While I don't dislike it per se, the architecture is highly derivative. Still, it beats the Myriad or the State Fair Arena.
While I don't dislike it per se, the architecture is highly derivative. Still, it beats the Myriad or the State Fair Arena.
Steve's update along with an extensive interview with Adam Paulitsch, who is the project architect with Populous. He gives a lot of insight into the thought process going into the design.
http://m.newsok.com/article/5519040
IN PROCESS, INTERIOR MATERIALS IN DEVELOPMENT [STILL UPDATING]
Looks sleek, blends in with the surrounding area structures.
The exterior lends itself to what you see in the current design trends with many of the expanded convention centers (Anaheim, Nashville, Phoenix & San Diego) .
Anxious to see the final designs and the completed project; especially how the convention center hotel complements the whole complex.
The best part is no signs of skybridges!
For some reason it reminds me of the Stage Center. Maybe all the boxiness.
I might be in the minority here...but I think it's super ugly and will look outdated and old really fast. The street level still feels like an afterthought here especially on the most important NW corner of the convention center. The building itself, I think, will feel really imposing when standing next to it and not at all inviting. Swing and a miss in my book.
I agree with you about the outdated part. I think it's going to look incredibly outdated really quickly and I don't love the sharp angles. They feel like something thrown up just to throw up. I do like that it doesn't appear to be one building along the street, but it's going to lose its luster quickly.
I like the contemporary design with traditional materials. I am sure there are others who like the faux old look, but I see most progressive urban areas employing pretty contemporary looks for their public buildings. I like how it isn't just a monolithic looking building. For its use, the renderings make the street level interaction look pretty good.
When I first started reading comments after the latest renderings, I thought it was sarcasm about the design looking dated. Now after another handful of posts saying similar things, I am blown away that there are people thinking this is a poor design.
This will easily be one of the most modern structures downtown.
Guess some of you really wanted the spilled crayon box design from MAPs.
I do agree it has the potential to look dated -- but really there are very few architectural styles that remain compatible with future architectural trends. There will be a time Devon, BOK Park Building, and the Sandridge building will look very out of style. It is modern day architecture and is unlikely those will also remain at the forefront of architecture style.
The good thing is, exterior design can be relatively easily modified in future years. A good example is the airport -- it's still the same 1970's main terminal building underneath the glass and stone facade and modern interior design and finishes.
The clean look of the Devon tower is exactly why, IMO, I think it will look good for many more decades than the convention center design.
A lot of this is taste. I'm more of a simple guy. I like a clean, sleek look. I don't mind modern, if it's done right. The convention center has a much more complex, over-bearing design IMO.
I do think they need to move the signage that reads "Oklahoma City Convention Center" so that it faces "Oklahoma City Boulevard". Wouldn't want people getting lost.
What do you want exactly? Modern and futuristic is what is trendy (and likely will be for a long time). Otherwise we are just rebuilding the CCC with a glass facade, how boring.
Your realistic options are either the style most recently rendered, or the same style with curved elements instead:
Not to go against the grain, but I like it. I think with these projects you make the exterior something showy, and the interior should be timeless and basic or else it will be outdated in 5 years.
What I see here is not bad per se. It's not the rose rock design floated in the election, but we had to know something as amazing as that just isn't possible within this budget.
I still wish that eastern park-side wasn't just ALL convention center. It wouldn't involve much to screen the surface parking lot with a small outparcel building and then the expansion phase can just drop back behind that. That will save money on design, make money on selling the land or rents generated, and that's just if the city doesn't even care about the design/vitality of a large civic building on the park (which I don't think they do).
I think actually the best small "outparcel" could be a small boutique hotel with narrow floor plates. Solves the challenge of who would want to "reside" in a convention center and gets some mixed-use and after-five action on that east side, which I can't stress the importance of enough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks