web analytics

Di Rimini Redo – A Pictorial History

If you are not familiar with the saga of the Di Rimini, I suggest that you first catch up by reading here, here, here, here and here. Needless to say, this is a story that should serve as an example to designers and developers that they must consider the City’s Regional Center Design Guidelines and follow through with them.

Now that you’re caught up, I present to you a pictorial history of the Di Rimini from the originally approved design through to the proposed redesign that will be reviewed by the Regional Center Hearing Examiner July 12th, 2012.

The official MDC approved design for the project, originally called "Sarojo Commons". September 2009

 

This slightly different design appeared on the project website in mid-2010 (now shut down). It is unknown why this was on the project site as it matched neither the approved design nor the built structure.

 

The Di Rimini as built. September 2010 (Photo: Curt Ailes)

 

After the city discovered multiple design deviations and the developer was cited by the state for fire code violations, this design modification was proposed to the city. September 2010

 

The property was ultimately foreclosed upon and seized by Stock Yards Bank. In January 2012, they proposed this initial redesign to bring the project into compliance with the city.

 

This modification of the January 2012 design has been submitted for review to the Regional Center Hearing Examiner and will be heard July 12, 2012.

 

This rendering shows what the Di Rimini Lofts may look like when the structure is altered.

 

What do you think of the proposed redesign of the Di Rimini? Notably, the entire first floor facade will now be brick, replacing the patchwork of stone that currently exists. In addition, the first floor space at the corner of Capitol Ave. and St. Clair St. — originally proposed as retail but changed to a leasing office in the built design — will be reverted back to retail space.

21 Responses to “ “Di Rimini Redo – A Pictorial History”

  1. Jeffrey C says:

    Better, but still seems monolithic and closed off.

  2. Anthony jackson says:

    WOW this is a hit, this is what should had been presented the first time, and as i said before brick should had been used the first time and now it is, and yes the added colors are great reminds me of 16th and park and the soon to be built mosso and 451 market and the hinge developments great job on the redo guys this gets 5 stars in my book.

  3. BM says:

    Lipstick on a pig. Better, but still ugly.

  4. Chris Corr says:

    If only the primary corner wasn’t so godawful awkward, I might actually say this redesign was passable. Look at the final rendering — why are there three windows on the corner of the 3rd level but only two on the 1st and 2nd levels? Besides the underlying structure being odd, inconsistencies like that make the corner look terrible.

    Short of demolishing some or all of the structure, I’ll give the redesign team credit for doing as well as they did given what they had to work with.

  5. Idyllic Indy says:

    I think the replacement of the apartment entry doors with a mostly glass door will help. It would actually be nice though if they could add in some windows down there, even though this space is just garage/storage. I hope they will actually be required to use translucent glass rather than spandrel glass. The design of the corner doesn’t appear to give any impression of retail. Aside from that, I agree with Chris C.

  6. Micah says:

    It’s better, but what wouldn’t be? Color scheme helps a lot. Unfortunately the primary corner is…THE PRIMARY CORNER. Therefore, it must be demolished and re-built. Good luck!

  7. Robb says:

    It looks awful. There’s no getting around it. My greatest fear, though, is the internal structure. It 100% looks like a DIY 1st-time property owner’s attempt to build something. Oops, made a mistake.. Well, we’ll space the door headers here instead, that’s fine.. -Whoops. Well, I’ll just kind of box this out here at the 2nd story line, it’ll look modern. -Whoops. Didn’t really attach those studs but it’ll be fine. -Whoops. …

  8. Robb says:

    When a contractor can’t read plans, I think the City is obligated to think, “potential disaster.” Building codes exist to prevent loss of life, and I guarantee that place is full of violations and papered-over mistakes.

  9. Curt Ailes says:

    As the Urban Indy crew has said, this redesign gets a D, but just barely. The underlying structure makes it difficult to make anything somewhat respectable out of it. The design team did as good as they could with a bad structure. As someone pointed out, this thing will probably fall in 20 years from now anyway due to poor material usage.

  10. Eric says:

    Rendering is acceptable given what’s happended but you can almost never trust comtemporary architectural renderings. The buildings almost always come out looking like crap because of the materials used and the favorable coloring architects give the renderings and elevations to sell the project.

  11. Chris Barnett says:

    I’d like to see the plan include the iron picket rail (that was originally approved at the “corner retail”). I think that subtle tweak, along with some greenery near the corner, would further minimize the “stacked box” look we all hate.

  12. Anthony jackson says:

    I simply think you guys know and have to admit they got it right with this latest render/development. But i still would like to see indy develope more taller structures 18 to 20 or 25 stories would do, i would even take a few cues from auston, orlando miami, minniapolis and some denver development residential .

  13. Nick says:

    Tear it down.

    Green space would be better than trying to fix this disaster.

    Everyone should be ashamed it came to this.

    • Chris says:

      I think everyone is disappointed with how things turned out. But, the simple fact is the building is not going to get torn down. This latest fix is as good as it will get, and while it is by no means a great design, it is passable, and once later in-fill projects are built around it, people will forget all about this mediocre structure.

      Hopefully, the city and its residents all learned an important lesson from this mess about staying vigilant to make sure project builders keep their commitments.

      • Idyllic Indy says:

        If the City had learned a lesson, they would inspect buildings for compliance with any or all standards of the ILP, which, in areas like the Regional Center, would include the architectural design. They did not, and still do not. But perhaps the residents learned that unless they vigilantly monitor construction projects and report discrepancies immediately, buildings can and will get completed in violation of what was approved.

  14. Brandon says:

    Lesson learned…..

  15. Emma says:

    I wonder where Mr. Sparks is these days? Building garbage in another city?
    Too bad these types of issues don’t carry over on the individuals name- to prevent him from doing work elsewhere. Don’t get me started on the whole contractor licensing process either…all you need is insurance and to sit through a informational session at DCE. If you get too many unpaid violations you just change your company name and open your doors again. Accountability? Not in this city.

  16. Michael says:

    Does anyone really think these people care about the neighborhood? Check out this photo from June 25: http://i.imgur.com/LDmtQ.jpg

  17. bob says:

    It matches well with the recently built structures in Fountain Square and in the Kennedy King Neighborhoods downtown. But its still a fragging eysore that will appear outdated and state for the duration of its life.

    • ahow628 says:

      What structures in Fountain Square and Kennedy King are you talking about? The DiRemini is terrible and I have yet to see anything that compares to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>