| Author | Message | ||
     anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 1656 Registered: 6-2002 |
Saw the pic on the front page of the N-R. I think it's ugly. Anyone else have an opinion? | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3489 Registered: 9-2001  |
I like it... It's 10 times better than the last one, plus a lot of locals gave their input to reach this point. Where were you? | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1407 Registered: 6-2003  |
One of the most ugly and stupid looking buildings I've ever seen. The blank and featureless roof dominates one's impression, relieved only by the little pimples above the quasi-turrets. The entrance looks like something you'd see on a cheap stucco building in L.A. Let's dump this loser and get a proper design proposal from a real architect. | ||
| grw Citizen Username: Grw Post Number: 367 Registered: 12-2002 |
I like it | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7579 Registered: 5-2001 |
there are several illustrations on the Maplewood Township site for those who want to make up their won minds. http://www.twp.maplewood.nj.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC= | ||
| johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 1191 Registered: 5-2001 |
Seems like a cookie-cutter suburban style for municipal buildings these days. Nothing great or bad really. Just standard stuff. | ||
| e roberts Citizen Username: Wnwd00 Post Number: 303 Registered: 3-2004 |
the design seems to be perfectly fine, it will not stand out and most importantly it will replace a building that should have been replaced years in the past. | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 1658 Registered: 6-2002 |
I would have liked to see something more classical. Like Greek revival, if that is what it is called - with Columns! Or else, something very modern - lots of glass and steel. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1408 Registered: 6-2003 |
It's ugly and stupid looking for many reasons, of which these are just a few: 1. The horizontal sunshades are placed half-way up the windows, which completely negates their purpose. 2. The little windows in the roof pimples (ugh!) are too small to suggest a third floor, but too far away from the floor below to suggest a high-ceiling circular room on the floor below. 3. The roof is far too dominant visually, and it clashes with the roof designs of neighboring buildings. 4. Same thing for the arch-and-porthole motif at the entrance. The arch is out of proportion with the other elements of the building and is not matched well with the entrance doors. 5. There is no handicapped access ramp and no obvious way to add one with those ridiculous semi-turrets in the way. 6. There are no doors on the back wall, unless the intent is to either place them in the garage doors or leave the garage doors open most of the time. 7. There is no cover to provide weather protection to police officers and/or court visitors at either the front or the back. BTW, you can look at the firm's overall portfolio on their website www.goldstein-architects.com. Click on the "justice" link to view some of their other police stations. Personally, I find most of their work either sterile or aesthetically confused. | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5266 Registered: 4-1998  |
Good rule of thumb: You get what you pay for. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3490 Registered: 9-2001 |
"Let's dump this loser and get a proper design proposal from a real architect." Montagnard, from my understanding of the process thus far, there was a group of local architects who gave their input to this proposal. BTW, you raise some interesting points. Were you at any of the meetings? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4932 Registered: 5-2001 |
The building reminds me of a stretched and flattened armory. I agree with Montagnard that there should be provision for handicapped access at both the front and back of the building. I think that a more efficient use of the third floor could be made than is indicated from the proposed roof treatment. Can anyone more adept at reading architectural images tell me whether the proposed structure includes the green architecture features which were proposed for the previous version of the new police department? | ||
| e roberts Citizen Username: Wnwd00 Post Number: 304 Registered: 3-2004 |
i think that joan and montagnard need to understand that this is a limited access police facility. though there is a court that welcomes the public during business hours and court time most of this building is for law enforcement. there is most likely only handicap access at the front because that is the only public enterance to the building. the rear garages and doors or whatever are typically going to be for police personel and there are not many circumstances where police officers would need a handicap enterance for themselves. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1409 Registered: 6-2003 |
Our police officers should be working in a public building that reflects their role as trusted servants of the law, which in a nation of laws must be placed above the power of individuals. The functions of law enforcement must be placed in the proper context (and they're more effective that way anyway). BTW, I did not attend the meetings because I assumed (incorrectly) that the committee could be trusted to reject obviously unsuitable designs. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7581 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think the Feds require handicapped access to all public buildings. One of the hundreds of issues with the current police station is that the courtroom on the second floor isn't handicapped accesible. The ramp, lift, etc., just doesn't show in the pictures. Of topic, slightily, there is a town in Indiana called Columbus where the leading local business, the Cummins Engine Company, paid for world class architects to design public buildings. It is interesting, but sometimes the work doesn't fit into the community. While generic, and I don't really like the "pimples" on the roof and the arch entry, the building will fit in on SA. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4935 Registered: 5-2001 |
E Roberts: The Americans with Disabilities act requires that persons with disabilities have reasonable access to public spaces. Suppose I am in a wheel chair and I need to obtain a copy of an accident report, speak in person with someone at the police station regarding a complaint, attend a trial in the municipal court building, etc. I should not be denied access because I can't get into the building. You are correct in stating that the law does not require that each entrance to the police station have such access but there is no excuse for not providing one at either the front or the back of the building. To my admittedly untrained eye, the front entrance of the building appears to be up a flight of stairs, same for the entrance at the back. The green building provisions, if lacking, would actually end up costing the town more in life cycle costs and lost outside funding assistance than eliminating them would. Since I can't tell from the exterior artist's rendition whether these features were included, I am asking for feedback here. Regarding my point on interior space utilization, I would prefer to see a space which could be expanded (upwards) or be flexibly divided in the future if need be rather than be faced at some point in time with having to build yet another building because the size or arrangement of interior space needs has shifted beyond the capability of the structure to adjust accordingly. Hope this clairification helps. | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 194 Registered: 11-2003  |
I believe that there's another opportunity for public comment at this weeks TC meeting. FF | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3491 Registered: 9-2001 |
..."I did not attend the meetings because I assumed," TNFG, take nothing for granted... If it's really important to you, you should do it yourself. Well, as stated there's another opportunity this week to bring up your suggestions. | ||
| johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 1193 Registered: 5-2001 |
Earth to Citizens of Maplewood, It's a drawing! Relax. All buildings built these days are required to have handicapped access. I'm sure many changes will be made between now and when it's finally done. | ||
| Colleen Citizen Username: Cbroderick Post Number: 145 Registered: 7-2001  |
I think it looks like a municipal building. I like that they are using brick like the schools/town hall. It's decent. Not inspired. Is that a ramp on the left side where the person is walking? |
