I can certainly see something at parcel 12 that pays homage to the nearby federal buildings in it's lower levels and then has a modern glass design in it's tower. And the shape of the parcel is obviously screaming out for an interesting shape to the tower.

I don't like the pitched roof, I'd love to see somesort of dome as to me, Providence is a city of domes. It doesn't need to be anything as grand as the State House, 111 Huntington in Boston has a modern dome that I think would be an interesting look on our skyline, though not exactly that dome.

[eltron]

111 Huntington in Boston has a modern dome that I think would be an interesting look on our skyline, though not exactly that dome.

NO!!! Not the R2D2!

[Cotuit]

NO!!! Not the R2D2!

I like the R2D2. Though the dome could have been better conceived. It was added at the urging of the mayor.