PROPOSED: Parcel 12 (Triangle Parcel)

[Lone Ranger]

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.

This is grainy, but this was on the cover of The Agenda about a month ago. I was fascinated. It was one of the coolest things I've ever seen, so I scanned it when I got home (which accounts for the poor quality):

I found it funny you should mention this, Cotuit, because 111 Huntington was the building in this pic that especially caught my eye as being, potentially, a beautiful addition to our skyline. I officially added it to my wishlist.

[CtownMikey]

haha maybe providence will be like that someday.. hopefully global warming doesnt drown R.I. out by that time

[dexter]

The conversation about this building site is great! I must say, when I referenced the Gerkin, aka the the Swiss Re headquarters building by Foster, I wasn't actually suggesting that this is the right building for Parcel 12, only that there are some interesting glass buildings out there. However, if there is a site in Prov that a building of this type would be appropriate for, meaning a building that is truly sculptural and independent of context, this is it. I also think that Foster's building will be one of the iconic skyscrapers of this era.

So, the question out there, whether a truly contemporary building for Parcel 12 is appropriate, seems to be receiving a mixed response. I will advocate for a building that is contemporary, without shallow references to the immeadiate context. It is a special site, perhaps the second most important site in the city (now that the arguably the most important site, Parcel 9 is done, and in my opinion a real missed opportunity) which is so prominent that it demands a building of exceptional design. The proposal that appears to be on the table does not qualify!! The CCC will have a huge challenge to get this design to be significantly better if this is the starting point for the designer.

I think Providence needs to find the courage to demand world class contemporary buildings. It's not easy, and they aren't inexpensive, but we will be living with what is built for a long time.

[Lone Ranger]

Obviously you & I, dexter, disagree about the Gherkin building. But again, obviously, I'm not against all contemporary architecture. So could I ask you a favor? Could you give me some other examples, please, of contemporary buildings that you consider to be excellent examples of modern architecture?

Oh, I should probably mention that I generally have a thing against cylindrical/conical/elliptical buildings, for what it's worth. I don't know why. I make a few exceptions, but in general they don't impress me.

One of those exceptions, as I said, would be 111 Huntington. I would love to have 111 Huntington in Providence. I'm not sure I'd want it in Providence, but I love this building too. I love a lot of the buildings they're putting up in Dubai, for example this building, and especially this one, Burj Al Arab. I love Deutsche Bank Place in Sydney, which I find funny because I recently saw some of the original project renderings and hated the look of them. I can't put my finger on it, but they somehow miss the essence of the building itself. And although it's not modern (in the sense of being built as recently as the rest of these buildings), I find myself strangely drawn to the TransAmerica Pyramid in San Francisco: the first time I saw it, I hated it, but it's grown on me since then. Same for Boston's John Hancock. Not that I'd want either building in Providence: they're too tall for us, at present, IMO. But the point is, they're unconventional, yet I still find them compelling.

So I think you & I got off on the wrong foot earlier. Forget about the Swiss Re building, what are some others that you consider to be inspired, bold examples of modern architecture? Or what are some other modern buildings that, in your opinion, might make pleasant contributions to our skyline?

[Gusterfell]

Or what are some other modern buildings that, in your opinion, might make pleasant contributions to our skyline?

One building that immediately came to mind when I read this is the Maashaven Towers proposal in Rotterdam:

I don't think they were built, but they were meant to be 30 story residential towers on an old pier. I've always thought something like this would look cool on top of the hurricane barrier (if the bridge weren't going there, of course).

As for parcel 12, I absolutely agree with dexter's last post. It is one of the most high-profile sites in the city, and whatever goes up there is destined to become a major part of Providence's overall image. That location absolutely calls for something great, not merely sometthing acceptable.

[brick]

One of those exceptions, as I said, would be 111 Huntington. I would love to have 111 Huntington in Providence. I'm not sure I'd want it in Providence, but I love this building too.

I would love to have a Calatrava. Love it.

Perhaps when I am a billionaire i will invite him to design a building in Providence for me. I wish Providence had a billionaire benefactor already, though.

[jencoleslaw]

there are plenty of billionaires; precious few are benefactors, though.

[Cotuit]

Burj Al Arab would fit well on parcel 12 as it is triangular, but the Burj Al Arab is actually taller than the Empire State Building. I don't think we would see a cylindrical building, hotels don't really like curved walls, it's much easier to furnish a box.

[Liamlunchtray]

I must say I really like Burj Al Arab. It looks like a sail boat, which would make a design like that a good fit for the ocean state. Of course seeing how people wig out about the glass and steel look of Gtech I can only imagine what they would think of something like this.

[Cotuit]

Latest:

[brick]

It looks cleaner in color but I don't like the concept of the vertical square tower with a triangular base. A slimmer (and higher) tower that is centered would look better, or even making the tower not go to the entire width, but go to the full triangle rather than just taking one "side" of the triangle. either way I think the tower needs at least a small setback from the base.

The way they have the triangle done it looks like the front would be along Memorial Blvd, putting the glass cupola thing at the corner of Exchange St. and Exchange Ter. I'm not sure if I like that. If this configuration were to stay, I would prefer the tower portion to rise along Exchange St., I think.

[MikeR]

Wow! It's almost as if the architects were perusing this thread and picked up on Lone Ranger's suggestion of a thinner base at the bottom and sides. The newest renders look better, but it is still a few floors short. If it was two floors taller, and those floors were nearer the top, and stepped back a bit between the 14th and 15th floors, it would give the building a bit more proportion and a more stepped-back look. I like the copper-colored roof and the glass-enclosed greenhouse at one of the corners. If they use the lighter-colored brick as shown in the render, is should provide a good compliment to the darker-colored Citizens building nearby as both will be of similar height.

It looks like they truly attempting to reach back in time and come up with a classical, almost Victorian design. If they could just make the transition from base to roofline a bit less squat, it looks like a winner.

[Recchia]

I really like the side view. The head-on view is too deceiving and makes the building look dimension-less. I really like the little green circular entrance thing in the back (or front?), that'll complement the shape of the Citizens building nicely.

[MikeR]

The way they have the triangle done it looks like the front would be along Memorial Blvd, putting the glass cupola thing at the corner of Exchange St. and Exchange Ter. I'm not sure if I like that. If this configuration were to stay, I would prefer the tower portion to rise along Exchange St., I think.

From looking at the render, and visualizing it on the arial map of the lot, it actually looks like the tower is fronting Exchange St, and the glass cupola would be at the junction of Memorial and Exchange Terrace. I could be wrong, though!

[brick]

From looking at the render, and visualizing it on the arial map of the lot, it actually looks like the tower is fronting Exchange St, and the glass cupola would be at the junction of Memorial and Exchange Terrace. I could be wrong, though!

With this design, I am assuming that they want the rectangular tower portion to be on the longest leg of the triangle, which is Mem. drive, at least so far as I can tell. Exchange St. is the smallest leg.

Map

[Liamlunchtray]

I was kind of hoping for a building that was actually triangular. This feels like they have a building they want and have just tacked on the stuff at the back to fill up the rest of the space. I dont think its cohesive at all. I'm not a huge fan of the retro Victorian thing (we have enough real Victorians thankyouverymuch) but I think it could work if the design was really solid. This however feels a bit hamfisted to me.

[Magellan98]

Hideous - that's the first thing that popped into my mind. Worse than I had previously imagined. I too was expecting something a bit more triangular. But stepping back and looking at this, I cannot envision this hotel as a W. No Way! This thing looks like it belongs in Carnegie Abbey - as the assisted living tower complete with a conservatory and medical wing...

[Cotuit]

This thing looks like it belongs in Carnegie Abbey - as the assisted living tower complete with a conservatory and medical wing...

Good description, I was thinking of Foxwoods. It's waaaaay too fussy for me. The balconies totally don't work with the period (whatever period that is) they are going for. I think it really needs to be a more modern design where the balconies can become a sort of sculptural element, like Waterplace.

I'm not dissapointed about it not being triangular, if something were to fit the shape of the lot, it would be way to bulky. Lower stories filling the lot, then something growing out of it will do. I think the tower should be at the corner across from Burnside, with the lower levels extending to Memorial.

I think I like the base, but the tower is just wrong, and far too wide.

[jencoleslaw]

I really like the side view. The head-on view is too deceiving and makes the building look dimension-less. I really like the little green circular entrance thing in the back (or front?), that'll complement the shape of the Citizens building nicely.

i like the sideview too. Still not sold on the radiator look of the front though.

[Garris]

I was kind of hoping for a building that was actually triangular. This feels like they have a building they want and have just tacked on the stuff at the back to fill up the rest of the space.

I was hoping for a triangular building as well. I have to say I'm a bit surprised they choose a tower here at all. I never thought I'd say this, but I never wanted height here. I thought this was a uniquely shaped property that cried out for a uniquely shaped building. Rather than a 25 or whatever story tower on a squat triangular base, I'd much rather have an 8-12 story fully triangular building with a rounded corner facing Memorial as was originally envisioned in the old "Intercontinental" render.

That said, this is hardly bad. I'm guessing the tower fronts Memorial with the grand entrance looking at the Citizen's bank building and the base of the triangle with auto access fronting Exchanges Street and Terrace. Or maybe not...

Either way, this isn't quite what I envisioned but it's not a fraction of as bad as things could have been. Unlike some other recent efforts (COUGH ** Sierra Suites ** COUGH ** Gas Station Tower render ** COUGH **) they clearly appear to be trying to be good here. I happen, unlike others, to be a fan of the Neo-Victorian tower design, having seen it done well in some other cities. As Jen is fond of saying, your miles may vary.

If they can find a way to make the zillion balconies feel like a design aspect rather than tacked on, I'd say it's an overall winner.

- Garris

PS: Unlike many other sites, save for a Cafe Nuovo-esque restaurant, this is actually a development that I don't want retail at... I don't think it would work here.

[AriPVD]

If it is truly a W Hotel, they tend to have great lobby bars.

[Citydweller]

As someone who works in both traditional and modernist styles, I am annoyed by a design like this. The detailing and proportion shows a designer who was only passing aquaintance with classical principles (and those principles allow a lot of latitude). There is also possibilities of how to combine mondernist elements (like balconies) within a traditional framework (Otto Wagner, Dmitri Porphryios).

And I agree that the building should fill its triangular site - one of the fundamentals of urban space is the definition of streets and squares by buildings that line blocks.

[billypc99]

Ari, wonderful bars indeed. The one here in San Fran is fantastic and over priced of course.

[pdxstreetcar]

i agree with the idea of filling the block completely with triangular building, they could have a courtyard in the middle.

i'd take any design on that block so long as its not deconstructivist.

personally i'd rather that if they are doing a more traditional/classical design make it authentic traditional or classical with a good sense of proportion and quality materials something like the proposed 'City Tower' and 'The Olympic' high-rise project in LA.

[Lone Ranger]

Either way, this isn't quite what I envisioned but it's not a fraction of as bad as things could have been. Unlike some other recent efforts (COUGH ** Sierra Suites ** COUGH ** Gas Station Tower render ** COUGH **)

I never saw that Gas Station Tower render. Any pics of it for me? Pretty please?

About the new render here, I need to think about it some more, but I was hoping for a bit more from their second effort.

I like the copper top. I like the rear views. Then again, I've always been partial to those.

I'm glad they made some attempt to rectify the proportions, although it's still not right. To the developers, if in fact you are getting these suggestions: take a step away from the drawings, squint a little, and take in the shape of the building. It's not graceful. It's too bulky, too squat. More height, less width please.

Still too much of a radiator look. Or cluttered, you might say. So many balconies ... I'm reminded of a famous verse from Coleridge:

Water water everywhere

And all the boards did shrink

Water water everywhere

Nor any drop to drink.

Balconies balconies everywhere. They choke the view. Is there any way to tone down the noise here?