Can you defend this thing?

bryson662001 · #1 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 3:28 AM**

With out even knowing what it is, can you find any justification for this thing? A joke to make you laugh isn't a good enough reason.

urbanlife · #2 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 8:43 AM**

What is it? Where is it? And is this the finished look of this building? The super tiny windows make me think the building is going to be super depressing on the inside.

But I could still defend this building, it would be a great home for those who are recluse people.

Kingofthehill · #3 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 10:49 AM**

I am pretty sure that it is housing for homeless people on a side street/alley in Philadelphia's Center City.

M.K. · #4 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 11:40 AM**

Actually much better than the right one in same photo which is much more depressive and dirty and also better than the monstruosity behind this in same picture. I see small windows, but the box is modern and seem well mantained. I would defend it if I would receive money for such, otherwise I don'T care. Believe me, worldwide has much worse examples to not be defended. This is not the worse.

wrab · #5 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 2:16 PM**

The slat windows make me wonder if this is a jail/holding facility?

rockyi · #6 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 2:22 PM**

^I thought the same.

mdiederi · #7 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:22 PM**

It's a "transitional" housing project in Philadelphia at 13th & Market Streets. The project will seek LEED Certification and design plans include a green roof, a rainwater collection system for irrigation, high-efficiency mechanical systems and lighting, etc. 75% of all demolition materials will be recycled, and 20% of the construction materials are recycled.

But yeah, kind of boxy and bland with the small windows.

mhays · #8 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:58 PM**

It looks like a complete POS to me. Even bigger windows wouldn't solve that.

CGII · #9 Posted **Jan 1, 2011, 1:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdiederi

It's a "transitional" housing project in Philadelphia at 13th & Market Streets. The project will seek LEED Certification and design plans include a green roof, a rainwater collection system for irrigation, high-efficiency mechanical systems and lighting, etc. 75% of all demolition materials will be recycled, and 20% of the construction materials are recycled.

But yeah, kind of boxy and bland with the small windows.

Bam. This sucker is ugly, but it's efficient to the bone, which I think is a more fair priority than aesthetics in a housing project.

llamaorama · #10 Posted **Jan 1, 2011, 2:22 AM**

Actually, I think it is rather interesting in its own special way.

Of course most of what makes it somewhat tolerable is its clean, new look, obviously something that will not be forever. How it will look in 30 years when its all stained is a different story.

hammersklavier · #11 Posted **Jan 1, 2011, 3:01 AM**

That's because Bryson's being an arse and not showing you context. This point is the optimal viewing point for the structure in question from any major Philadelphia street (unfortunately this image was clearly taken in 2007, so you'll have to fill in with your mind's eye where it ought to be). Look closely at the back of the PSFS Building--you'll notice that it has the exact same paneling type in the exact same color scheme as Connolly House--what this project is called. The photo in the OP is taken from the foot of the PSFS Building, thereby obscuring the proper context, thereby creating an indefensible bias. From the street, I repeat, it looks like nothing more, or less, than a wing of the PSFS Building and so, while I do not personally care for the style, this building is far less worse, to me, than the historicist pastiche of Symphony House or the high-rise blank walls of 101 Walnut.

EDIT: #2 most-optimal viewpoint, and right by the so-new-it's-still-shiny Mitchell & Ness flagship store. Note construction site debris. Also note interaction its closest major neighbor has with the street, and the alley. Note, again, the shading of the paneling system used. This building is effectively indistinguishable from the PSFS Building's backside at almost every viewing angle, and if you weren't clued in that it was there, you'd easily miss a shortcut from here to 1234 Market.

TANGELD_SLC · #12 Posted **Jan 1, 2011, 3:32 PM**

Maybe the windows are super tiny to discourage suicidal homeless people from jumping out of such a depressing structure

bryson662001 · #13 Posted **Jan 1, 2011, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

That's because Bryson's being an arse and not showing you context. [url=http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.951628,-75.161548&spn=0.000481,0.001321&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=39.951549,-75.161564&panoid=GxgWNE-LlLJk-lsgxBcmMQ&cbp=12,124.11,,0,-3.86].

I apologize if the photo is not accurate. I haven't personaly seen the building. It's a photograph and I figure a photo doesn't lie. The last time you commented on this photo (when you said it looks like any other apartment house?) you didn't mention that the photo was inaccurate. For everyone's sake I hope your correct.

vid · #14 Posted **Jan 1, 2011, 4:54 PM**

Looks like it is going to be tucked into a back alley, so does it really matter? Not every building has to be spectacular.

For a transitional housing project, it looks great. Ours are uglier.

village person · #15 Posted **Jan 1, 2011, 5:27 PM**

It would look right at home in a place like McMurdo Station or Yellowknife.

Jasoncw · #16 Posted **Jan 1, 2011, 9:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

That's because Bryson's being an arse and not showing you context. This point is the optimal viewing point for the structure in question from any major Philadelphia street (unfortunately this image was clearly taken in 2007, so you'll have to fill in with your mind's eye where it ought to be). Look closely at the back of the PSFS Building--you'll notice that it has the exact same paneling type in the exact same color scheme as Connolly House--what this project is called. The photo in the OP is taken from the foot of the PSFS Building, thereby obscuring the proper context, thereby creating an indefensible bias. From the street, I repeat, it looks like nothing more, or less, than a wing of the PSFS Building and so, while I do not personally care for the style, this building is far less worse, to me, than the historicist pastiche of Symphony House or the high-rise blank walls of 101 Walnut.

EDIT: #2 most-optimal viewpoint, and right by the so-new-it's-still-shiny Mitchell & Ness flagship store. Note construction site debris. Also note interaction its closest major neighbor has with the street, and the alley. Note, again, the shading of the paneling system used. This building is effectively indistinguishable from the PSFS Building's backside at almost every viewing angle, and if you weren't clued in that it was there, you'd easily miss a shortcut from here to 1234 Market.

This is really important and it really makes the project make sense.

It's an anonymous building tucked away. It's not meant to be a really prominent stand out building, because people using these buildings are often ashamed of having to use them and they'd rather have more discreet access to the building. Also, neighborhood residents and businesses and things usually don't like having these types of institutions near them, so having a really prominent building might make it more likely to become a politicized subject. Aside from that the building looks to be inexpensive to build and operate.

So only seeing the first photo it's hard to imagine what the designer was thinking, but after understanding the project more, it turns out to be a thoughtful and responsible design.

Rizzo · #17 Posted **Jan 1, 2011, 10:58 PM**

It's an unfortunate design, but I suppose the costs were what justified this thing to look like a jail. Despite that the building is well intentioned (as a transitional facility) I know we can do better.

I don't think anyone should try to analyze this building architecturally. Clearly cost limited how extravagant this shelter would be, and I don't want criticism to be mean-spirited. So what's the point. It's like trying to point out the merits of the design of a porta-john. I would advise anyone trying to stand up on their architecture school crit soapbox...be it in favor or against the design to step off to avoid looking foolish. This building functions to house the poor, it has some positive aspects like achieving LEED status, while losing in other areas like design aesthetics. Could it have been improved? Yes, just like any building.

hammersklavier · #18 Posted **Jan 2, 2011, 12:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryson662001

I apologize if the photo is not accurate. I haven't personaly seen the building. It's a photograph and I figure a photo doesn't lie. The last time you commented on this photo (when you said it looks like any other apartment house?) you didn't mention that the photo was inaccurate. For everyone's sake I hope your correct.

Isn't this spot only a 20-minute walk from your house?

The photo is accurate from the spot the photographer was standing (the nook where the PSFS Building and 1234 Market's rear patio thingy meet each other). However, this nook is already out-of-the-way and the context this building is meant to respond to is How will it look from 13th Street? 12th? That's why it looks like it blends into the back of the PSFS Building.

Jasoncw · #19 Posted **Jan 2, 2011, 12:34 AM**

I think this building is appropriate and sensitive to the needs of the people who will be using it, and I don't think a bigger budget would have changed the nature of the building much.

The finishes might have been more expensive (maybe the metal paneling would have gone higher than the 3rd floor). The windows might have been a little bigger but probably not much because these people would probably rather have more enclosed spaces rather than exposed airy spaces with big views. The biggest change would probably be that the exterior wouldn't be prefab, so there would be more freedom to compose things a little better. The vents would probably be dealt with better, and the window frames would be a nicer material (right now it looks like white vinyl). All of those things would be improvements but it would still be a grey box with small windows punched in which I think is ultimately what people don't like about it.

The aqua in chicago is a successful residential project. Let's say that the design could conveniently accommodate the technical aspects of the building's program, and that it was actually a transitional housing project. If it were, it would be very insensitive to the emotional needs of the people living in it. Ask anyone which building they think looks better, including the homeless, and hands down they'd pick the aqua, but that's not actually what fills their needs. Or better yet you could have a trillionaire buy a landmark beaux arts luxury hotel, and convert it into transitional housing. The banquet hall could be the dining room and the residents could even be served by butlers with french accents. Ask anyone and they'd think it's great, but it would actually make the residents feel very uncomfortable.

mhays · #20 Posted **Jan 2, 2011, 5:21 AM**

My city, Seattle, manages to build low-income and transitional housing that looks good. These are non-profits that get City levy funding, etc., to build, renovate, and own housing. Two of the main ones that have good photo pages of their buildings:

http://www.hrg.org/htm/management/property-index.aspx

http://www.plymouthhousing.org/what-...ur-properties/

Their buildings look like regular apartments from the outside. Inside they're spare and very small.