Why we should have expected Hilton Home2

Either my Google skills are lagging behind or I didn't bother to do an image search for Hilton Home2 when I (and everyone else) was criticizing the turd at 12th and Arch before, during, and after construction.

It's hideous, and could have been better. Even despite construction costs, a nicer color palette isn't more expensive. Philadelphia has been unanimous - a rare feat Hilton accomplished - that this building didn't have to look like this.

Except that it did.

We spent hours on blogs and articles steaming over an inevitability, critiquing architecture that really can't even be called that, while the whole time the proof was out there, on the internet and around the country, of exactly what this building had to look like.

Take a look:



Tennessee

North Carolina

Utah

See something familiar? Turd is Hilton Home2's signature color.

We've been running ourselves ragged over the architecture of a company that employed an architect with no creative control.

We all know what a McDonald's or a Walmart is going to look like. In my short time in DC I saw no less than five CVS's level historic property for their trademarked faux Victorian (if it can even be called that) corner stores. When that happens, we don't critique the architecture, we critique the business.

This didn't deserve the energy any of us put into assessing the design. We should have been doing what we'd do if Walmart wanted to drop a store on Market Street and told Hilton, we don't want your business.