Jump to content

275 Fulton Place

mgreven

By mgreven
in Grand Rapids

Recommended Posts

Allison Slater Town

Allison Slater

Posted
Posted

To detail what I don't like about this rendering:

1) The cantilever along Fulton. Too big, too open, too empty, too tall, and honestly, I'd be afraid to walk under that. Get the world's best engineers to tell me it's safe, I still might just cross to the other side of the street if I walk by. The ONLY elements keeping that thing up under the tallest part of the tower are two V-shaped beams, and they certainly aren't too far apart compared to what's above them.

2) The facade on the lower floors on the NW side facing the river. What is that? It stands out and looks out-of-place.

3) The glass is nice, but that's all there is to the building. At least add some sort of small frame to the corners or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply
jbr12 Hamlet

jbr12

Posted
Posted

I think this proposal is amazing and wish it was designed by a local firm, even an American firm, but I'm glad that this type of design is being brought here. It will be a great showcase for all local architectural clients. As golscorer said, it will be much easier to sell things like a double skin facade to a client if they can see the system in function for themselves. When I was in school I used a similar double glass facade for my skyscraper proposal. The sculpture on the Fulton Ave side reminds me a similar shaped fountain near the Geode in Paris.

535261115_939fb0b470.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
torgo Town

torgo

Posted
Posted
:rolleyes: Please tell me you're not serious....

Things like this are engineered to withstand extreme conditions... Take the Mackinac Bridge, which was designed to sway from side to side in at the center up to 35 feet during 100mph+ winds (it was actually designed to take up to 600mph winds).

This thing isn't going to fall on your head.. sheesh....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted

LOL

One thing about the overhang is that part of the deal of developing that parcel was to keep the convenience parking in-tact for Urban Mill, Kinko's and Pallets. In order to accommodate this, the architect could have done one of several things: 1) built the parking garage out to Fulton on the bottom floors, thus giving us a nice screened parking lot wall to look at and an Iconiash looking office building (parking garage on the first couple of floors, offices above , 2) left a surface lot there and set the building back from Fulton in a nice Cascade Office Parkian way or 3) do what they did, reconfigure the surface lot and thrust the building portion out to Fulton, thereby creating a stunning design that solves multiple issues; In addition, it now creates a 2 - 3 story (maybe taller?) main entry atrium off of the parking lot into the building, that is open to the public, provides a gathering place for Urban Mill patrons (if I read the site plan correctly) that will have sweeping views up the river to the North.

The smaller portion on the Northern end I'm guessing is the condo tower.

edit: yes, take a look at this. There is a square atrium that flows from the roof of the parking area up through the building to the top, that ties in (somehow) with the main entrance atrium. The upper right image is the 6th floor site plan, so it appears the atrium at least goes up through floor 6..

535996848_be05d5529e_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
winjer Unincorporated Area

winjer

Posted
Posted
But a major goal of the project was not blocking the view for existing Plaza Towers residents. [...] Plaza Towers resident Hal Froot said they appreciated Eenhoorn's commitment to keeping their views of the river intact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Libertarian Whistle-Stop

Libertarian

Posted
Posted

Self disclosure: Eenhoorn renter here.

The renderings have been out for awhile and I am still speechless. This is an utter coup de’etat for Grand Rapids Urban Planning. I am stunned. For some strange reason I can envision this building actually making The Plaza Towers look more visually appealing than what they do now. This may be a stretch, but does it remind anyone of something from Canary Wharf?

To Apartment renters: This is harsh, but I have never heard of a rental law in Michigan based solely on “preserving” views. Condo owners in Plaza Towers are a different story<pun>. To tell you the truth, personally I would rather have a view of this magnificent structure, everyday, than what I have now at my home.

Bravo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allison Slater Town

Allison Slater

Posted
Posted

stinkbug xD

Yeah, I'm sure that thing won't fall down on my head, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't feel nervous walking under that thing. Mostly with the northern part of that plaza. It doesn't tie into anything, not a single beam holding that entire half of the tower up. All it'd take is something towards that NW corner suggesting support, and it'd be better, though I still can't say I like the look and feel of that plaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted
stinkbug xD

Yeah, I'm sure that thing won't fall down on my head, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't feel nervous walking under that thing. Mostly with the northern part of that plaza. It doesn't tie into anything, not a single beam holding that entire half of the tower up. All it'd take is something towards that NW corner suggesting support, and it'd be better, though I still can't say I like the look and feel of that plaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tamias6 Town

tamias6

Posted
Posted

Would the floor decks be made of pretensioned reinforced concrete similar to the new GRAM's entry canopy and support columns? Maybe that would account for the structural needs of this building resulting in the thin, transparent and floating look depicted in the renderings.

The V's definitely carry the load of the second floor, but I would think there must be some extra internal structure not shown in the renderings to support the third floor. We can pretty much see right through the white channel glass of the second floor, and there is no apparent structure in there. Also, like someone else said earlier, I think the third floor is rather thin for the size of that cantilever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeDowntown Metropolis

joeDowntown

Posted
Posted

While I don't know if the building below (Canary Wharf, London) has double-glazed windows, I really enjoyed the transparency. Unfortunately, I didn't take a full frontal of the building as I was interested in how they treated a completely blank wall (not a window to be seen). See, you can build a wall with style ;) Anyway, I hope (and think) 275 Fulton will have this transparency:

510117570_d33b1f7961_b.jpg

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RustTown City

RustTown

Posted
Posted

No. One has (or should have) enough faith that the amount of money being spent on the design of any building will translate into it being, at least, structurally sound. lol The feeling that of being nervous is really completely unfounded. We pay people money so that buildings, at the very least, stand up, even if they look and function as ugly as sin. I think this 'issue' of its structural soundness is really pretty silly, at best. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms someone can level against a design, but with structural soundness being the foundation of a design, structural soundness isn't one of them.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we assume nothing else about architecture, we assume that a building is designed so that it won't expectedly collapse. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted
No. One has (or should have) enough faith that the amount of money being spent on the design of any building will translate into it being, at least, structurally sound. lol The feeling that of being nervous is really completely unfounded. We pay people money so that buildings, at the very least, stand up, even if they look and function as ugly as sin. I think this 'issue' of its structural soundness is really pretty silly, at best. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms someone can level against a design, but with structural soundness being the foundation of a design, structural soundness isn't one of them.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we assume nothing else about architecture, we assume that a building is designed so that it won't expectedly collapse. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexPKeaton Burg

AlexPKeaton

Posted
Posted

How many people are afraid to fly? Airplanes have the laws of physics on their side, yet some people are still afraid to fly. Perhaps it's the same with buildings.

Personally, I've always found it pretty amazing what structural engineers can do. It seems impossible that suspension bridges could hold all that weight in a single span with just a couple thick cables, but they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.