I think we all just need to agree to disagree here. It's obviously not perfect for all of us, but is a vast improvement over the original site and light-years better than your average St. Louis parking garage. I think ugly is a strong word, but everyone has their own aesthetic.framer wrote:It's really not.symphonicpoet wrote: that is a VERY pretty garage.
All I’m saying is everyone is taken their opinion off a drawing at least let’s wait until it’s built out before we make our final decisions on it.
This I do agree with, even one floor would have gone a long way. However with the hotel in front of it and an eventual taller building on the lot behind it, I think it'll end up screened fairly well. I do think it (and BPV as a whole) looks significantly better than P&L though.debaliviere wrote:I'm not wild about the design either, but what really bothers me is how small the office portion is in relation to the garage. Another floor or two of office space would really balance it out (and I realize that these decisions are market driven).framer wrote: This. Is. Ugly.
![]()
So I thought I posted a reply to this earlier today but it seems to have disappeared... Anyway, thanks for the shoutout! Glad to hear I wasn't just shouting into the void.rbeedee wrote: rbb did a pretty thorough explanation of the height restrictions in different zones in a different thread a while ago: link
So there are two zones here - 300 Broadway (and anything else east of Broadway and more-or-less parallel to the Archgrounds) is in the Jefferson Memorial District. Ballpark Village, Shannon's and plots west of Broadway are in the Central Business District. Both have to comply to the whole nonsense re: the volume of the building being no more than the volume of a cube of the property 200' high, but only in the JMD is there the additional requirement that the height of the building not exceed 751' above sea level.
But, as I mentioned in that thread height restrictions are negotiable. If a developer wants to build something taller than is allowed by zoning regulations they can approach the city and ask for a variance. That's not an impossible ask by any means.
-RBB
Since this is an already confusing conversation, I'm going to attempt to add clarity here and say that "east of Jefferson" is supposed to be "east of Broadway"
Whoopsaprice wrote: Since this is an already confusing conversation, I'm going to attempt to add clarity here and say that "east of Jefferson" is supposed to be "east of Broadway"
not sure where that came from, but you're absolutely right. Thanks, corrected my last post.-RBB
- 2,386
Hotel getting the first of it’s exterior. Looks solid in person.
That garage podium design is 100x better than the Pennant Building. At least it matches the building on top of the podium...chriss752 wrote: What an odd debate, on parking garage aesthetics of all things. It’s not a good design and it’s not bad. Could it be better? Yes. But it’s necessary for now until future buildings block these buildings. Can I promise that those building’s garages look better? No but I highly doubt that future buildings will use a PwC Pennant Building style parking screen.
Plus, it’s Cordish. At least they added some art work and TV onto the Two Light garage, but it is bland. For St. Louis, at least they are adding a giant billboard and ST. LOUIS wording on OCW’s and the Pennant’s garages.
There is no reason they couldn't have extended the stubby office portion design (pattern, materials, and colors) down to the ground, and then simply used an alternating pattern of glazing and screens instead of the all-glass office portion. And if poor Cordish is so strapped for cash, then they could have just used all screens. It wouldn't be great, but it would look a helluva lot better than that bizarre transition from slender black frame on 1/3 the building height, to the much wider brick "spandrel" and "columns" on the lower 2/3.debaliviere wrote:I'm not wild about the design either, but what really bothers me is how small the office portion is in relation to the garage. Another floor or two of office space would really balance it out (and I realize that these decisions are market driven).framer wrote: This. Is. Ugly.
![]()
If that design was driven solely by cost...well, that brick ain't cheap either...
Hmm, the white exterior of the Loews appears to be smooth concrete. The rendering almost made it look like white brick which I was super excited for. I think it will still look really nice though, all other BPV architecture aside. I love the two ballpark footprints overlayed though. I really hope that doesn't get cut.
It looks like light gray brick on here too. They are probably polished precast concrete panels, I hope. I really hope that isn't EIFS. Maybe they nixed the brick due to cost, or maybe just a bad rendering. Polished precast should look good in contrast with the black steel / red brick theme all around it, either way.aprice wrote: Hmm, the white exterior of the Loews appears to be smooth concrete. The rendering almost made it look like white brick which I was super excited for. I think it will still look really nice though, all other BPV architecture aside. I love the two ballpark footprints overlayed though. I really hope that doesn't get cut.
I don't understand why designers have so much antipathy towards reasonably-proportioned cornices, though. An irrational fear of icicles perhaps?
Like Mayor's thought above, the idea of a taller slender office building would work well with Loews hotel and the PWC office/parking deck. It would give a much different perspective of how things will look in the present vs. a fully built out BPV.
I still think Cordish/DeWitt buying 300 N. Broadway and surface parking lot would be a good real estate play on there part but also agree that it would really be a long term land banking type play. Only if I had some cash in the checking account
I still think Cordish/DeWitt buying 300 N. Broadway and surface parking lot would be a good real estate play on there part but also agree that it would really be a long term land banking type play. Only if I had some cash in the checking account
The Loews Hotel renderings showed more detail on the facade for sure, but I think this will look good when done. The chunky pieces that they are putting up will go all the way up, so it should look ok. Ultimately, Cordish and the Cardinals have no say over the design of the hotel as Loews becomes the building's owner and operator. So Loews has the final say over the design. More panels have to be installed before I can critique the design, but so far it looks fine and looks as if it will contrast nicely to the brick surrounding it. I think when the glass and more precast panels are put up, the better it will look. Glass should begin being installed on the hotel very soon.
As for the two stadiums overlapping each other, that is still part of the plan.
Here’s a rendering for comparison.
![]()
As for the two stadiums overlapping each other, that is still part of the plan.
Here’s a rendering for comparison.
- 6,123
I may be confusing parking garages. The garage I like is the one with the stuttered brick screen broken at about the halfway mark. Perhaps that's the apartment tower garage. The garage with the modest brick pillars and the large screened voids reading St. Louis is . . . deeply underwhelming. But it's a mediocre piece of computer art at best and as has been said elsewhere, if that's the final design one hopes it will be buried in a sea of stuff and largely invisible at some point anyway. I hope. Yes, that is an ugly garage and the building atop it looks like something of an afterthought. Simply carrying the brick up or some stuttered glass screen down would have done a lot to unify the design. Or do something to give it a base, shaft, cap rhythm. (Say, a retail story at the base on the rear, unified simple open ornamentation on the garage and lower stories of the office, and different, busier, and more closed ornamentation at the top.) Explains a lot if we're talking about different buildings. I disagree with Framer about some matters of art and architecture, but usually not that viscerally and absolutely.
Things which are essential to life on earth, like UV for instance, can still be damaging to some organisms in sufficient quantity. Human beings can only tolerate a certain concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Obviously, this is true of most gases that aren't oxygen, but CO2 is, if I recall correctly, special. As the concentration of CO2 in the bloodstream increases it alters the pH. When the pH becomes too acidic . . . you die. And I believe this can happen before you die of oxygen starvation, depending on conditions. CO is more troublesome, as it bonds to hemoglobin and significantly diminishes the bloods capacity to transport oxygen. And hemoglobin doesn't dump the CO quite as readily as ordinary garden variety O2. But CO2 is also most assuredly toxic to humans in sufficient concentration. We have to be able to get rid of it from our bodies. And when the atmospheric concentration prevents that it can kill us. Even if it is rather useful for plants.urbanitas wrote: Um, CO2 is not poisonous. It is essential to all life on the planet. Perhaps you are thinking of CO. Just flick off one oxygen atom, and you get a whole different thing.
Also, this building will be ugly - doesn't matter if they haven't finished putting the sprinkles on it.... The plus side is that something will eventually be built to the north of it that will be taller, so the dwarf-office-building-on-a-tall-step-stool will be mostly hidden...eventually.
That said, I'm pretty sure it's the buildup of carbon monoxide that would get you first in an unventilated garage. It's big brother might get you eventually, but the CO would kill you first. Or more accurately the oxygen starvation CO poisoning causes would. Anyway, let's play nice. The essential point is correct: garages need ventilation so that toxic gases don't build up and kill us before we can even get to our cars after the game.
On the other hand, that would really only affect the folks that chose not to use transit. They're kind of a different breed anyway. Hardy pioneers striking it out to the fringes of civilization like Dan Boone. Go ahead. Glass it in! They can probably take it.
Yep. That's the one I've been hating on. The garage itself is awful, but then to plop that glass cube on top, as if it just randomly fell out of the sky, is just insult to injury. The two have absolutely no relation to each other. Again, it's like a box of Legos spilled on the floor. It sure ain't architecture.symphonicpoet wrote: The garage with the modest brick pillars and the large screened voids reading St. Louis is . . . deeply underwhelming.
I understand the need for parking "podiums", but developers and architects have to put in at least SOME effort, for crying out loud.
I have seen a couple different renderings of the office building with the brick. Here’s one with out the St.Louis from https://www.cityscene-stl.com/news/bpv- ... ng-numbers .
- 1,864
I believe that is an older, original rendering. The fake windows are out and the screen is in.
I realize that there was probably a method to their madness with that design.framer wrote:Yep. That's the one I've been hating on. The garage itself is awful, but then to plop that glass cube on top, as if it just randomly fell out of the sky, is just insult to injury. The two have absolutely no relation to each other. Again, it's like a box of Legos spilled on the floor. It sure ain't architecture.symphonicpoet wrote: The garage with the modest brick pillars and the large screened voids reading St. Louis is . . . deeply underwhelming.
I understand the need for parking "podiums", but developers and architects have to put in at least SOME effort, for crying out loud.
The colors, materials, spacing, and relative proportions of the garage podium, contrasted with the 4 story office cap, are all very similar to the brick arches and columns on the base of the stadium, as contrasted with the exposed steel structure of the upper deck and roof. The only thing they left out were the brick arches (too expensive probably). Of course, one would think that the designer would realize that a design for an irregularly-shaped baseball stadium would not translate well to a rectangular garage podium and office building.
So, if they were attempting to "honor" the ballpark design....they failed, miserably.
Interesting. What makes you think that’s the case? That’d be surprising considering this is part of BPV and isn’t just Loews, but a Live! By Loews, which is a joint venture between Loews and Cordish.chriss752 wrote:Ultimately, Cordish and the Cardinals have no say over the design of the hotel as Loews becomes the building's owner and operator.
- 1,864
I agree - there's zero chance that Loews owns the actual building. Cordish does and has just partnered with Loews to be the hotel operator.
The Loews site says the hotel will open Spring 2020?
I don't see how there can be almost a full year of work left on that building, or on the Pennant building / garage next to it for that matter. They should be ready to open by the end of the year. Maybe there is some other sitework that will have to be completed. Or maybe that just refers to a ceremonial opening on Opening Day.
I don't see how there can be almost a full year of work left on that building, or on the Pennant building / garage next to it for that matter. They should be ready to open by the end of the year. Maybe there is some other sitework that will have to be completed. Or maybe that just refers to a ceremonial opening on Opening Day.
^ Pretty sure Pennant is supposed to be delivered to PwC this August or September. I believe that's when they move in, that's only a few months away so that probably fits the current progress on that building.
Spring 2020 does seem a little long on the hotel...but I'm not really sure what all goes into interior build outs of a hotel either. Could be totally normal.
Spring 2020 does seem a little long on the hotel...but I'm not really sure what all goes into interior build outs of a hotel either. Could be totally normal.
- 805
The Mayor wrote:^ Pretty sure Pennant is supposed to be delivered to PwC this August or September. I believe that's when they move in, that's only a few months away so that probably fits the current progress on that building.
Spring 2020 does seem a little long on the hotel...but I'm not really sure what all goes into interior build outs of a hotel either. Could be totally normal.
It might be a conservative, but firm, deadline as a necessity to be ready come next baseball season. Wouldn’t be surprised to see it open earlier.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk