Beverly Fortune’s story Tuesday and my column Wednesday gave an overview of three alternative design concepts for CentrePointe that were developed over the weekend by students at the University of Kentucky’s College of Design working with prominent architects and designers from UK, Los Angeles and Chicago.
The goal of the 48-hour workshop wasn’t to develop finished designs or exact plans. It was to look at ways the 1.7-acre block could be used to accomplish the goals developer Dudley Webb has stated as well as to create inviting street-level space and a signature piece of architecture. The main goal, though, was to stimulate thinking and explore possibilities.
Here are some of the renderings the three teams came up with during the workshop, which was organized by Michael Speaks, the dean of the college, and architecture faculty member Drura Parrish. The workshop also included advisers from UK’s Historic Preservation Program.
The first group of concept designs was developed by a team led by UK faculty members Liz Swanson and Mike McKay. Swanson and McKay have been based in New Orleans for the past three years leading a UK design studio there. The second group was developed by the team led by Paul Preissner of Chicago, head of Quavirarch and a faculty member at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The third group was developed by a team led by Heather Flood and Ramiro Diaz Granados of Los Angeles, partners in the design firm of F-Lab and faculty members at the Southern California Institute of Architecture. Click on each photo to enlarge it.
July 23, 2008 at 7:17 pm |
Not only has lexington resoundingly deliverd a wollup to tom eblen and the HL but jim gray has serious egg on his face. Funny we haven’t heard a word from him publicly since the design competition results were announced. But, yes, Lexington has had enough of Tom Eblen’s opinion- period. this column with all the pictures is yet but another pathetic attempt to give credibility to these ridiculous designs as legitimate and thoughtful alternatives to centrepointe.
Once again, no one was thinking about reality (i.e. what it would be like to rent that space). Shouldn’t architecture students consider things such as structural integrity, longevity, cost of construction, needs of renters??? since when was imagination the only part of a project. This is just part of our culture that teaches young people they can and should have whatever they want. What a farce!! People would come downtown to gawk but then it would be Lexington’s white elephant after 6 months. What an absolute coagmire the Webbs would have been in had they actually agreed- and funded- a design competition.
i am just glad to know that in the end our good ole lexington has some sense.
July 24, 2008 at 7:53 am |
In the wake of UK’s design alternatives it is disheartening to read all the negativity about the CentrePointe project. Lets face it, we all love this infill development, yes we do, however since this project is going to be part of Lexington’s signature is it not reasonable to desire something non generic and culturally relevant to our environs? Is it so unreasonable to desire a building that has not been built in another city; are we so arrogant to desire our city not look like Anytown, USA? The conceptual designs presented were just that – conceptual. Do you get it, do you understand the meaning and purpose of a “concept.” Does an embryo resemble a grown adult; does a building foundation look anything like its finished product? (Have we had enough of Comprehension 101 already?) Thank you UK students and city officials for supporting this initiative to bring about an architecturally relevant design for our city. Those with negative opinions out there should try to understand that were not asking for the Taj Mahal, just a building of significant character that will perpetuate pedestrian activity with commercial growth, promote downtown entertainment, perpetuate our college town and infuse life to our city, a building we can live with! Is this such a difficult request?
July 24, 2008 at 8:41 am |
All I can say is, I was good for dropping money once or twice a month at both The Dame and Buster’s. I’ll never set foot in anything at CentrePointe. Do the math.
July 24, 2008 at 9:01 am |
Got it, Paul. They’ll miss your $24.50 when they’re renting hotel rooms and business space. I hope the project won’t be a financial loss without you.
July 24, 2008 at 10:21 am |
all of the designs were “concepts” and not far from fantasy. look around the world.
Design proposal #1 Kuntshaus Graz by Peter Cook
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/61646679@N00/329007406/in/set-72157600280482653/[/img]
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/61109868@N00/2577974730/sizes/o/[/img]
Design proposal #2 – America’s Cup Pavillion
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/21813510@N00/2166716928/[/img]
July 24, 2008 at 10:31 am |
“sensible”,
It takes years sometimes for a building to be planned out enough to start construction. In the case of Centrepointe, 2 years I think is what has been reported. All the images from the UK College of Design workshop were done in 2 days no more then 48 hours.
To expect answers to questions like you had posed (”structural integrity, longevity, cost of construction, needs of renters”) for a project of this complexity could never be generated in that time. The images are meant to show how people could envision something, try something progressive and discuss the infinite number of options that could actually happen on the block, while trying to meet the expectations of all interested parties.
Criticism is fine, but don’t write off the idea because your unreasonable expectations at this point were not met.
Finally, I appreciate the level of discussion that Tom Eblen’s blog has kept going during this process. And to say that it’s been dealt a “wollop”, that there’s egg on people’s face for wanting to discuss/challenge/innovate/be creative/ask do the people deserve something else…..to criticize that is an indicator of being content with the sub-par and the unimaginative.
July 24, 2008 at 10:32 am |
The smiley face should have been a close parentheses….don’t know how that showed up. Sorry for the confusion.
July 24, 2008 at 10:33 am |
sorry here are those links
Design proposal #1 Kuntshaus Graz by Peter Cook
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61646679@N00/329007406/in/set-72157600280482653/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61109868@N00/2577974730/sizes/o/
Design proposal #2 – America’s Cup Pavillion
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21813510@N00/2166716928/
July 24, 2008 at 10:45 am |
Blackjack, considering both the Radisson and Hyatt have plenty of rooms available at lower rates, somehow I doubt it.
July 24, 2008 at 11:45 am |
If were designing a building to put in Beetlejuice-ville, then any of those 3 proposed designs would be most fitting. However, since all the uproar about CentrePointe has been about the destruction of “historic” buildings, I fail to see how any of the 3 proposed alternatives would add to the historic fabric of downtown Lexington.
I’ll take the Webb’s design anyday over those other monstrosities. And as a former resident of Atlanta (which I consider to be one of the great beautiful American cities), I agree that the CentrePointe design would blend well in their downtown, midtown or Buckhead areas. But then again, the buildings of Atlanta look elegant and will stand the test of time. I, for one, am anxious and ready for CenterPointe to be built — I think it will be a great addition to Lexington’s downtown!
July 24, 2008 at 12:31 pm |
I somewhat like the three alternatives..i dont think you “add” to the historic fabric of downtown (as has been mentioned) by putting a huge building that looks like it wishes it was designed and built 80 yrs ago.. you add to the fabric by continuing to design and build projects that are of their time, and sensible to the contemporary culture..thats what makes cities exciting..and what makes people feel good about their downtown..because they are then part of something current and alive with ideas. thats why people enjoy tokyo, london, new york, chicago, los angeles, etc.. and why people dont enjoy st louis, atlanta, etc…
its too bad that the architects and their student teams are met with such hostility for taking part in something they were invited to participate in. i think they all did and amazing job of producing thoughtful concepts that were meant to show people what is possible, and contrast with the Webb Company line that their project is the best and only possible outcome for the site.. thats clearly not true, and shows their lack of regard for the city as a development and the population as intelligent adults.. its disappointing to find people supporting the webb argument. they have shown they arent friends of the city and have no respect for its citizenry… lets not make enemies out of a group of people who spent an intense amount of time over a weekend to contribute to the development of the city..they cleary have more interest in the health of lexington than the webbs.
July 24, 2008 at 1:22 pm |
Im so tired of everyone’s argument that these buildings are historic. I agree that some buildings are worth keeping because of their historical value, but these buildings are usually improved upon so that they are not eyesores. Just because a building has been here a long time and people have fond memories of it doesnt mean it should stay standing forever. If Lexington wants to progress into the future as a city, we need new infrastructure and development. Lexington does not need to look the same in 10 years as it does today.
As for the design submissions……please! We dont need buildings that look like a stack of pancakes or 3 fingers coming out of the earth. Lets at least make the building fit in with surrounding architecture which I think the Webbs have done a nice job of. Go Webbs!
July 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
It’s not enough to only consider what a building looks like. To do so is totally superficial. One must consider how it functions and what it gives back to the public. The Webb proposal, while in keeping with some of the buildings in town (for better or worse–look at that monstronsity on Vine recently built!), it offers absolutely NOTHING to the citizens of this city. It will act like a giant, unrelenting wall with NO public space and no articulation along the facade to liven the streetscape.
While the 3 alternate proposals might not look like Lexington, they all attempt to create public space for the residents of this city; they all propose to save the Farmers Market; and at least one of them relates to the streetscape in scale.
Those who support the Webb building will soon be granted their wish: a building that offers nothing, kills the spirit of downtown, all taken easily because of its deceptively familiar “look.” A wolf in sheep’s clothing, I’d say.
July 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
lexington is a city deeply rooted in historicism. it is a college town with a delicate balance of young colliegiate minds and traditional living. despite this compelling mix, lexington’s charm often reverts into recycling and monuments that should instead be built with the knowlegde and promise of new construction. centerpoint proposes tearing down a culturally significant block only to replace it with another veil of historicism to boast lexington’s inability to see outside the box. the design charette was an attempt to show fellow citizens that there are many exiciting possibilities in the world of design and that there are people who care enough to voice creative and forward visions. does lexington need an exact manifestation of one of the three above examples? no. does lexington need a building something that will repesent both the young enthusiasm of a large university and sensativity of a southern city? absolutely. a compromise can be made between the two ideals and bridge together an essential block in the heart of the downtown area. i think it is safe to say that the current proposal for centerpoint does not achieve this compromise.
as a recent graduate from the university of kentucky college of design, i am deeply offended by how easily people write off new ideas and fresh perspectives that were only intended to make lexington a nicer place to live. many people have found it easy to criticize the proposals above when in fact, some very talented and caring people chose to devote their entire weekend to responding to something that they did not agree with. to those that so easily shot down the ideas above, what have you done to make lexington a better city? have you looked past the contemporary facades to see the design principles within the buildings themselves?
look at any great city. the secret to their sucess? DIVERSITY. new york, chicago, barcelona, berlin are all prime examples. all of these cities incorporate the buildings of the past with visions for the future and create an intricate patchwork of historic, modern, vernacular, and contemporary buildings. just like any one person has his or her own opinion, a city should be as varied and diverse as the people who dwell in it.
July 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
As Chloe says, the important thing is really what this building is going to offer to the city. I think the most telling thing is to look at how the building relates to the city on the ground floor. If this building were in a thriving urban environment every square foot of space on the street level would be incredibly valuable. The Webb design uses none of that space for cafe’s, shopping, or other commercial public programs. Thus, this design suggests to me that either the Webbs view this as an empty lifeless city for years to come or they aren’t interested in much of the profit making potential of this site. You decide!
Regardless of the design of the tower, it will be the icon of the city just as the 5th/3rd building is now. The question is, will it be the icon for a lively, exuberant, people friendly downtown or a dull 9 to 5 workplace.
July 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
Tom,
You’ve done your best to defeat this project using your buddies at the H-L and the newspaper itself to deliver your anti-Webb message. You lose.
July 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
I moved from Lexington twenty years ago, and the Webbs were putting up buildings that were twenty years out of date then. I am returning now and the Webbs are still putting up buildings twenty years out of date. Can’t these guys see what’s happening in the world of architecture now? And why are people and the city supporting them? Their entire concept for the space (a hotel and luxury condos in a slab of a bulding) is vastly out of date and has no relevance to today’s world.
July 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
Tim are you ok?
The hotel will be awesome I’m sure, but I’ll be enjoying Louisville where pedestrians are welcome.
July 24, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
Another concern is that this building was originally designed for Atlanta, a much larger city that has a terrible downtown area. It completely dies at night, is almost impossible to walk through (and drive through), and has a bunch of bland buildings clustered together. Atlanta is one of the last cities Lexington should try to emulate.
July 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
Paul,
I’ll wait for the HL headline: “CentrePointe businesses in financial shambles; Lack of Paul’s money cited”.
Your embargo is duly noted. CentrePointe will be the Cuba to your United States. The bigger question is who will reap the windfall of your $24.50?
July 24, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
I read the book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” by Jane Jacobs years ago, and it seems that Lexington is now facing some of the questions raised in her book. When you walk down the streets of downtown Lexington, do we want to feel like we’re walking next to windowless walls and boxed off spaces on lifeless sidewalks? There is a whole lot of research that indicates that crime increases and the feeling of community decreases when the street-level architecture doesn’t create spaces for public interaction.
What I love about the UK design competition as I understand it, is that it tried to take into account the fact that we would like to maintain a sense of public life here. Unlike the design currently proposed (which did not even ask for public comment and does little to preserve the public spaces that are currently in use) the UK conference entries seemed to try to acknowledge our civic events and public life and promote increased vitality in Lexington into the future. (Design #2 in particular, perhaps because the architects have lived in Lexington.) The actual logic of each project may not be conveyed by the pictures alone, but as I’ve followed the discussion, the commitment to civic life seems to be an important point that should not get lost in a discussion about aesthetic preferences.
Really, the schematic “look” of the designs is something cosmetic that could change in response to community input, assuming that the builders/owners actual care enough about the public sentiment to engage in that process. Beyond aesthetics though, at the heart of each design is (or isn’t) a commitment to a sense of public interaction. The building can end up looking a lot of different ways, but let’s hope that regardless of the particular “look,” the final design takes into account the many creative ways that our community can integrate public spaces and private property so it can be a win-win for everyone who has a stake in Lexington. We have a great opportunity here, to have a productive, important, creative, forward-thinking discussion…that’s something a lot of cities have benefited from and others wish they could have had. Let’s make the most of it!
July 24, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
Where were Preserve Lexington, Bluegrass Trust and every other critic of this development two, five, or even ten years ago? Why weren’t you fighting to save these buildings then? If they are so important, why were they allowed to be neglected by their owners, tenants and patrons? You all had your chance. It is your fault this project is here today. It is your fault that the Webb’s have the opportunity to buy the land, demolish the buildings, and build what they want. It is your entire fault, no one else’s. Not the Webb’s, not the Downtown Development Authority, and not the mayors fault. They are now doing what they see as the best thing for our Downtown now. The blame lies squarely on those of you preservationist who sat back and did nothing back then and it is too late now. If these buildings, and the property they stand on, were such an enormous economic engine of downtown, the price to acquire the land and buildings would have been so high, it would have been economically unfeasible for any major development to occur on that block. So thank you very much preservationist. You are getting exactly what you deserve.
July 24, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/07/24/arts/design/20080724_ZAHA_index.html
July 24, 2008 at 6:39 pm |
Thanks!,
Just because you tuned into things this week, doesnt mean that these groups you call out havent been involved in a form of resistance and public conversation for a number of years. This is an old story, and reached a fever pitch of discussion this week due to a court ruling. But, please, dont project that these groups have not been active only because you now find out about this. You insult yourself by making such comments. granted your schdenfreude is well in the spirit of anonymous comment posting, but unfortunately, inaccurate. maybe you should spend time looking at the history of this issue, instead of assuming that because you discovered this news today, that everyone you just read about had only yesterday spoke up.
July 24, 2008 at 7:35 pm |
To Thanks,
Preserve Lexington was formed in response to the Centrepointe project, which was only recently presented to the public as a totally finished project. The Webbs did not solicit input from the community at any point–rather, the building was designed in private (secret?) and unveiled as a done deal without any regard for public input. So, there really was no way for anyone to oppose the project earlier than they did. So, considering this, its actually a testament to the community’s activism that an organization, Preserve Lexington, was formed, and that the preservationists and other residents are now expressing their concern so loudly. Up until this point, no one was given the opportunity. I don’t think its fair to blame the public for not stopping something before they were even told it was happening.
One final point: to say “preservationists are getting what they deserve” is like saying the entire city should be punished with a terrible design–cutting off one’s nose despite one’s face.
July 24, 2008 at 8:12 pm |
What about activism or involvement before demolition plans are unveiled? If this is such a significantly historical block, shouldn’t it have been given this attention all along? Seedy bars, a pawn broker and a Rite Aid. Hmmmm..historical treasures all.
July 25, 2008 at 5:42 pm |
To Youre Welcome and Chloe,
Preserve Lexington was formed in 2006, almost two years before the CentrePoint announcement. Their website has been around almost as long and stated its purpose as focusing on the suspected development of that block. The last building on that block was not purchased until well after Preserve Lexington was formed, so they had ample notice and time to rally the community and purchase at least some of the block but they didn’t. That is a fact. Check the Secretary of State’s website for Preserve Lexington and you will see when it was formed. Check the PVA website for the property transfers of those buildings on the block in question. Also, Heywad Wilkerson of Preserve Lexington advised in an article on this blog that Bluegrass Trust discussed the Webbs plans with them over a year ago! Now, Hayward used to be a director with the Bluegrass Trust. You think he didn’t know of the plans? Hogwash!
July 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
Hello,
I’m sure there are no large buildings in Louisville. The Centrepointe project will be pedestrian friendly. At least in Lexington we can walk the streets at night in relative safety. Stay up there. But you won’t. You can’t help yourself.
July 25, 2008 at 7:01 pm |
Dear mr. sensible,
The design competition took place over 48 hours. That’s why it’s conceptual. Use that common sense, sir. It takes a little more than 2 days to create a design that is ready for construction.
July 26, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
it seems that all the people for the Webb project, are more interested in delivering some type of “in your face” to the preservationists, than they are expressing any real sense of place about lexington. thats a rather meanspirited and unhelpful way to develop a city. in the end, youll get the exact type of downtown you want with that attitude, which is one that delivers nothing to you or other citizens of lexington except another massive unusable project with overpriced condos, and a hotel no one wants to stay in because theres nothing to visit around it.
July 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm |
Landry,
In your face! You obviously haven’t attended any of the “meetings” involving the preservationists. Talk about meanspirited! You are also a very presumptious person with all that predictive drivel. Get a job!
July 31, 2008 at 10:17 pm |
It’s sad that the Webb project stands to tell the world that…
Lexington Kentucky is culturally bankrupt.
Being a former citizen of Lexington, I know that it isn’t…or at least wasn’t. Lexington’s culture is hidden in the spaces that continue to be torn down, removed and extracted from view.
Lexingtonians should be asking themselves “what does Lexington value?”
Answer that question and make a statement. At least that’s what the College of Design competition tried to do…
The answer suggested by the Webb project should make Lexington frightened.
August 1, 2008 at 10:45 pm |
For all those with comments like “junk” or “do these people have too much time on their hands”:
If these designs are so awful, why don’t you come up with a design? “Because Im not an architect” or “I don’t have time for that”. Well you’ve obviously got the time to goof off on forums and if you have no eye for design, then I would suggest keeping all “architecture criticism” comments to yourself. Nobody is posting on your website about the terrible job you do as an accountant or the ridiculous antics you used at your boring sales job. Partly because nobody cares about what you do (and obviously you don’t either if your posting comments all day), but mostly because the majority of people have the decency to let professionals do their job.
August 9, 2008 at 2:25 am |
Lextowndown,
I don’t have to come up with a design. CentrePointe looks great to me.
September 15, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
as a student in the college of design, i don’t understand how people can be so reluctant to accept anything new and innovative. we cannot keep designing to perfectly fit in with the surrounding architecture, as that sort of mindset will not allow for progress. but the drones will continue to have their hotels and shopping malls, devoid of culture and inspiration…