Quote:
Originally Posted by Arquitect
We can be thankful that HF didn't extend all that way. I think that the extent of its current project is a good enough size. Hopefully they fill up their two empty lots soon. I really would like to see the proposal of the hotel back, but I'd be happy with either offices or residential as well.
I do have an issue with the use of the word traditional when referring to architecture. It is nothing personal, but it is a statement that gets thrown out a lot by people, especially those who dislike Modern and contemporary design. What makes traditional buildings awesome is their age, and attention to detail. What people seem to forget is that it really can't be replicated, at least not without looking cheap or tacky. Many of the "old stock" buildings were built in a time when labor cost where much much cheaper, hence doing such beautiful and elaborate designs was feasible. Nowadays, that is nearly impossible, so instead we get brick veneers instead of brick buildings, or stucco instead of stone. It ends up being a caricature of what it was supposed to be. Contemporary design is much more than just glass boxes, and we have some great examples of that here in the valley. I completely agree with you that we need more than just blue tinted glass in the lake, but I would much rather see great contemporary buildings (using different materials of course), instead of tacky post-modern interpretations of the traditional. It would be so much grater to create a story of our present through the design, instead of trying to fabricate a history of a past that was never there. The lake is contemporary, and deserves great contemporary building that represent how great of an idea it was to create it.
|
Regarding Hayden Ferry
Happy to see someone agree with me that HFL is fine contained as is. And, glad you mentioned the remaining two pads- I honestly wish they'd sell them off. I know I have been called overly critical, but the whole development has failed at connecting the life of downtown to the lake. Additionally, not only does it fail to address Rio Salado AT ALL, it turns a giant, massive parking structure toward two of this city's iconic landmarks: the mill and butte.
Maybe someone else could try to develop a gateway building at the Mill/Rio intersection. This building, at the very least, should address the corner, which the third building rendering does not. An expansive lobby with floor to ceiling windows exposing the views of the site (since honestly I still have no idea where anything would be) with a coffee stand, newsstand, food trucks and large suspended art depicting the lake's transformation would give visitors a reason to come over, check it out and then lead on out and enjoy the retail and outdoor amenities. I do think a hotel would be best for the other pad, though, with residential an alternative. With ASU moving forward with the stadium district, you'd think at least one hotelier would be interested in offering it's 4-star brand and be the only hotel of that class downtown, and only hotel on the lake. That development needs as many 24/7 visitors as possible to liven it up so I'd be disappointed in office. This pad is also the only chance at finally addressing Rio- would it make sense at that point given it would essentially be a standalone retail store? Sigh.
Regarding More Variety of Architecture in Tempe
Now, to address your other points. For starters, I am not an architect, an urban planner, a city planner... Heck, I work in marketing. But, I have a passion for how cities are designed and look from an aesthetic standpoint, and for how the uses come together from an analytical standpoint. There will be many times I use a word or two wrong, but I am educated and have taste. While I appreciated your message, I was slightly insulted for a couple of reasons:
Looking back, maybe I could have said simple, or different, or heck there are probably plenty modern or contemporary designs that would work instead of traditional; regardless, we were having a conversation about adding sails to buildings in the area- at that point, very little would be considered non-traditional in comparison to sail-ship inspired highrises. And, that is where you looked passed my point, which was that in an area that is currently filled with a sea of blue-glass contemporary buildings, modern/totally unique structures like TCA or that space-inspired Marriott, and we prepare for future sail-like structures (assumably blue-glass), I was just saying that it would be nice to mix in one or two midrises that fill in this popular view of downtown and the skyline and provide contrast and variety. And, a traditional type of structure was the easiest type providing that contrast.
Did I want to recreate a faux historic Victorian home? No. And, that is a very simplistic take definition of traditional. A rough idea would be a 12-story rectangular midrise on the W6 parking lot would have its first two floors (retail, gym, leasing office, etc.) covered in a light Arizona limestone; the next ten would use a lot of light gray glass trimmed in a walnut-stained desert ironwood to contrast the limestone. Outside would be desert landscaping. In totality, the entire structure would be traditional (in its formal block of uses and shape, use of local materials, native colors), fill in gaps within the skyline, create variety, and contrast the more contemporary structures that currently dominate the foreground. I would never, ever advocate for faux or cheap materials/structures. I love all forms of architecture and love when we get to see development in Tempe, Phoenix, etc. that takes a risk on innovative design.
What I asked for was a response to a very specific situation: that a traditional structure or two be added to create contrast and provide a backdrop for the more unique structures in the foreground of a view of the city that can only capture a handful of structures, many of which are very similar. Additionally, this was all a theoretical discussion. If I thought a low rise built of all brick would look best, there's nothing wrong with that. That's the architects and project managers who need to deal with the cost of their projects, not the dreamers on here. And, if I think an all-brick building would look great in one place, that doesn't mean I am against modern, contemporary, or any other form of design. In fact, my main point was wanting variety.
I hope that helps explain what I was imagining a bit better.
Prev
For instance, when I was describing shade structures you took it to mean that giant, glass triangles would be built. Also, lakefront development doesn't mean the "sea" is being referenced. That's a new one...
Linear Mode
