Urban Infill: 1463 San Marco

Started by Metro Jacksonville, May 27, 2009, 04:05:42 AM

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

Ugh...

#30
May 29, 2009, 01:43:35 PM
Good Buildings = Good Development. They are interlinked. And yes I think it's too bad that people feel so desperate for development that they need to support bad design. Because when the economy turns around, and it will as most economist predict by at the least 2010 (way before this building is finished), all you'll be left with is bad design. If you want to live in a city of multi-story poorly designed post-modern buildings go live in Tampa. You probably don't know this but Jacksonville actually has a history of good design, albeit it's from 40 years ago but the Milam House is one of the most famous pieces of architecture in the world. Let's strive for excellence not mediocrity!

Jason

#31
May 29, 2009, 01:48:46 PM
In your opinion, what could be done to the shell of the building to make it more appealing.

I, for one, don't see the architecture in a negative light.  The overall plan for the development also makes about the best use possible for a lot of its size and provides a mix of uses.

Jason

#32
May 29, 2009, 01:52:33 PM
Also, what brought you to the conclusion that stucco will be the final finish?  The rendering is very simple and only intended to give an idea of the scale and orientation of the building, not to be a photorealistic image of the finished product.  The finishes could consist of any number of materials.

BridgeTroll

#33
May 29, 2009, 01:53:16 PM
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

Ugh...

#34
May 29, 2009, 02:08:30 PM
Jason, I like you're attitude! And I really meant that! However, it's not about "the shell" of the building, architecture is about the design of the entire building and then how it links back to it's surrounding area, i.e. how it speaks to it's community (the renderings/site plan are a clear indication that this wasn't well considered since they lack any description of the surrounding area). Too much of the architecture built in FL and esp, JAX is what I like to call "the developers special". It focuses solely on lot size, height and economy of construction. Architecture is an art and by supporting and designing beautiful buildings we can once again put JAX on the architectural map. For those of you who don't understand that think about all the great big beautiful cities you love, they probably have great architecture or at the very least one symbolically beautiful public building/structure, think Saarinen's St. Louis arc!  What's on the Jacksonville post card? Not that I'm at all saying this building needs to be that great, but a little effort on the design would be nice or at the very least call it what it is, another blah building that is helping to infill our city, I have no arguments with that!

Ugh...

#35
May 29, 2009, 02:11:50 PM
Just saw your second question. Answer: because they are all stucco! It's cheap and it gets the water proofing job done. That's why it's the choice material of developers throughout Florida. But you're right it's just a guess, I guess we'll see.

Jason

#37
May 29, 2009, 02:29:09 PM
Regardless of materials used (and yeah I agree that it probably will be stucco) the architecture should be an enhancement of that section of San Marco Blvd.  The intersection, anchored by Peterbrooke and a couple of single story bunkers, is about as plain as it gets.

JaxNative68

#38
May 29, 2009, 02:39:14 PM
I completely agree with Ugh... unfortunately Jacksonville's City and development plans are strictly run by the developers with basically a "what does it cost me now" mentality (just look at the professions of who sit on the DRC and planning boards).  The have no regard for good design, just their own pockets.  No matter how good of a design you throw at them, by the time they build it, they will have turned it into an EIFS or tilt-up concrete box.  And the contractors of this city don't help, unless it is an EIFS or tilt-up concrete box they don't know how to build it.  So they drive up the cost because they might have to actually think, find actual craftsman and coordinate construction.  In the end they VE it into what they can build quick easy and cheap (and of course the developer and city go along with it - decreeing 'in the name of city progress'.  Bullshit! Sometimes when I really think about it, it makes me sad to be in the design profession in Jacksonville.

Ugh...

#39
May 29, 2009, 02:45:35 PM
WOW! I really actually thought this building was going somewhere else, but thanks for pointing it out Jason! HOLY **** does JAX even have a zoning department? I mean really talk about a building that is completely out of scale with it's surrounding area! While yes, this is not the intersection of distinction, it does have a scale! Jeez, think Five Points retirement home or the retirement home over in Murray Hill, they both destroy the fabric, esp. Murray Hill!!! This is what bad developers and bad buildings do!!! And no, I don't think all development is bad, I'm very pro good development!

JaxNative68

#40
May 29, 2009, 02:57:12 PM
Most people view architectural renderings with horse blinders on.  Notice the rendering did not bother showing the surrounding/adjacent buildings . . . that is because it did not want you to notice how out of touch it really is.  If it isn't in the rendering the average citizen won't think about it.  Also there is no really material distinction in the rendering, leaving the viewer to imagine a much more rich feeling than is actually going into the building.  The rendering is nothing more than a developer slight of hand.

jason_contentdg

#41
May 29, 2009, 02:59:15 PM
Quote from: JaxNative68 on May 29, 2009, 02:57:12 PM
Most people view architectural renderings with horse blinders on.  Notice the rendering did not bother showing the surrounding/adjacent buildings . . . that is because it did not want you to notice how out of touch it really is.  If it isn't in the rendering the average citizen won't think about it.  Also there is no really material distinction in the rendering, leaving the viewer to imagine a much more rich feeling than is actually going into the building.  The rendering is nothing more than a developer slight of hand.

And this is what kills me about this particular rendering, it was done in using a program that deals in real world scale, it's not like it's hand rendered.  It's very easy to at least get the surrounding buildings massed out.  There's a reason they didn't.

Ugh...

#42
May 29, 2009, 03:05:32 PM
JoeMerchant / JaxNative68, right on!!! It would take all of 5 minutes to add context to those renderings!!!

JaxNative68

#43
May 29, 2009, 03:07:24 PM
not to mention materials

hank

#44
May 29, 2009, 03:10:52 PM
I agree with JaxNative and Ugh... This thing accomplishes a lot in that it has managed not to be an empty lot with a bunch of bums and hookers hanging out.  Beyond that, I'm not feeling "killer" about it.  This is called design by Stucco joint.  Without that, its an econo box with a post-modern cornice. The scale is so out of whack for that area - that's why there's no context shown (as was said before) because they didn't think about it.  What's really bothersome is that huge wall of parking slapping you upside the head.  So, 40% of the building looks like it is dedicated to actual human use.  Either someone read the zoning code wrong or this building is too big for its britches.  Perhaps this scale of monster was not intended for this area.  Jason, you are blind if you think San Marco is just a bunch of bunkers - want to see bunkers?  Try any commercial area in the NW quadrant.  There is a walking presence in this area and it works.  This building is Herzog and de Muren's toilet brush!
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions