The Richardson City Council reviewed plans for a new City Hall during its June 17, 2024, meeting. This was the second time renderings of the new building were reviewed, the first time being February 5, 2024. Then, I said, "My guess is the City Hall will look fortress-like from Fountain Plaza, but the rest of the views are more than acceptable to me." I also reported that the architecture team said, "The materials to be used on the exterior walls are not yet decided. 'We're intentionally trying to be very nebulous or non committal about what the exterior materials will be at this moment.'" Well, we now have a better understanding of the view and the materials. I'm sorry to say my overall grade for the plan has gotten worse.
The rendering above is from February. (Did you realize that when you first saw it? Good eye.) That was the rendering that I said was "more than acceptable to me." What the City Council was shown last week is below. What's wrong with it?
It's losing cohesion. That's mainly due to the addition of a third building material. It's not just used for accent. All three materials are prominent. A criticized feature of unloved, so-called McMansions is the use of a mishmash of building materials. For houses, it's usually brick, stone, and wood (or worse, vinyl siding) all on one house. In the case of Richardson's proposed City Hall, it's slate grey brick with horizontal bands for level 1, vertical fluted limestone for the Council Chamber, and pre-cast concrete panels for levels 2 and 3. The whole impression tilts towards being City McHall.
Another criticized feature of McMansions is the lack of a concept of mass. McMansions have so many secondary masses that the primary mass is lost. In the case of Richardson's new City Hall, the primary mass is made up of those big pre-cast concrete panels in what I'll call the back of these views. The limestone Council Chamber sticks out the side (or is it the front?). The grey brick first floor sticks out two sides. The lack of balance is obvious from the fact that the conceptual views are labeled with compass directions, and none of them is labeled "Front". That's because it's not at all obvious where the front of this collection of masses is.
The entrance is located in what I'll call the back of the building (because, come on, it's in the back). It's there because of the car-centric site plan. To fix that, we'd have to go back to the beginning of whole planning process, which isn't going to happen. So let's focus on things that can still be corrected (and some might even save some money). The view from February is below.
This is consistent with the other views from February, which I generally liked. The easily-fixable problem is the "CITY HALL" sign above the entrance. If you have to tell people it's CITY HALL in five foot high letters, you've already failed good design. In a bit I'll offer one suggestion related to another problem that will help here as well.
If the sign is there to signal people where the entrance is, you've also failed. Good design doesn't need a five foot high sign telling people where the door is. It should be visually obvious. That's related to needing a better concept of mass, already discussed.
I'd like to say this problem was fixed in the latest rendering, which is below, but alas, no. The five foot high sign is still there. And the whole has been made worse in the new design.
The new design adds yet a fourth construction material. It's the fake copper canopy over the entrance. That canopy is held up by a series of V-shaped metal poles that remind me of what holds up the canopy of a fast-food, drive-thru restaurant in a strip shopping center from the 1970s. It takes the whole look well into City McHall territory.
Here's my suggestion to solve multiple problems. Go back to the February design. Use pre-cast concrete panels for the building extension used to house the entrance, integrating it with the primary mass of the building and making it look taller and more substantial. That also gives you a visually bigger wall to hold that five foot high stylized Richardson "R" up high where it's visible from the parking lot, instead of hiding it in the shadows under the canopy, which is where it is in the new rendering. (Look closely. It's hidden under there. Really.) Then you can put a smaller, tasteful, and dignified "Richardson City Hall" sign on the glass windows for people to see when they walk up. And eliminate the fake copper and poles from the canopy. Besides leaving a cleaner looking building, it might save the City some money as well.
"Three materials,
Brick, limestone, concrete panels.
Cohesion is lost."
—h/t ChatGPT
Related: "OK, Mr. Critic, What's Your Alternative?"
P.S. In case you think I'm dissing McMansion architecture (I am), know that I realize it's a matter of personal taste. Others are entitled to love the new City McHall plans without embarrassment. Full disclosure: I live in what I call a McMansion myself. It's not the worst example of the type, and I'm not proud of it, but it is what it is. In case you think I'm alone in my thinking about City McHall, or that I'm too harsh, I'll leave you with just one more rendering, by a reader who declined to be named, probably for good reason.
2 comments:
This makes me sad. I get that the new building is saddled with a brutalist neighbor that is the library. It cannot simply ignore that. But this is disappointing for sure.
Stephen (last name missing), thanks for the comment. I'm in the minority, but I like Brutalist architecture. I like the library. And I like the Southeast view of the proposed City Hall. It's the only view that leans into Brutalism instead of trying to hide it behind other elements.
Post a Comment