Yes, HR, but it was not ugly.
Actually, the Vaux house was built in 1869 and is very, very large. Again, not ugly though.
Town Hall is out of scale too, but it is not ugly. Indeed, I sometimes muse that it is underutilized and would, in fact, be great for the hotel that is being contemplated. Now THAT would attract business; I would go stay there myself, and I live here.
Catherine,
Beauty is subjective. How could we get anything done in the CBD if every project had to meet 9000 (approximate number of residents in Riverside) different standards of "beauty". We would have grid lock and nothing would get done. Of course, for some that is exactly the goal.
No, corbi, beauty is not that subjective. Who is prepared to call VC beautiful? Not even you, I'll wager.
I thought that it looked attractive based on the plans. I also will wait until it is close to being complete before I judge it.
Will the VC be taller than the Tower Building? Can someone tell me the actual numbers of each?
Anyone good at trigonometry? That would a good exercise for the RB freshman curriculum that tries real world applications. Anyone with a kid in it, ask them to calc the tower bldng for me.
I assumed it was going to be the same height. So if one 'signed off' on the Tower, one could reasonable sign off on the VC.
But when I compared both today, it looks like VC will be significantly taller/bigger. I asked my wife, who was in the car with me, and she said quickly 'OH YEAH! it will be much bigger'. That was her *perception*, which might not be in synch with the actual ht numbers.
Her perception could be influenced by the contextual cues that have been brought up in this thread.
mike
Catherine - I agree that the Township Hall is beautiful and underutilized. However, a completely separate governmental unit, Riverside Township, owns and operates it. The Village of Riverside owns the land underneath it. Riverside Township serves parts of Brookfield, North Riverside, Lyons and Riverside. They also have trustees who are elected in the spring of odd years. One BIG difference between village trustees and townshp trustees is that township trustees get paid. So the Township trustees determine how the building is used.
VC will be 48 feet at its peak. I don't know about the tower building but I am sure it is close.
According to an extrapolation on some drawings done by Ed Straka several years back, the Tower building is 37.5' and 42' at the gable peak.
Kathleen Rush
KathleenRush, the Tower building is not as ugly as Village Commons. If the trustees had not raised the height restriction or granted a variance, so that we had a guarantee that B2 would not be packed wall to wall (save parking) with such behemoths, the village government would find it would be having some considerable less trouble.
CandiGrace, good point, well taken. Perhaps the township would like to increase ITS revenue. My point, of course, is that the terms being thrown around could equally be applied to other buildings in town and should not be employed for convenience. Thank you for your contributions here.
Actully the VC will top out at something over 50 ft - 54 I think to the highest point of the cutesy little tower that isn't being counted because it was designed to bypass the overall height restriction. I remember when the architects first presented the design to the Board and when asked about how high it was they said they didn't have a scale with them. I wrote them and they responded with the correct height, but I can't seem to find that letter. With the height of the Tower Bldg as Ms. Rush states, then it is obvious that the VC will be much higher - well it is four floors, right?
I believe that Catherine is correct when she says that, if the Board and Ms. Rush had stuck with three floors and not given the VC developers that 4th floor variance people would have been less disturbed and probably would have thought more highly of their actions. But after spending lots of money - maybe $80-100K, to get the zoning completed, they handed the first developer a variance, eventhough they never effectively proved hardship. People need to understand, the developer called for and received a very valuable variance for nothing. That fouth floor represents over $6 million in sales. No rational reason has ever been presented or articulated for doing this. I warned at the time that any/all other developers will want the same thing, and will probably get it from the people that are now running for office - again.
This deal was about nothing but money - and that's why there is such a low standard of trust for giving this Board - and future unnamed Boards and/or Managers a steady flow of money to "induce" similar projects.
You must log in to post.