Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest UncleRando

Cincinnati: Downtown: Holiday Inn

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


“All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I agree with Sherman on all of those accounts. I suppose its just a matter of taste. Then again I've never taken an architecture course so it could also just be a case of me just not getting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Bad%20architecture%20-%20Royal_Ontario_Museum.jpg

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

1377065_10152257088644698_1893820481_n.jpg

 

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


"It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

My thoughts exactly in regards to the design. This type of business model does not exactly lend itself to being able to afford grandiose buildings. This could've ended up looking so much worse. I understand people don't want to "settle for mediocrity" but you've got to pick and choose your battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

hampton-inn-pikeville.jpg

 

Here is a rendering of our new proposed hotel:

 

bilde?Site=AB&Date=20130926&Category=CINCI&ArtNo=309270050&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&See-first-Drawings-new-Downtown-Holiday-Inn

 

 

To be honest, both aren't special (thus, both are comparable).  Which is sad.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...