Well, I think the new rendering is a huge improvement over the 2010 rendering.

Is that first floor retail?

I wish every new parking garage looked like that. Sure you could nitpick some things but it is tons better than the original design.

 

That's an incredibly nice design for a parking garage, particularly for Cincinnati.  Now if only the Banks were this good.

Are you people serious? I've seen Wal-Mart stores that are better-designed. Muller is right; the absolute worst way to pay homage to historical architecture is to build a cheap, theme park knock-off of it right next door.

You must be elated about The Banks then.

I've already made my thoughts about the Banks known on the appropriate thread. There are more options available than theme park schlock and "make it look like the Banks".

Two different schools of thought: Context through contrast (making infill buildings look different so as to not "copy" the historic ones) and context through similarity or likeness (making infill buildings blend in by matching form and style and borrowing architectural features). I honestly don't know which camp I'm in, but the most recent rendering is nicer than the prior one. LIG, are you looking for something more modern looking?

honestly speaking, i think we could do much much worse than that garage. of course we could do much much better as well, but i'm willing to hedge my bets and accept something that at least doesnt detract from the neighborhood, or stick out like a sore thumb. (start bitching about "thats what cincinnati always does, and thats why its average" but hear me out) its not challenging to accept, its not exciting, it just is background, completely neutral background. at a certain level it does exactly maybe what it should do. you need some bland to appreciate the salt some times. given the context, lack of connection to the rest of downtown created by the surface lots more or less surrounding it i think its fine. it would be nice to get a santa monica civic center garage or that herzog de meuron project in miami, but i'd rather a fairly quality background building than a poorly executed, value engineered attempt at contemporary, which cincinnati loves to do.

 

also, given that theres a giant garage across the street, that definitely looks like a garage, and that there are surface lots and parking garages all around this site, maybe its a good thing that this offers something somewhat different, but just neutral. garages arent often known as drivers of vital urbanity possibly because its obvious to every passer-by that the sole use of the place is a storage depot for people occupying other areas of the city.

 

(written by an architect who would never in a million years design a neo-traditionalist building)

 

side note, for my money probably the coolest parking garage in cincinnati is 2 blocks away on 7th street right across from the busken bakery in the  base of the aronoff center, and this definitely echoes shades of that.

LiG, please don't take this the wrong way but do you have any photographic examples of garages that would realistically fit this context and user? I am generally interested.

 

To answer your question, let me answer Rob's question first:

 

Two different schools of thought: Context through contrast (making infill buildings look different so as to not "copy" the historic ones) and context through similarity or likeness (making infill buildings blend in by matching form and style and borrowing architectural features). I honestly don't know which camp I'm in, but the most recent rendering is nicer than the prior one. LIG, are you looking for something more modern looking?

 

I'm very firmly in the "context through contrast" camp, although that doesn't mean a new structure can't use similar materials as the older buildings, but in a more modernist way.

 

I'd argue that "making infill buildings blend in by matching form and style and borrowing architectural features" is almost always a recipe for failure, especially in this type of situation, for two main reasons: 1) the existing historical buildings weren't parking garages, and trying to make a parking garage look like a historic loft building would be incredibly futile, and 2) the existing historical buildings were built with construction methods that are no longer in widespread use in the construction industry.  I'm not saying one method of construction is better or worse than the other, but the fact remains that methods, materials, and technology have changed, and a parking garage built in the year 2013 with modern technology will never adequately match a neighborhood built in the 1920's, no matter how hard they try. (And judging by the rendering, it doesn't appear as if they tried very hard at all.)

 

In certain limited circumstances I could subscribe to the latter approach to historic preservation; one such example would be my old church in Chicago, Fourth Presbyterian Church on Michigan Avenue across from the Hancock Center. The church, housed in a landmark Gothic Revival building designed by noted architect Ralph Adams Cram, needed to build a loggia in order to provide wheelchair access from the sidewalk level up to the main floor of the church, which is several feet higher. So they hired an architect with a strong track record in historic preservation, did careful research on the original church plans, and built a loggia designed to match the original building in exact detail, and built out of stone using the same traditional methods as the main building, from limestone from the same quarry as the original building. (This is a very wealthy congregation, so they could afford to take such an approach.) Today, the new addition seamlessly matches the original building, and most people would never be able to guess that it was built nearly 70 years later. But that's obviously not an approach one would use to build a parking garage on a vacant site.

 

In a nutshell: Try to match the historic fabric only if you're damn sure you can do it exactly right, down to the last detail. Otherwise, go for contrast.

 

Now, for examples of parking garages that don't suck. The Atlantic Cities recently had a slideshow, 16 Parking Garages Worth Looking At. Included among them was the Fifth Third garage on Fountain Square, with the glassy facade and light display designed by Cincinnati's own FRCH:

 

 

Another favorite of mine, the Santa Monica Civic Center garage by Moore Ruble Yudell:

 

 

For the 8th & Sycamore site, something like this would be pretty cool (although I'm not a big fan of the faux-historic ground level. Imagine something with red brick and black metal accents instead.):

 

 

 

I wouldn't trust Moody Nolan to design a port-o-let.  They designed Hays Porter school in the West End and it is a total unmitigated disaster. 

They actually have some decent-looking projects in their portfolio, but they don't seem to have a strong focus on urban design issues. And if the client insists on a crappy building, then there's only so much the architect can do.

I don't know.  It's a garage.  They never really look great.  I do like the Fifth Third garage and that third one you posted, but the second one looks like an abandoned construction project in latin america. 

 

This things hides the cars and has first floor retail.  The design isn't blowing my mind, but it gets out of the way and isn't an eyesore like the rendering from 2010 would have been (building on left).

 

 

 

 

I'm no architect, and this could certainly be better, but it doesn't seem that bad.  Maybe a B- or C+.  I don't like settling, but I also don't think that it's possible to have every new building be fantastic.  Some are just going to be acceptable.

 

 

 

I'm very firmly in the "context through contrast" camp, although that doesn't mean a new structure can't use similar materials as the older buildings, but in a more modernist way.

 

I'd argue that "making infill buildings blend in by matching form and style and borrowing architectural features" is almost always a recipe for failure...

 

I totally agree with you here.  For the worst example of this I've ever seen, just take a look at what Campbell County did to their formerly beautiful courthouse (a Samuel Hannaford-designed structure):

 

 

Oh, the things I'd say about some projects if I didn't have to worry about alienating potential employers.

That courthouse addition looks like a giant child came over and tried to copy his father's work.

Gotta say LIG, I think those first two garage examples are pretty awful. Especially #2, oh my god is that ugly. But the third one yes, the third one is awesome, love the plants, just not sure what you see in the other two.

My favorite garage is the one on 4th between Race and Elm. It's there, its big, its ugly and proud of it. Like a pig wallowing in the filth of peeling paint and broken concrete it exclaims, "Hey I'm a garage. Park here, I got plenty of room!"

 

It'll even scoop you up off 4th street if you want. Wow what service!

 

Classy.

I would agree - the Fountain Square garage is just awful as is that second example you posted David - but it's all subjective. The third example I would agree is the most attractive - faux historic or not, it is well covered with no need for ornate cladding, has good first floor retail that is attractive. I don't see many complaining about the architecture at Easton Town Center - it may be faux historic, but it's well done - and it's a similar type of feel with the garage's first floor.

Here's some "Context through contrast" for your viewing pleasure.

 

In a modern downtown environment I think contrast is OK. In a historic district, too much contrast can take away from the experience of the historic district.

I think the key issue is quality, you can have building that has a great overall design, but if it is not made of quality material or constructed well, then it will either look awful from the beginning or be a liability later in it's life. However, one cannot just expect quality to overcome a poor design.

^ I agree.  Quality of product makes more of a difference then design. 

Exactly. I'm not opposed to some historical references in new architecture as long as they're thoughtfully designed and well-executed. And despite what wholtone seems to imply by posting the photo above, I'm no fan of "starchitects" like Daniel Libeskind who think their celebrity status as architects absolves them of their responsibility to the physical and social context in which they operate. Not every building has to be an award-winning, bleeding-edge architectural opus, but every building should at least be designed with some thoughtfulness and attention to detail, and some regard for those who experience the building once it's complete.

It all boils down to form following function.

^ Agreed, although that mantra has been used to justify some very banal, utilitarian buildings. I define "function" very broadly to include social, environmental, and cultural responsibility.

didnt mean to respond. cant figure out how delete my post. do disagree about the usage of "form following function" wrote a very long arrogant sounding book as a reply and meant for it to not be posted. i would note though that that expression comes more out of a concern with structural and material honesty, and an outrage over ornamentation. you can see find examples of garages that follow this principle quite literally, in corbusier and other early modernist designers who were obsessed with the automobile, and buildings being machines (which they viewed as the penultimate achievement of form following function) i'm sure you just meant that a garage should look like a garage, but that is a very weighty statement to be throwing around in the midst of architects. i would argue that to mimic historicist architecture is every bit as dishonest as what the early modernists were rebelling against. one advantage we have is 100 years of the architecture produced as a result of their writings to measure against their ideals.  one big thing also is to broaden the understanding of ornamentation, which isnt purely motifs and flourishes added to a facade but can include color, pattern, material, actual formal ornament.  note the herzog demeuron parking structure in miami. its definitely a parking structure, but structurally and formally it is highly ornamental, without appearing so.

I certainly did not mean to imply that I like Corbusier or early modernist architecture. I don't. What I meant was more an argument against Gehry and Liebeskind-style starchitecture. As a DAAP student, I could not STAND how the building was very bad at doing its job, which was to be an educational facility. There were parts of the building with terrible lighting, awkward angles (for a classroom) and the bathrooms seemed like an after thought. It would have been ok as a museum since the building itself is an interesting piece of art. And I can certainly understand times where the function of a building is its form.

And also I love ornamentation.

EXCLUSIVE: Plans in motion for Holiday Inn by casino

Jul. 11, 2013 6:33 AM 

Written by Cindi Andrews

 

 

A much smaller version of a Holiday Inn long planned for Downtown near the casino is poised to move forward.

 

The full-service hotel, originally a $14 million project with 206 rooms, has been scaled back to $8.4 million and 115 rooms, according to an email from the developer, Rolling Hills Hospitality, to the city.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130711/BIZ/307110043/EXCLUSIVE-Plans-motion-Holiday-Inn-by-Horseshoe-Casino?nclick_check=1

How tall will it be

I'll Guess 7-story

Drawings of new Downtown Holiday Inn

 

The first rendering of the new Holiday Inn planned for Downtown at Seventh and Broadway shows a blend of the architectural styles of nearby buildings.

 

 

For instance, narrow windows echo the Art Deco style of the former Times Star building.

 

The final plan, to be presented to the Cincinnati Planning Commission on Oct. 4, also shows that the hotel, as previously reported in the Enquirer, will have 117 rooms instead of 200.

 

Cont

Wow. Cindi's journalism slip up here? This is just a terrible article. My reply on the article at the Enquirer:

 

--

 

Sorry Cindi. I usually respect your work, but this is pretty bad. There are several hotels that have opened in Cincinnati in the past FEW years, some that Bill pointed out. And I can list many, many more in the last several decades.

 

Spring Hill Suites at Eden Park; Hampton Inn and Suites on Short Vine; Residence Inn by Marriott in Lytle Park; 21C Museum Hotel in downtown.

 

Even if we were to write the article to read that it will be the first new hotel in downtown in decades, it would be incorrect.

 

And the drawings are not accompanied with the article. :/

Meh, it does the job (the rendering).

She said it was the first new construction hotel in Cincinnati, I believe she meant downtown. SpringHill is not considered downtown and the other hotels were all in existing buildings so they are not new construction. The last new construction hotel downtown was the Hyatt

Yeah, she corrected herself in the comments, but not in the article (yet). But even then, there is the Residence Inn by Marriott.

Cheap and boring. Belongs Uptown.

Cheap and boring. Belongs Uptown.

 

It's a Holiday Inn. What did you expect, a Rem Koolhaus masterpiece? I think the design is fine for its surroundings.  Definitely an upgrade over the crappy parking structure that is currently there, and I think this, plus the residential on top of the 7th and Broadway garage should help make this portion of downtown a little more vibrant.  No we just need to get something built on one of the 2 giant parking lots across the street from this site.

Yeah, she corrected herself in the comments, but not in the article (yet). But even then, there is the Residence Inn by Marriott.

 

the Residence Inn in Lytle Park was not new construction.

It was difficult to determine what she was trying to convey in her original post, whether it was new hotels in Cincinnati; new downtown hotels in Cincinnati; new construction for hotels in Cincinnati; new construction for hotels in downtown Cincinnati; etc.

 

--

 

re Greg

I think that it is an okay design, but I don't believe that every design that comes out has to be spectacular or game changing. There are many buildings that are far less ornate that have held up well over the years. Standardized designs also save on costs, and labor and materials can be cheaper. I don't understand the rationale of the article saying it fits in or attempts to blend in with its surroundings, taking cues from the Times-Star Building (http://urbanup.net/cities/ohio/cincinnati-ohio/downtown/times-star-building/), when it hardly does.

I don't understand the rationale of the article saying it fits in or attempts to blend in with its surroundings, taking cues from the Times-Star Building (http://urbanup.net/cities/ohio/cincinnati-ohio/downtown/times-star-building/), when it hardly does.

 

If anything, it reminds me a bit of 50s and 60s modernism - look at the street level overhead canopy and its supports - and a little bit of Prairie School in the windows at the top, like the building at Reading & Elsinore

Say what you want, settle how you want, rationalize your way to mediocrity. I've seen a better Holiday Inn in Pikeville, Kentucky (actually it was a Hampton Inn, but same hotel type). So it still doesn't take away from the fact that it is cheap and boring. In fact, it is hard pressed to remember the last big infill project in DT/Uptown that wasn't cheap and boring. So while you say 'every building can't be a star' it seems to me that no building has been a star in semi-recent memory. Nothing Uptown. Nothing at The Banks. Certainly not the casino, which is a huge embarrassment. Nothing being proposed downtown. Nothing in OTR. At least not yet.

The Contemporary Arts Center was within the past decade (barely), if that counts. That's gotta be the most recent "star."

Say what you want, settle how you want, rationalize your way to mediocrity. I've seen a better Holiday Inn in Pikeville, Kentucky (actually it was a Hampton Inn, but same hotel type). So it still doesn't take away from the fact that it is cheap and boring. In fact, it is hard pressed to remember the last big infill project in DT/Uptown that wasn't cheap and boring. So while you say 'every building can't be a star' it seems to me that no building has been a star in semi-recent memory. Nothing Uptown. Nothing at The Banks. Certainly not the casino, which is a huge embarrassment. Nothing being proposed downtown. Nothing in OTR. At least not yet.

 

I agree, I feel that many posters here are too accepting of the sub-par designs that have been proposed lately. This design is just sad.

The new apartment building isn't bad.

Everyone needs to calm down otherwise you'll just be pissed at every single design Cincinnati proposes from here on out.  Its Holiday Inn people.  This chain isn't high on the architecture needs list.

^ A good point; whoever looked to the "Holiday Inn" for innovation?  (Build it and they will come, right?)

It's not unlike hoping that the new McDonalds at Exit 159 will enhance the latest sprawl-terchange.  This is a low visibility nook of DT that just needs some life.  Mission accomplished.  I'd rather leave the heavy lifting of trophy edifices to somebody else and some other project.

>Say what you want, settle how you want, rationalize your way to mediocrity. I've seen a better Holiday Inn in Pikeville, Kentucky (actually it was a Hampton Inn, but same hotel type). So it still doesn't take away from the fact that it is cheap and boring. In fact, it is hard pressed to remember the last big infill project in DT/Uptown that wasn't cheap and boring. So while you say 'every building can't be a star' it seems to me that no building has been a star in semi-recent memory. Nothing Uptown. Nothing at The Banks. Certainly not the casino, which is a huge embarrassment. Nothing being proposed downtown. Nothing in OTR. At least not yet.

 

Pikeville.  Ouch.

 

I'll throw out that I think the Arronoff Center was the last great addition to downtown, and that's going on 20 years (I think it opened in 1995).  A lot of mid-sized cities have added new stuff in the past few years that is much nicer than what we've gotten. 

 

 

Here is the supposedly glorious Pikeville Hampton Inn (which I don't really find to be anything impressive):

 

 

Here is a rendering of our new proposed hotel:

 

 

and here is the garage that will be adjacent to the new Holiday Inn:

 

Thank you CincyGuy, for the comparison.  This hotel they are proposing to put in is just pathetic.