[St. John's] Hilton Garden Inn | 35m | 12 Floors | Proposed
 

Hilton Garden Inn - Proposed
http://i993.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps298e2650.jpg
(current design, September 30th, 2012)

This is a proposal by Manga Hotels to construct a new 12-storey, 150 room hotel in downtown St. John’s first proposed on, April 27, 2011.
Located on the corner of New Gower Street and Hamilton Avenue. The building pictured above is the revised, current proposal (Sept. 2012) The building was redesigned due to privacy and design concerns from nearby residents. Specs and height remain the same as the original proposal.

Location: New Gower Street and Hamilton Avenue
Floors: 12
Height: 35m

Location and proposed positioning of the hotel:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8219/8...3851acdb25.jpg

Article from The Telegram, April 27, 2011 detailing the original proposal (outdated: before revised proposal)http://www.thetelegram.com/Business/...26rsquo%3Bs-/1

For comparison purposes, here is the original proposal submitted on April 27th, 2011.

http://www.pbase.com/image/140855573.jpg

Reminder; This is not the current proposal. I didn't want to include this outdated image in the OP to avoid any confusion.

This thread may remain pretty sleepy for a while until there is an official re-submission to the city, it is approved, or construction begins, but that's okay. At least it's here for when we need it!

If anyone has anything they feel I should add to the OP, just let me know and I will add it!

ok it's growing on me in your avatar hahahahaha then I see the up close one and its like meh ..

I agree. It looks better shrunken down, which means it should look good at a distance :haha:

Maybe my avatar created to annoy (if that's the right word) Signal will turn into some kind of therapy treatment and convert him to pro-hiltonism! :D

Wow! I didn't really realize how small the footprint will be to this building. Even though its architectural design is meant to make it seem shorter, it may look significantly taller from certain view points.

I actually really like this new look! I can't explain why but it's just something about it! I know it does seem a little to "uptownish" but i personally like it much more than the original design. :)

I'll still be in a prominent site

remember this work of art :P

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...24615329_n.jpg


you can see it wil be further right to the corner so there will be tonnes of space left on the site for their seconf tower :P

Yuck. I am ashamed that my city will host this glorified Travel Lodge. Ugly, cheap, tacky. Fast food restaurant/auto parts dealer on ground level, then a warehouse, and an industrial park building to top it off.

All that plus hideous colours and a blank side with absolutely no windows. It's the very best in suburban Tallahassee design.

Does anyone know if the second tower is supposed to be higher or lower than the current proposal?

Edit: :previous: well yeah it does have more suburban look. I'm not fond of the windowless side either or the over usage of glass on top, the design may be manipulated serveral times yet, who knows?. But it's not really that bad :P

It could just be that rendering but it looks very 'cartoonish' to me.

There's room for 3 or 4 towers. I would love to see some taller residential buildings go there.

Signal, I really don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be :P The colors are much better than pink, peach, green, or light blue on any building or certain parking garages, haha! But, to each his own! :haha:

I don't think we should be taking the design as the gospel either. I'm sure this won't be the final, final design. The finished product may look similar to this, but I still feel there will be some changes to the design before it's actually build (hopefully addressing the blank wall issue) One thing about the blank wall I don't understand: How does the front of a hotel facing New Gower Street, invade the privacy of apartment owners in a building behind the hotel?? I'm a bit confused by that!

edit: The blank wall we were talking about is on the back, but still doesn't explain the blank wall on the front..

Haha, I thought the exact same thing!

We should have had a poll on this page asking which render people liked better!

Nicely done thread Townie, I've added the link on the first page.
About the blank walls, it is apparent that they have changed the layout somewhat, so the plans should explain why there are any blank walls.

Part of the balance of the design is that the top is suggestive of a mansard roof - justa thought. :)

I think this new design is hideous. I actually didn't mind the original proposal but when council rejected it I wasn't too shaken up because I thought the developer would come back with a better design. But now after seeing this I wish they would go back to the original. I think the original would have looked better if they had just continued on up with the stone.

But this new proposal has the same awfully coloured brick as the new Marriot on Kenmount Road and the glazing on the top is a poorly copied design from Deacon. Overall this gets a two thumbs down from me.

For me, It's one thumb up and one thumb down.

One thumb up for effort and trying to please everybody and one thumb down for the actual execution. I'm hoping with some slight design changes it can be two thumbs up!

I like it.

What I like most is that they have decided to place it right on the street, which will add to the urban feel of that small area of West Water St. That parcel of land is fairly large though, will the remaining be parking, or room for other buildings?

The company does wish to add a phase 2 to the development, though that may not necessarily be a hotel and could be a residential building.

Okay, okay. I will come out and say it. After staring at both designs for a while, I can now say that I like the old design. The new one does have some nice features, but after further inspection, they do not go together well. The materials they show look like they could be cheapened until it looks horrible. I would rather they not use brick. It's in an area that doesn't have to look heritage. The stone on the bottom and white cladding looked fine in the previous proposal.

The other design, while very average, has the same theme throughout and looks much better as a finished product. Again, I hope the new design is just preliminary and changes will happen. I can't say I will be angry if the current proposal is built, but I would be a little bit disappointed

(Yes Signal, I changed my avatar back ;) )

I wish there was better pictures of the old render. I hated the materials on the old design and prefer how the entrance in the new one looks more inviting, and kind of like a store front.

I don't know how I feel, maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board. The company is being told to do heritage by the sounds of it though.

I think the original design was better for downtown. It wasn't anything special but it looked more like a "downtown" than the new design does. When I first saw the new design I thought that it didn't look too bad but the more I thought about the location of the hotel, the more I realized that it was not suitable for that spot at all. If it was located out on Kenmount Rd or near the Airport I would be fine with it. It would fit in easily around Pearson Airport in Toronto and that is the biggest problem. It is just not suited for downtown St. John's. I have to agee with the posters who said it looks like they were trying to make it look more heritage but it certainly isn't our heritage. I hope council send it back to the drawing board again when it comes up before them.