urbanSTL

Charlie Brennan this morning was trashing the idea that TIF monies aren't new monies, just monies that would've been spent elsewhere, and now get spent to subsidize a developer, removing monies not from local, but state coffers.

:smt015



People think the Post-Dispatch is negative? Ha! What about the cast of Downybrook?



I know Charlie Brennan is a cheerleader for downtown and wants it to succeed, but he's barking up the wrong tree with his latest anti-TIF rant. I still don't understand why the people that kvetch about TIF usage in downtown always forget to mention the abuses in places like Des Peres, Chesterfield, Fenton, and Hazelwood.



And FWIW, I think the P-D is improving, and IMHO it was pretty responsible in its coverage of last week's two major announcements. Weren't the cheerleaders happy with last week's Downtown Turnaround headline?



Back to Ballpark Village and Centene, I think it's still too early to form a valid opinion about the design of Centene's new HQ, although I do like that tower in Nashville that newstl2020 posted.

Will Centene be responsible for hiring HOK, er...I mean an architect, or will that be Cordish's responsibility?

DeBaliviere wrote:Will Centene be responsible for hiring HOK, er...I mean an architect...

If they're set on going with HOK, they might as well save a few bucks and see what T.R. Hughes can do with a highrise.



Edit: Eeewww...27 stories of vinyl? Okay, never mind.

I realize that Centene is, like all corporate and non-corporate entities alike, on a budget, but I don't see why they wouldn't go with a more progressive architect for their new project. Big name architects are obviously more expensive, but if they were going to go with H.O.K. why not go with something a little different for the St. Louis area and hire SOM instead? I would love to see some different companies get contracts for the larger projects in downtown. Plus, it would be cool to have a new architectural accomplishment in downtown, as we seem to have strayed from our storied architectural history of the past.



Do to the fact that Centene will be recieving a large amount of TIF for this project, does that give downtown and the downtown neighborhood association (if that exists) more leverage against Centene in their demands regarding design, structure of the project, etc? For instance, if Centene were to propose something very similar to their Clayton proposal (big clear box), could the city tell them to rework the design and propose it again?

Here is their original Clayton rendering, as a point of reference:

DeBaliviere wrote:Here is their original Clayton rendering, as a point of reference...

Well that is very yawn-tastic. Marginally OK for Clayton, completely unacceptable for downtown, especially for a building that will be within the typical 'postcard St Louis skyline'.

I wouldn't say it's terrible, even if I'm inclined to agree with Tysalpha's "yawn-tastic" take on it.



In Clayton it would blend in just fine, in a skyline where most structures blend in with each other. In downtown, I do agree with others here, I would want something somewhat bolder. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

DeBaliviere wrote:Here is their original Clayton rendering, as a point of reference:

If the tower were brown, it'd look a lot like the Laclede Gas Building and since we already have that p.o.s. architectural gem downtown, hopefully we can get a different design.

South Compton wrote:If the tower were brown, it'd look a lot like the Laclede Gas Building and since we already have that p.o.s. architectural gem downtown, hopefully we can get a different design.

At least the Laclede Gas tower is true to the international style, which was popular when it was new. I'd like to think that the bronze color was attractive back then, but it's just oxidized in an ugly way since. That's about as much charity as I'll give it.



There's no excuse for building such a boring box now, however. Especially in such a signiture location. Hopefully Centene will put the architects to work on something more inspiring now that they'll have a higher profile.

If the tower were brown, it'd look a lot like the Laclede Gas Building and since we already have that p.o.s. architectural gem downtown, hopefully we can get a different design.

What in the F are you guys talking about? I think LG is awesome. Walking under it and looking up reminds me of Chicago. This is one of St. Louis' truly urban buildings. It is our own Seagram Building. I only wish it was slightly larger and had bigger floorplates. It's much better looking than the Sevens or U Club, which are obviously the same style.

JCity wrote:What in the F are you guys talking about? I think LG is awesome. Walking under it and looking up reminds me of Chicago. This is one of St. Louis' truly urban buildings. It is our own Seagram Building. I only wish it was slightly larger and had bigger floorplates. It's much better looking than the Sevens or U Club, which are obviously the same style.

It's not that it's bad, JCity. Personally, I'm just not a fan of the black/ dark bronze monolith style. To me, they look like impenetrable fortresses designed to isolate those within the walls, not to engage the community around it. Same thing with Sears Tower. It's tall... it's black... the setbacks help a little... but it still comes across as an imposing monolith.

It depends on what you're analyzing. Buildings like that employ the "raumplan", which in basic terms, frees up floor space. So essentially a curtain-wall framed from the columns, becomes the threshold between inside and outside.

Tysalpha, your critique that it's imposing, and isolating for those within, is probably true for someone looking at the building from a distance. But in this case, I think JCity is right about when he's next to it. Its mass is definitely more impressive up close.

Back to the raumplan: some buildings are more successful with it than others. It's hard to tell from pictures on the internet, but I believe the footprint of the first couple of floors is set back. That's an architectural move that's SUPPOSED to help the outside flow to the inside. So for the pedestrian, yes it's imposing if you look up, but I think it's also kind of softened at street level.

i'm kinda partial to something like this... although i am sure there are some on this board that will say it doesn't look good from the side...

JMedwick wrote:Maybe if the Gateway Foundation really wants to do something to improve the arts downtown, adding some money for a nice design for the Centene Tower would be a much better use than adding sculpture to the Gateway Mall.

I've mentioned this in a couple of other threads, but I'll repeat it here:



I would LOVE it if Gateway would set-up a program in St. Louis similar to the Cummins Engine Foundation in Columbus, Indiana. Basically, they pay the architectural fees for public/commercial buildings, provided the developers choose an architect from a list of "approved", high-profile firms. I've suggested such a program to Gateway, but they feel their plate is full doing the sculpture donations, Great Rivers Biennial, Riverfront Design, etc.



BTW, I've always liked the Laclede Gas Building. Also, HOK has done some really nice work; they just need a client willing to spend some money.

It is just really difficult to do anything dramatic with a building that is nothing but office space. Residential is so much easier, because floorplans can vary considerably. In office space you don't have that much flexibility. I can only think of a small handful of single-use office buildings that have gone up in the U.S. in the last decade or so that I really like, and everything before that, in the postmodern era, was crap.

While I agree to a certain extent, I also disagree on this point equally. Most office structures do tend to be oriented in very business like designs (obviously) such as boxes, verifying your point about the floor plans. The name of the game, however, is how these boxes are accented, both with structural elements as well as the cladding/fascade of the building. I have numerous examples, but three of my absolute favorites going up right now have to be the Comcast building in Philly, which is absolutely gorgeous, followed closely by 2 WTC and 300 N Lasalle in Chicago. These are tremendous takes on office space, and are beautiful structures to look at, both at night and during the day (Going by the renders for 2 WTC and N. Lasalle). If we get anything near these buildings I will be pleased beyond belief. Remember, just because it's functional doesn't mean it can't be pleasing to the eyes as well. (Maybe I should send this with pictures to Centene as a friendly reminder from all of us at urbanstl.)

Framer, that is a great idea. St. Louis doesn't have beaches & mountains. Our edge can & does come from the built environment. But, if our newer buildings are ordinary, we loose the edge that our historic building stock gives us.

Framer wrote:

JMedwick wrote:Maybe if the Gateway Foundation really wants to do something to improve the arts downtown, adding some money for a nice design for the Centene Tower would be a much better use than adding sculpture to the Gateway Mall.

I've mentioned this in a couple of other threads, but I'll repeat it here:



I would LOVE it if Gateway would set-up a program in St. Louis similar to the Cummins Engine Foundation in Columbus, Indiana. Basically, they pay the architectural fees for public/commercial buildings, provided the developers choose an architect from a list of "approved", high-profile firms. I've suggested such a program to Gateway, but they feel their plate is full doing the sculpture donations, Great Rivers Biennial, Riverfront Design, etc.



BTW, I've always liked the Laclede Gas Building. Also, HOK has done some really nice work; they just need a client willing to spend some money.

Columbus OHIO right? any other big cities have programs like this?