This one doesn't bother me a ton, but I agree there is a lot of cookie cutter looking design including many of the new structures in the Arts District --- all nice buildings, just not distinctive. I think an opportunity was lost on the Children's Museum on Riverside. The firm is outstanding and no doubt the interior will be engaging, but the outside is fairly bland and could be the headquarters for a credit union. There was an opportunity to make the building iconic and the first visual part of a child's "Discovery" as he/she approached the building.
Another example is the three ideas for the vacant lot adjacent to the PAC. One was iconic with the Theater Across Cincinnati --- the TAC (clever, eh?), but the one they originally settled on was similar to the Western Supply and most of the others downtown. I'm not in support of crazy design, but several should employ more imagination, in my opinion.
It was similar back in the 80s, 90s, and 2000-2010 when I traveled more. All across Tulsa, the designs were more "me too" than original or unique. You'd go to Raleigh, Nashville, Dallas, San Diego, Florida or wherever and say, I wish we had something that looked like that at home. Somewhere in the 70s, 80s, we lost our previous trailblazer selves. Most everything we do is a "me too" that is usually 5-8 years behind other communities. That 31s & Peoria mixed-use thing is dead, isn't it? Hardly groundbreaking, but it would have been cool. If I had a buck for every study the city or local leaders have commissioned and let rot on a shelf, I'd.... What happened to that extensive work Mayor Taylor had commissioned by the guy who was a planning rock star with a university in Georgia? It was fun.
Lily does some quality stuff, he's usually the main design for most of GKFF projects. It all kind of has the 'museum' look to it, where it is very clean but yet not very exciting. I will say, it could always be A LOT worse lol.
I'd take this more generic-ish design all day over Cimarex type crap. As long as attention is paid to the streetlevel and pedestrian experience is what is the most important. That's what makes a city livable and a neighborhood to be great, not necessarily what it looks like from 244 or from level 3 up.
I'm surprised this one is taking GKFF so long to get started, maybe they just have their hands full with other projects. I believe this was awarded workforce housing funds from the state last year so I think they'll have to start on vertical construction sooner than later. I've looked everywhere for renderings and surprised nothing more has leaked out.
Also, with renderings like the PAC project proposals there's a difference between realistic renderings and something that is a bait and switch. A lot of the times developers like to throw out really creative conceptual designs knowing full well that it would never be realistic/cost feasible to build that design.
The 31st & Peoria project isn't dead, I believe they are meeting with neighbors still in trying to find the right density. The renderings were also completed by a landscape architect/planner not an architect so that's why it looked so bland - those renderings would not be anything close to what the project would really look like. It was more of a massing model to convey the size, possible shape, and density of the project.
