[St. John's] Hilton Garden Inn | 35m | 12 Floors | Proposed
 

Hilton Garden Inn - Proposed
http://i993.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps298e2650.jpg
(current design, September 30th, 2012)

This is a proposal by Manga Hotels to construct a new 12-storey, 150 room hotel in downtown St. John’s first proposed on, April 27, 2011.
Located on the corner of New Gower Street and Hamilton Avenue. The building pictured above is the revised, current proposal (Sept. 2012) The building was redesigned due to privacy and design concerns from nearby residents. Specs and height remain the same as the original proposal.

Location: New Gower Street and Hamilton Avenue
Floors: 12
Height: 35m

Location and proposed positioning of the hotel:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8219/8...3851acdb25.jpg

Article from The Telegram, April 27, 2011 detailing the original proposal (outdated: before revised proposal)http://www.thetelegram.com/Business/...26rsquo%3Bs-/1

For comparison purposes, here is the original proposal submitted on April 27th, 2011.

http://www.pbase.com/image/140855573.jpg

Reminder; This is not the current proposal. I didn't want to include this outdated image in the OP to avoid any confusion.

This thread may remain pretty sleepy for a while until there is an official re-submission to the city, it is approved, or construction begins, but that's okay. At least it's here for when we need it!

If anyone has anything they feel I should add to the OP, just let me know and I will add it!

ok it's growing on me in your avatar hahahahaha then I see the up close one and its like meh ..

I agree. It looks better shrunken down, which means it should look good at a distance :haha:

Maybe my avatar created to annoy (if that's the right word) Signal will turn into some kind of therapy treatment and convert him to pro-hiltonism! :D

Wow! I didn't really realize how small the footprint will be to this building. Even though its architectural design is meant to make it seem shorter, it may look significantly taller from certain view points.

I actually really like this new look! I can't explain why but it's just something about it! I know it does seem a little to "uptownish" but i personally like it much more than the original design. :)

I'll still be in a prominent site

remember this work of art :P

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...24615329_n.jpg


you can see it wil be further right to the corner so there will be tonnes of space left on the site for their seconf tower :P

Yuck. I am ashamed that my city will host this glorified Travel Lodge. Ugly, cheap, tacky. Fast food restaurant/auto parts dealer on ground level, then a warehouse, and an industrial park building to top it off.

All that plus hideous colours and a blank side with absolutely no windows. It's the very best in suburban Tallahassee design.

Does anyone know if the second tower is supposed to be higher or lower than the current proposal?

Edit: :previous: well yeah it does have more suburban look. I'm not fond of the windowless side either or the over usage of glass on top, the design may be manipulated serveral times yet, who knows?. But it's not really that bad :P

It could just be that rendering but it looks very 'cartoonish' to me.

There's room for 3 or 4 towers. I would love to see some taller residential buildings go there.

Signal, I really don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be :P The colors are much better than pink, peach, green, or light blue on any building or certain parking garages, haha! But, to each his own! :haha:

I don't think we should be taking the design as the gospel either. I'm sure this won't be the final, final design. The finished product may look similar to this, but I still feel there will be some changes to the design before it's actually build (hopefully addressing the blank wall issue) One thing about the blank wall I don't understand: How does the front of a hotel facing New Gower Street, invade the privacy of apartment owners in a building behind the hotel?? I'm a bit confused by that!

edit: The blank wall we were talking about is on the back, but still doesn't explain the blank wall on the front..

Haha, I thought the exact same thing!

We should have had a poll on this page asking which render people liked better!

Nicely done thread Townie, I've added the link on the first page.
About the blank walls, it is apparent that they have changed the layout somewhat, so the plans should explain why there are any blank walls.

Part of the balance of the design is that the top is suggestive of a mansard roof - justa thought. :)

I think this new design is hideous. I actually didn't mind the original proposal but when council rejected it I wasn't too shaken up because I thought the developer would come back with a better design. But now after seeing this I wish they would go back to the original. I think the original would have looked better if they had just continued on up with the stone.

But this new proposal has the same awfully coloured brick as the new Marriot on Kenmount Road and the glazing on the top is a poorly copied design from Deacon. Overall this gets a two thumbs down from me.

For me, It's one thumb up and one thumb down.

One thumb up for effort and trying to please everybody and one thumb down for the actual execution. I'm hoping with some slight design changes it can be two thumbs up!

I like it.

What I like most is that they have decided to place it right on the street, which will add to the urban feel of that small area of West Water St. That parcel of land is fairly large though, will the remaining be parking, or room for other buildings?

The company does wish to add a phase 2 to the development, though that may not necessarily be a hotel and could be a residential building.

Okay, okay. I will come out and say it. After staring at both designs for a while, I can now say that I like the old design. The new one does have some nice features, but after further inspection, they do not go together well. The materials they show look like they could be cheapened until it looks horrible. I would rather they not use brick. It's in an area that doesn't have to look heritage. The stone on the bottom and white cladding looked fine in the previous proposal.

The other design, while very average, has the same theme throughout and looks much better as a finished product. Again, I hope the new design is just preliminary and changes will happen. I can't say I will be angry if the current proposal is built, but I would be a little bit disappointed

(Yes Signal, I changed my avatar back ;) )

I wish there was better pictures of the old render. I hated the materials on the old design and prefer how the entrance in the new one looks more inviting, and kind of like a store front.

I don't know how I feel, maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board. The company is being told to do heritage by the sounds of it though.

I think the original design was better for downtown. It wasn't anything special but it looked more like a "downtown" than the new design does. When I first saw the new design I thought that it didn't look too bad but the more I thought about the location of the hotel, the more I realized that it was not suitable for that spot at all. If it was located out on Kenmount Rd or near the Airport I would be fine with it. It would fit in easily around Pearson Airport in Toronto and that is the biggest problem. It is just not suited for downtown St. John's. I have to agee with the posters who said it looks like they were trying to make it look more heritage but it certainly isn't our heritage. I hope council send it back to the drawing board again when it comes up before them.

You will find pretty hideous hotels in most cities' downtowns, ranging from 60's through the present day. This type of hotel chain is not usually going to have top notch architecture, it's commercial architecture. However, I think they could still improve it by taking elements from both designs. I don't like the "mansard" at the bottom, it might be better at the top stylistically. I liked the clean look they had before, but perhaps they could have softened it a bit without it being such a drastic change. Also, because they have relocated the hotel on the site it has changed the footprint, therefore it's going to look different anyway. Apparently, there is a partial blank wall at the back which I see as the most unnattractive element of it.

I feel the same way about this proposal.

I do like how it is built on the corner of the lot and I like the bottom floor. I really dislike the colours and the glass on the top doesn't flow well with the rest of the building.

If St. John's doesn't want it, Moncton will take it. I must admit that the first design was nicer.
A Hilton Garden Inn in downtown Moncton would fit right in.

So there are no windows on the other side? How do you do that with a hotel? Does that mean there will hotel rooms with no windows? I'm confused.

This does seem very strange??? Hopefully when the LUAR gets released it'll answer some of these questions.

I think we are getting a very unique Hilton garden inn (even the first proposal) .. from the looks of google they are not typically very fancy on the outside

for example
The one in halifax (at teh airport)

http://media.expedia.com/hotels/2000...79443_21_b.jpg

others from google

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/med...n-downtown.jpg

http://motel-listings.com/hotelimage...itedstates.jpg

http://cls.cdn-hotels.com/hotels/200...73386_12_b.jpg

http://static.asiarooms.com/hotelpho...1521451360.jpg

The one in montreal is nice :D

http://www.bonjourquebec.com/fr/imag...-228822518.jpg

This one is nice too:

http://www.vet.uga.edu/alumni/alumni...lton-Photo.jpg

http://www.hgimediacenter.com/assets...ndering_FS.jpg

Toronto:

http://static.asiarooms.com/hotelpho...1521531191.jpg



most of them look like kenmount road developments

They're allowed to build this one in St. John's if they insist on going cheap.

But this is the only one I'll allow. :D

The bolded part actually made me lol! :P I totally agree though.

Lets keep in mind that the Garden Inn isn't the Hilton's top-ranked hotel chain, and is typically considered to be their discount chain. Asking for a design like Fortis Place would be too much. There's room for improvement, but I fear if council doesn't accept one of these two designs for the building the company will pass on the development all together.

:previous: I agree. We can't ask them for an architectural masterpiece for a lower-class hotel. Compared to their other hotels, it looks like they've been trying to make this one unique. I think the new design, with a few tweaks could be nice. i would like to see the blank wall issue addressed and I think it would look really nice if they changed the color of the bricks to a dark brown and cream colour (Like the color scheme used on the Lemarchant Road Condo proposal)

http://www.pbase.com/image/147578717.jpg

What do you think?

Edit: I like the one that signal highlighted. I think that one would be a nice fit as well.

Umm, I emailed about the Hilton a few months ago and they just sent me the PDF today. The blank wall on the back.. It's bad. 6/10 columns of windows are just a blank wall. It looks really bad. How is that legal?? And who will pay for a hotel room with a blank wall? And this still doesn't explain the blank wall on the front!!

They even include pictures of the original proposal in the PDF to taunt us.. -_-

I'm really going to have to email back..

If anyone wants me to email them the PDF, just private message me your email address!

Ok I have like too much to say about the LAUR


It's a;most made me suspicious that they have done this to get the original approved ... but who knows

they say in it that they used techniques to make it "heritage" and feel like a lower build


but they keep popping up with the old revering every like third page lol

I'll take some screen shots to put on here in a few mins

Here's the back we've been talking about .. you better sit down signal ...



https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...07839392_n.jpg


the building in all it's "glory"

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...49874228_n.jpg



some old renderings they kept reminding us of

....

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...21751554_n.jpg


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...74318711_n.jpg


...

Ok I prefer the old proposal on the site that they moved it to ..trow a store or two on the street and voila

but you can see that they are trying VERY hard to please everyone from what they wrote in the document .. they thought it out A LOT... I hope if this is refused because well it's not nice really .. I hope it doesnt discourage them from the development all together .. seems like the rules are so unclear ..

I like that last picture of the old proposal.

I have no clue how that's even legal (all that blank space). I too am wondering if this is all just a stunt to get the original approved. I'm definitely liking the original much better now.

They need to wait for the updated municipal plan. The might actual be able to propose something modern and something with windows because Sally McNeil up the road is too cheap to buy a curtain.

The window for the hotel room is probably on the other side.

Alright, I can't endorse this proposal with that blank wall. No way.

I'm with you on this. Even the new design images seem to be of lower quality to make it look worse than it may actually be.

The blank wall is awful. In all fairness, I do not care about downtown residents and their privacy. Insert windows.

In all seriousness

the old design looks fine! a little bit of tweaking like with retail on the bottom or something and thats fine ..

in all honesty the old design looks nicer than many of their other hotels across the country

In reality it is just a highrise filler.. doesnt have to be landmark


They must be looking across the road at Fortis place and 351 water in the distance saying WTF st. john's!? ... wt..f ... thise look tall AND modern hahaha and it seems like they are under the impression that it has to look small and historic :S .. we should be attending these mettings like they had with the public ... we should be forming a group like happy city but to promote urbanism! and the board of trade would love us ;)

:haha:

I have to agree with you about this just being a stunt so that people will end up saying "I like the old one better" and they can proceed with their original plan. Also, how is this even allowed with so much blank space?

I hate to oppose developments but I just cannot force myself to say I like this new proposal. In my opinion, there is no need to put a "heritage" structure in this location, especially for a hotel. It is right next to the delta, which is no way heritage looking, and fortis will be right across the street. Again, not heritage. Keep the heritage looking buildings for Water and Duckworth. This is where a modern looking building belongs (i.e., original proposal).

I will stand by my opinion of people downtown that will complain. If you don't like to look at buildings, worried about losing your view, worried about lack of privacy and about noise, than you don't live downtown. Plain and simple. If you want and expect all said things, move around the bay.

One thing I would like to see done with the old proposal is for that panel like thing where their name is to be either covered in the rock that is along the bottom or to use wood like on Fortis.

We should start emailing council to tell them that the old design should be tweaked and that they should not approve the faux heritage design.

Ouch! At least put some windows on the blank wall to make it somewhat aesthetically pleasing. Putting windows on part of the back wall - that just boggles my mind!

Yep, you're absolutely correct. Jeddy, if you ever want to hit up a public meeting, all you've gotta do is fire me a PM.

Disgusting. Absolutely shameful.

From a cbc website article I read, Ron Fougere is the architect for the original design. I assume he is involved in the new design as well. It might be a good idea to email him with our concerns. Here is his email address I obtained from the Newfoundland Architect Association website.

Ron Fougere Associates Limited
2-F Bates Hill
St. John's, NL, A1C 4B4
Canada
Tel: (709) 739 - 8202
Fax: (709) 722 - 8202
Email: [email protected]

:previous:

Makes sense. they also designed Deacon. That explains the two levels of glass on the roof. Deacon makes the glass levels look attractive and classy, while on this it looks cheap and poor. This firm can do better!

Regarding some of the comments here, they could put a "lovely" mural of the Narrows or something on that wall, or they could just "paint" on some windows. (. . . ok, sarcasm) ;) Any wall without windows would not contain rooms, they would have to face the other way. A blank wall would indicate something else is behind it like stairwells, elevators, etc., either way it's not a great design feature.

Maybe they can buy the old circa 1950s water-skiing mural that the battery used to have on display.:haha: