So, who is going to the planning commission meeting on Friday?  I will see you all there.

I've noticed that few if any new buildings pair the windows in the way you have them there, imitating a style that was once pretty common. 

 

I think it's fair to say that the OTR Italienate style WAS a relatively cheap style, so I don't understand why it's so tough for architects to simply copy the facades exactly.  Hollywood set designers can do it faithfully but somehow architects can't. 

 

There are a couple of things that go into this.  First, when OTR was originally built, labor cost was low.  This set up lends itself to the detailed ornamentation you see all over OTR, as it cost very little to have 20 guys working long hours on small details.  Today, labor cost is huge, and the goal of most construction projects is to have things put together as quickly as possible.  This is why you get things like huge bricks (think University Park Apartments) – masons are expensive, and big bricks = less time to stack.

 

As for replicating the Italianate details like the cast iron cornice – this can’t really be done today because cast iron is a lot more expensive and no one would ever pay for it if an architect did specify it.  Instead, it would be done in EIFS or something similar, and it would start to look like crap after 15-20 years instead of the 100+ years cast iron will look nice.  As for Hollywood sets, I believe they simply use plaster which is quick and easy to work with if you have a couple talented guys doing it, but it can’t be used on the outside of a building. Sets are temporary and it doesn’t matter if they leak, buildings have to last.

 

 

First, I really like Civvik's arguments, saying why I am for the modern design much better than I could have put it.

 

Jake, I think the difficulty is that we would be asking an architect to design, at once, 150' of Italianate buildings.  It seems to be unavoidable that the "differentiation" between adjacent "buildings" ends up looking artificial, and that's the source of the displeasure for me.  Maybe if we asked 7 different architects to design 7 different Italianate buildings, and then stuck them together randomly, it would start to look interesting (though probably, then, too expensive -- which is the point).  Probably, if OTR had been designed in an office over a 6 month period by a single group of architects, it would have looked just as strange as the faux historic renderings we see today.

 

As for the cornices, I don't think very many are cast iron.  Most are tin, and they last a long time as they are protected -- so long as you don't let the box gutters deteriorate.  And they are still done.  I had one made for a building I'm rehabbing - wasn't really all that expensive.  And the Habitat for Humanity folks just put one up on their building on Elm st.  But again, the problem with all the little cornices adorning the tops of the vertically oriented "buildings" is going to be that they will end up looking too similar, cause they were designed by the same architect or obtained contractually from the same firm.  Look at the cornices on a nice block in OTR and you'll be more impressed with the often subtle but sometimes stark differences, than with the fact that there are cornices.

 

Bottom line is that if we can't achieve, in one stroke, the look of a series of Italianate buildings designed and built by different people over a 20 year time frame, then we probably shouldn't try it.

^^

 

Anachronism comes into play in the fine line between replicating and complementing. 

 

Building Italianate style buildings, or neo-classical, or tudor style, or Gothic revival... all are anachronisms, even if under the pretense or justification of context.

 

Completely disagree.  By that standard the only acceptable "style" today follows modernistic rules such as:

- minimalism

- no ornament

- no sloped roofs

- no strong corners

 

These rules were implemented by modernists 80 years ago,  but for some reason architects today still believe that any building with a gable roof is an anachronism and any building with ornament is a crime.  This is BS.  A good building is timeless .. .. not modern.

 

There are a few architects doing new buildings in a classic manner, see the Ireland example above, or Stern or Krier etc..

^^

 

Anachronism comes into play in the fine line between replicating and complementing. 

 

Building Italianate style buildings, or neo-classical, or tudor style, or Gothic revival... all are anachronisms, even if under the pretense or justification of context.  In the end it is a matter of taste, Architecture enables you to achieve anything from any period.  Some prefer new, some prefer the old.

 

So was it an anachronism that the Italianate fad of the 1850's was inspired by Italian villas of the 1500's? Or was everything up until modernism just "inspiration" because construction methods didn't change much until then?

 

I do see what you are saying, but I think of an anachronism as something that seems patently out of place for its time, like a caveman with a gun. In a neighborhood of building style X, why not keep building in style X? Also, what about the small movement in architecture, allied with New Urbanism, that wants to resurrect classical architectural design conventions? Would they have to come up with some style that was totally novel in order to avoid being an anachronism?

I find this whole argument rather silly and amusing.  It's as if the only two choices are ugly inappropriate modernism or kitschy faux classicism.  There's plenty of other options. 

 

Here's the thing, I totally agree with the criticism that the Vine Street building is too horizontal.  That's the typical MO of avant garde modernism.  It's all about horizontal planes floating over minimized vertical structure.  Overall forms are abstracted, usually in defiance of structural considerations.  They are intended to be viewed in isolation, presented as an art object on an open plane, unencumbered by any other buildings.  This is the complete opposite of the methods that are necessitated by load bearing masonry construction that typifies dense urban neighborhoods like OTR.  They're all about subtlety, craftsmanship, being experienced up close by the pedestrian, and scaled to the human being. 

 

All that does not mean, however, that you can't do modernism with a vertical emphasis and attention to detail.  It's been done before, and not just in skyscrapers.  It also doesn't mean you have to default back to faux historicism or try to make a single building look like more smaller individual ones.  Here's a few examples I found with a quick Google search. 

 

http://www.jetsongreen.com/2009/07/vertical-modern-urban-lofts-little-rock.html

 

http://homegallerydesign.com/modern-design-architecture-urban-residence-ideas/

 

http://www.jetsongreen.com/2008/03/1111-east-pike.html

 

http://perspectivesdevie.org/2008/07/urban-infill-in-london-l’intercalation-urbaine-a-londres/lang/en/

 

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/design_awards/2007_award_en.html

 

Notice that they all have a more appropriate vertical emphasis while still being entirely contemporary.  Some present as singular masses, while others are more broken up.  They both work in their respective situations.  What's unfortunate for Mercer is that it's not even the right scale building for that size site.  In a typical urban development pattern from the pre-WWII era, anyone who could accumulate a site of that size in that area would build something much taller, say 6-10 stories, not 4.  The old Alms and Doepke building is on a similar sort of site.  It's very long against Central Parkway, but it's still expressed vertically. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alms_and_Doepke_Dry_Goods_Company

 

This really isn't that difficult to do, but there's little recognition for designing something that fits in well and that everyone can relate to and understand.  Instead, buildings like this Vine Street thing, or any of the starchitecture out there, is all about confounding the general public, expressing the architect's own aesthetic tastes, making an ego statement.  Being different and contrary is exactly the point, and that's what makes good infill such a tall order, even if it isn't physically that difficult.  Of course, there's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance to begin with.  If it's anachronistic to build in historic revival styles (which were already revival styles in the 19th century to begin with) then why isn't it also an anachronism to use the same highly prescriptive methodologies of the modernists?  The horizontality, the minimized structure, the abstracted forms, blobs, glass curtain walls, etc., are just as often recycled and derivative as Tudor half-timbering, Dutch gables, or Colonial pediments. 

 

The trap with all this is that such architectural statements are much more expensive to build.  So not only are new housing or retail or office units more expensive because they're new, they're doubly more expensive because they're more difficult to build.  I can't tell for sure, but the rendering of the Vine Street building suggests it will be executed in reinforced concrete.  That's not cheap construction, nor is the very large amount of storefront glass that's going on the whole thing.  So not only is this going to be expensive to build, but thermal performance is going to be marginal at best.  Note that the long facade faces west, so this place is going to be nightmarishly expensive to cool on summer afternoons and evenings, and no fun to heat on cold winter nights either. 

 

Now take a look at that Alms and Doepke building again.  Strip off that mansard roof with its dormers, and the form and detailing of the building is actually very simple.  A lot of the variety in the design comes from changing materials (brick versus limestone) and subtle plane changes.  These are things that can be easily done with brick and cast stone veneers.  There's still large windows (that are actually operable), and even if you put back the mansard roof, it's just clad with fiberglass shingles (which would've been slate originally).  You can use traditional stick framing for buildings of several stories, or some mixture of wood, steel, and concrete, and not have to charge $2,000 a month rents.  Some of the above examples use more traditional construction materials, and they're still modern, appropriate to not only their time, but also to their neighborhoods as well.  That's what Mercer should be.  Whether modern or not, it needs to be a model of excellence, not derivative mediocrity. 

I find this whole argument rather silly and amusing.  It's as if the only two choices are ugly inappropriate modernism or kitschy faux classicism.  There's plenty of other options. 

 

Let's take the ego down a notch, seriously. Most people here aren't architects or planning professionals. If you have information to add, just add it, there's no need to make a judgement on the conversation itself.

I added lots of information Civvik, that's what the whole rest of my response above was about.  I hope you don't think anyone who suggests that an issue has shades of grey and isn't just black and white is on some sort of ego trip.  Besides, there's plenty of reason to make a judgment on the conversation if the conversation isn't going anywhere.  If people are just talking past each other because they've been polarized by an issue that isn't even polar to begin with, then it's worthwhile to reframe the debate so it's more constructive. 

Sigh. People can have differences Civvik, and Jeffrey responded accordingly and in a professional manner. Because this falls within his professional realm, he can provide insight and examples that others may not be able to, with facts and opinion. The whole Mercer Commons issue is a gray matter and not a "yes" and "no" issue that you present - there can be compromises. But take a look at the latest article and development and see what you think of this:

 

3CDC seeks Mercer OK

Lisa Bernard-Kuhn, Nov. 16, 2011

 

Developers behind a $54 million plan for new condos and storefronts in Over-the-Rhine say they're hoping for approval from Cincinnati's Planning Commission Friday, or they will risk losing up to $9 million in federal and state financing.

 

Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. (3CDC) says it will present its latest plans for Mercer Commons to the commission despite lacking key recommendations for the project from Cincinnati's Historic Conservation Board.

 

On Monday, the board voted down recommending designs for a new condo building on Vine Street and townhomes on Mercer Street.

 

Read on after the jump...

If this is considered anachronism architecture, sign me up as its #1 fan.  I am still bitter that this didn't get built at The Banks. Straighten it out and put in at Mercer Commons.

 

I added lots of information Civvik, that's what the whole rest of my response above was about.  I hope you don't think anyone who suggests that an issue has shades of grey and isn't just black and white is on some sort of ego trip.  Besides, there's plenty of reason to make a judgment on the conversation if the conversation isn't going anywhere.  If people are just talking past each other because they've been polarized by an issue that isn't even polar to begin with, then it's worthwhile to reframe the debate so it's more constructive. 

 

I didn't see anyone talking past each other or getting out of hand? Again, there is no need for you or anyone else to judge the conversation itself by calling it silly. If you have information to add, just add it, and your professional knowledge and perspective will stand on its own merit. There is no need to go chasing off the laymen!

If this is considered anachronism architecture, sign me up as its #1 fan.  I am still bitter that this didn't get built at The Banks. Straighten it out and put in at Mercer Commons.

 

To this day I'm not entirely sure which concept plan this rendering came off of, only that it's looking south across Freedom Way, I guess. And I can't think of anywhere that would design and build those buildings in America. They'd have to get someone like Leon Krier to do all the architecture. :P

My argument is that we have 10+ square miles of diluted 19th century fabric in this city where architects to build whatever they want next to old buildings.  There is value in have a square mile that is built to look like how it did originally. 

If this is considered anachronism architecture, sign me up as its #1 fan.  I am still bitter that this didn't get built at The Banks. Straighten it out and put in at Mercer Commons.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1892.300.html#ixzz1dysD8YuM

 

I would love to know the story behind those renderings, and whether it was anything more than a marketing ruse to get people to buy into building a Stadium on the Riverfront instead of Broadway commons. :P

 

It set false expectations for me too, I was really looking forward to the banks based on that rendering alone.... hmmm....

^^

 

Anachronism comes into play in the fine line between replicating and complementing. 

 

Building Italianate style buildings, or neo-classical, or tudor style, or Gothic revival... all are anachronisms, even if under the pretense or justification of context.

 

Completely disagree.  By that standard the only acceptable "style" today follows modernistic rules such as:

- minimalism

- no ornament

- no sloped roofs

- no strong corners

 

These rules were implemented by modernists 80 years ago,  but for some reason architects today still believe that any building with a gable roof is an anachronism and any building with ornament is a crime.  This is BS.  A good building is timeless .. .. not modern.

 

There are a few architects doing new buildings in a classic manner, see the Ireland example above, or Stern or Krier etc..

 

I notice that such a polarizing neighborhood is bound to make polarized emotions and stances.

Rather than resorting to extremes let's focus on what I said...

 

An anachronism is something of a different time, not a reflection of the present.  I did not and do not advocate "modernism", I just said of the two choices presented by Civik I prefer the contemporary one.  Like I said before, architecture is a practice of enabling, you can accommodate any taste you wish.  However, building in the Italianate style would absolutely be an anachronism. 

 

Contemporary design can be timeless as well.  The Banks was directed to go in this direction, but a result of poor design, communication and even poorer comprehension resulted in what we have now. 

 

 

If this is considered anachronism architecture, sign me up as its #1 fan.  I am still bitter that this didn't get built at The Banks. Straighten it out and put in at Mercer Commons.

 

To this day I'm not entirely sure which concept plan this rendering came off of, only that it's looking south across Freedom Way, I guess. And I can't think of anywhere that would design and build those buildings in America. They'd have to get someone like Leon Krier to do all the architecture. :P

 

Your comment lead me to the town of Poundbury, UK. The article and comments were interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/mar/31/prince-charles-fire-station-poundbury

 

 

^^

 

Anachronism comes into play in the fine line between replicating and complementing. 

 

Building Italianate style buildings, or neo-classical, or tudor style, or Gothic revival... all are anachronisms, even if under the pretense or justification of context.  In the end it is a matter of taste, Architecture enables you to achieve anything from any period.  Some prefer new, some prefer the old.

 

So was it an anachronism that the Italianate fad of the 1850's was inspired by Italian villas of the 1500's? Or was everything up until modernism just "inspiration" because construction methods didn't change much until then?

 

I do see what you are saying, but I think of an anachronism as something that seems patently out of place for its time, like a caveman with a gun. In a neighborhood of building style X, why not keep building in style X? Also, what about the small movement in architecture, allied with New Urbanism, that wants to resurrect classical architectural design conventions? Would they have to come up with some style that was totally novel in order to avoid being an anachronism?

 

Replication/ imitation are not the same as inspiration in my opinion.  Would I advocate buildings inspired by Italinate architecture in this neighborhood, absolutely.  Do I want Italianate infill because it looks like it belongs, no. 

 

Throughout history there have been movements based on a sense of architecture having lost its essence, or traveling down the wrong course.  Initial works of these movements often are reflections of the last time period that carried that essence to be identified with.  I.E. Neo-classical was a result of of feelings of order and beauty lost in architecture, Post-modernism the lack of humanity, New-Urbanism to density and community.  These works are often replications, and are an anachronism.

 

In time the movements develop an identity beyond replication.  At this point they are not an anachronism, but an inspiration based on a concept, and a modern (in time not style) execution of said concept.  In the intellectual realm, it is one thing to be based on any concept, new or old.  It is entirely another thing to be a replication of style. 

 

Replication is the easy way out, but it is an option. 

^^ I should point out that I do think that a lot of what the neo-classicists and new urbanists have done is anachronistic, especially when you create entire communities with historically inspired architectural guidelines. You get into them and just feel creepy. That's definitely along the lines of what you're talking about. (And that's a big concession for me to make, considering that I spent a lot of my planning career designing these kinds of places and painstakingly crafting their design guidelines.)

 

I guess I think that OTR is so overwhelmingly historic already, that it's not really out-of-place to simply fill in the holes with the same color putty. As long as it could be done with a sense of craftsmanship.

 

Jjakucyk: Those examples you posted, and I think most examples of contemporary expressions of older context, would become less unique and less vertical repeated over 150' of frontage. That's obviously the challenge with this project, as was the challenge at The Banks. That's just a lot of frontage and whatever you build there ends up becoming more about itself and less about being a complement to its surroundings.

 

 

Civvik you have a point.  I guess the only real way to judge this is seeing it up close and personal.  At least they care enough to get these designs right.  That's a very good thing.

I just came back from the planning commission, so here's an update.

 

Phase 1 was approved unanimously with the condition that a "waterline" be added to the Mercer townhomes and that the Vine St building will be slightly modified to add some verticality to the building with some slight readjustments such as bringing some of the vertical elements down to the street and modifications to the roof line.  It will be presented at the Dec 2 meeting.  I may have gotten this a little off as there was a lot of discussion.  The garage and removal of 1314 Vine were specifically approved. 

 

Phase 2 was approved unanimously.

 

Construction will begin in 1Q12.

Yep. That is the same thing the Cincinnati Preservation Association just mentioned:

 

"Mercer Commons Update: During a 5-hr mtg, City Planning Comm voted to approve final dev plan for Phase 2 (Walnut St) of project. They also approved Phase 1 (Vine, Mercer) except for Vine St infill bldg. They'll vote on Vine bldg at their next mtg (12/2) after more changes have been made to the design to hopefully bring into more compliance w/district guidelines."

 

And before someone whines that the Enquirer doesn't love OTR or Cincinnati, they have already added an article:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111118/BIZ01/311180214

I will also say I was disappointed with the OTRF and OTRCC for trying to act like they were caught off guard by this whole thing and not included in the design process.  I first saw concepts of the Vine St building back in May of 2010 in Soapbox and concept drawings have been on 3CDCs website for at least a couple years.  If I were in one of these stakeholder groups, I would think it be wise to keep up with what 3CDC is doing.  They even claimed to have never even heard of the OTR workgroup.  I left feeling that I, as an individual resident of the neighborhood, know more about what is going on in the neighborhood then they do.  I don't have any special connections or know anyone who works at 3CDC. 

 

In my opinion, the opposition was mostly concerned with the removal of the two buildings (which I can certainly empathize with) so they used whatever tactic they could from complaining about design elements or accusing 3CDC of not being transparent enough. 

Good news all around.  I personally thought the design looked fine as originally presented, but it looks like this will be a change for the better.  It's been a good month for OTR with the election (and it's implication for the streetcar) and the approval of Mercer. 

Excellence.

Here's to hoping the construction quality is high.

 

I'm relieved they are finally breaking ground, I know a few people who having been counting on this investment to propel their own projects.

Here's to hoping the construction quality is high.

 

I'm relieved they are finally breaking ground, I know a few people who having been counting on this investment to propel their own projects.

 

John Schneider did specifically address the issue of quality as it relates to the metal paneling.  I do hope they take his words to heart and use high quality materials and good craftsmanship so that this looks good beyond just a few years. 

Is there any chance they're be using a different color brick veneer on the Walnut building?  That street is just TOO red.  It's boring.

Are the streets of Paris boring because there's too much buff limestone?  Are the streets of Florence boring because there's too much tan stucco?  What of all the clapboard siding in Charleston?  There's more to variety than just color of course, but if everything is different then it diminishes the impact of the monumental civic buildings. 

Actually Paris does start looking monotonous. It would have been nice if they had saved at least a few blocks of the middle ages stuff.  Few if any small structures were spared in the 19th century rebuild. 

 

Also, people need to remember when visiting European cities that much of the ostentatious pre-20th century stuff was built with colonial money.  So slaves dug the Central American gold that's on the buildings in Madrid and so on.

Is it monotonous when viewed from a distance, or when up close?  Because up close there's so much going at the close-in scale that it's quite a delight for the pedestrian.  That goes not only for the architecture itself, but also for all the small stores that vie for your attention.  Of course in Paris there's a supply/demand problem (because it's so desirable!) so everything is built to the maximum size possible.  Nevertheless, the relative monotony of the vernacular environment in a place like Paris makes the monumental buildings that much more special.  If everything is unique, then it's just as bad, because it becomes a sort of sensory overload and you just tune it out, so the end result is basically the same.  It's a "you're unique, just like everybody else" sort of thing.

 

American urbanism is quite different from Western Europe.  There isn't the same unity of style, common cornice lines, or even a consistent palette of materials.  Many times even the setbacks are inconsistent.  It's a very messy but fun sort of pattern, the jambalaya of urbanism.  That makes it more difficult for the truly monumental buildings to stand out though.  It does help when the vernacular buildings at least behave themselves in how they address the street.  Look at buildings like the old Woodward High School/SCPA, the Hamilton County Courthouse, or St. Boniface in Northside.  They stand in a green or on an elevated pedestal, while the buildings around them are entered at ground level and are close to the sidewalk.  The way those monumental buildings are deployed on their sites makes them even more special since the architecture itself AND the site planning is different from the surroundings.  At least Mercer gets this right, but there's something to be said for the architecture being a bit downplayed.  What's wrong with having one street that's "the all red brick street" or something similar?  Basically, if all you have to eat is jambalaya, you'll probably want some plain yogurt after a while to settle your stomach. 

Paris gets boring. Prague doesn't. Just about every building in Prague is a masterpiece. It's not overwhelming, it's just amazing. Picturesque everywhere you step.

Monumental-ism in most American cities is already handicapped by gridiron block patterns.

 

I don't know if this helps buildings like the Mercer Commons one (because you can never really experience its full facade in one glance) or hurts them (because you experience everything in a progressive, linear fashion because you can really only approach things from a parallel axis.)

 

I don't think that red stuff on the Walnut Mercer building is brick. It looks to be some kind of panel.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think that red stuff on the Walnut Mercer building is brick. It looks to be some kind of panel.

 

 

Oh Lord, please make it not be true. 

 

As for the color issue...I didn't mean to strike a nerve.  It's just that Walnut is lacking something compared to nearly every other street in OTR.  Maybe it's more than color...there's a lack of ornamentation, verticality, and intimacy.  I think it's pretty safe to say that the storefront on the new building will add a LOT to Walnut regardless of what happens above.  Don't get me wrong...the LAST thing I want to do is throw another roadblock at Mercer Commons.  I'm just HOPING that this particular building doesn't come out looking bland.  Walnut St needs some "fun" infill.

 

 

PS - I agree with natininja...Paris DOES get boring.  I can't tell you the number of friends I've told "I'd rather go back to Detroit than back to Paris."  But that's just me... LOL.

Actually Paris does start looking monotonous. It would have been nice if they had saved at least a few blocks of the middle ages stuff.  Few if any small structures were spared in the 19th century rebuild. 

 

Also, people need to remember when visiting European cities that much of the ostentatious pre-20th century stuff was built with colonial money.  So slaves dug the Central American gold that's on the buildings in Madrid and so on.

 

You either have been listening to me, or you crawled inside my thoughts and took a nap there.  Hope that bed is comfy for you.

 

FANTASTIC, stupendous post.

Cincinnati's 19th Century collection is as fascinating and handsome as any city in the entire world and it's nice to hear on this board.  One thing to remember about downtown though, many black shipbuilders and port workers, some of the only jobs black men could obtain at the time, poured in the labor that built the Italianate buildings that used to rest on streets like 3rd, Broadway and West 4th.  They certainly weren't equal citizens.  I suppose every city has a closet and a graveyard to match.

The first time I was ever in Paris I had just been to London and I distinctly remember thinking that Paris had a better look but London had better individual buildings.

 

I'm mostly surprised at how poorly the Mercer Commons concept came down for two reasons: (1) it should be taller and (2) I had thought that part of what 3CDC was doing was branding the neighborhood.

 

3CDC is refurbishing these old buildings because, despite the expense, there is value that can be extracted (even if maybe the time frame is long).  So it strikes me that, to make up for the costs of refurbishing, when presented with a fresh site like Mercer Commons, they would want to build as many units as possible without taking away from the value that exists in the surrounding refurbished buildings.  To me that means keeping with the same aesthetic principles (basically facades, since even people refurbishing old buildings often want modern looking interiors).  Keeping a similar aesthetic constant throughout a neighborhood is a pretty typical marketing idea.

Commission approves 3CDC's Mercer Commons

 

"The Cincinnati Planning Commission Friday morning approved the design of a new building on Vine Street that is part of the project. That vote paves the way for construction to begin in the first quarter of 2012, said Adam Gelter, 3CDC    ’s vice president of development. The project is located between East 13th and 14th streets and bordered by Vine and Walnut streets. It will have 134 rental units, including some affordable housing units, as well as 28 condominiums, 18,000 square feet of commercial space and a 340-space garage."

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2011/12/02/commission-approves-3cdcs-mercer.html?page=all

Paris gets boring. Prague doesn't. Just about every building in Prague is a masterpiece. It's not overwhelming, it's just amazing. Picturesque everywhere you step.

 

Paris gets boring? That couldn't be further from the truth. The whole center city is a masterpiece. Greatest city in the world...PERIOD!

feh.

Prague is a botique city, Paris is a "real" city in a sense and I'm not talking those Haussmann buildings.

My favorite sight in Paris was the concrete plant right next to the Eiffel Tower, similar to the one next to Paul Brown Stadium. 

LOL!

Prague is a botique city, Paris is a "real" city in a sense and I'm not talking those Haussmann buildings.

 

We were talking about built environment. Paris's built environment is monotonous, IMO.

^ Totally disagree.

 

 

But I think we've gotten pretty far off topic...

YES, thank you. Every time I see a "new post" icon on this thread I get all excited and then I get in here and it's just Colday talking about his buffets.

 

Get with the program people! I NEED INFORMATION!

 

 

LEAVE MY BUFFETS OUT OF THIS!!!  Now if Mercer Commons had a buffet...PRAISE ALLAH!!!

To bring the conversation back to Mercer/ the topic of OTR new build in general- but with respect to Paris vs. Prague I believe that both of the following projects offer a lot and are good reminders that a diverse neighborhood (read urban historical with modern infusions) is for the better.

 

Paris (Citron Dealership): http://www.flickr.com/photos/23355531@N06/3280716925/#

 

Pargue (ING House): http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/dancinghouse/index.htm

 

 

OR a very refined look that would go great in OTR from Herzog and de Meuron:

Munich (5 Courtyards Mall) (new build + renovation): http://www.kubuildingtech.org/cooltour/gallery/5courts/source/11.html

^^^YES...let's get Herzog and de Meuron working for 3CDC!

^^^YES...let's get Herzog and de Meuron working for 3CDC!

 

A Herzog and de Meuron building a block from where I live might be the highlight of my life.  Some day...

Yeah, that Herzog and de Meuren building is nice. Definitely could use something like that in OTR. The other ones, not so much. Too showy/ostentatious.

^ agreed.

 

Btw-  Incase anyone didn't know- All apartments/condos in Mercer will have to pay $75 a month for a parking space in the garage.