Share
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 03, 2007#2526

Little Egyptian wrote:The Columbus, IN thing is a double-edged sword. I have been through Columbus, IN on several occasions and have several friends from there. On the one hand, we are talking about Columbus, IN on UrbanSTL, which, if not for the architecture would be Mt. Vernon, IL (well, Tony Stewart does live there). On the other hand, pretty much every resident I have talked to there doesn't like it. The problem is not that they don't like to look at the buildings, but that they are extremely expensive and money that otherwise could have gone to schools, hospitals, parks, etc ... now goes to additional design, construction, and maintenance costs, with the only real purpose of those additional funds being the small amount of tourism generated and the honor of being mentioned on boards like this.



I am not disagreeing that Gateway should think about doing something like this, I am just giving the other side because I have had to listen to complaining residents.


I've heard the same thing from some Columbus, IN residents, but if they didn't have this to complain about they would just complain about something else. For the most part I feel that the city takes great pride in their distinction. They continue to push for architecturally significant designs, whether it be their Interstate overpass or a warehouse. The other point to make is that the money wouldn't go to other things if it didn't go to these buildings. The money comes from an independent foundation that has its mission as enhancing the architectural significance of buildings in Columbus, IN. The money behind this wasn't pushed towards buildings, it pulled the community towards them. Meaning, the foundation doesn't have an interest in schools or social service programs. If someone wants to donate a couple hundred million to support daring designs in St. Louis, then that's fantastic and I think it would be money much better spent than on gateway mall sculpture or further riverfront studies . . .
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostOct 03, 2007#2527

Let's be realistic here guys, and I don't mean to demean the little guys, but we are talking about Columbus, IN, vs. St. Louis. Architecture here would be noticed and appreciated by a MUCH larger populus of this country. A little can go a long way with respect to this. Even with world class architecture...what draws would people have to go to Columbus Indiana? I'd never even heard of it until it was just mentioned a page back. Now a city like St. Louis...great architecture can become the "crown jewel" (borrowing from the spire website) of a city allready littered with other numerous great attractions. Building off the tremendous monument and skyline starter we allready have in the arch, great architecture through a program like this could really help take our city to the next level in the minds of outsiders, because like it or not, the skyline of our city is more often than not the first thing that influences people's minds that have never been here before. Let's compare realistically here guys.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 03, 2007#2528

newstl2020 wrote:Let's be realistic here guys, and I don't mean to demean the little guys, but we are talking about Columbus, IN, vs. St. Louis. Architecture here would be noticed and appreciated by a MUCH larger populus of this country. A little can go a long way with respect to this. Even with world class architecture...what draws would people have to go to Columbus Indiana? I'd never even heard of it until it was just mentioned a page back. Now a city like St. Louis...great architecture can become the "crown jewel" (borrowing from the spire website) of a city allready littered with other numerous great attractions. Building off the tremendous monument and skyline starter we allready have in the arch, great architecture through a program like this could really help take our city to the next level in the minds of outsiders, because like it or not, the skyline of our city is more often than not the first thing that influences people's minds that have never been here before. Let's compare realistically here guys.


I don't think I understand your post. We're using Columbus, IN as an example of how a city can invest in architecture and make a difference. We believe that StL should do the same thing exactly for the reasons you state.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostOct 03, 2007#2529

Ha sorry I need to get more sleep/not post so late at night. I meant to quote the first part of the "double edged sword" post above by Little Egyptian, as mine was a response to that. Sorry.
362
Full MemberFull Member
362

PostOct 03, 2007#2530

newstl2020 wrote: Now a city like St. Louis...great architecture can become the "crown jewel" (borrowing from the spire website) of a city allready littered with other numerous great attractions. Building off the tremendous monument and skyline starter we allready have in the arch, great architecture through a program like this could really help take our city to the next level in the minds of outsiders, because like it or not, the skyline of our city is more often than not the first thing that influences people's minds that have never been here before. Let's compare realistically here guys.


I agree with Grover, it was just an example of what is possible and also that residents will always complain about something. They are still doing it in Columbus, IN so that must mean something.



On your point about Saint Louis and great architecture, I 100% agree. That would be a fabulous way for Saint Louis to market itself nationally. Free attractions and great architecture to boot ... Saint Louis ... a world class city. I can see it now. Especially with Centene being in Ballpark Village and in so many shots looking out of Busch, which is going to become one of our defining skyline shots in the near future. The analogy I always use is Florence, Italy. It was never the most populous city in Italy, but it had something defining ... the art and architecture. And the real bonus of this is that it doesn't go away. We still consider Florence a "beautiful architectural and artistic city" even though it is long past its heyday.



However, I am not sure it is possible. Just look at the new river bridge and what was possible and what will eventually get built (if anything, I haven't heard anything on it recently). Combined with the bridge in Alton, the Eads, etc... that would have made for a fantastic part of Saint Louis' architecture in the eyes of the world. We also need something architecturally significant to compliment the arch. I know many buildings in Saint Louis are, but we need something that stands out like the new modern art museums in Denver or Milwaukee that immediately grab people's attention. Once they see that and the arch, they are more apt to notice all the other great architecture that Saint Louis already has to offer. Maybe something like Gateway putting pressure and dollars behind it is a good idea to get the ball rolling.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 03, 2007#2531

Little Egyptian wrote:Once they see that and the arch, they are more apt to notice all the other great architecture that Saint Louis already has to offer. Maybe something like Gateway putting pressure and dollars behind it is a good idea to get the ball rolling.


Right on Little E. We really need to celebrate our existing architecture as well. Just one example, when I moved here I read about the Wainright building, but it took me a couple bike rides downtown to find it - it should really be "featured". In one sense St. Louis has so much (residential especially) great architecture - its commonplace and commonplace isn't often celebrated. But now we've lost more than enough to begin celebrating the Lafayette Square neighborhood and a few others. If we can celebrate/market what we have and ad some significant new buildings, we could gain the mantle of America's architectural city - we all know that Chicago has ceded the title and no other city seems so inclined to pick it up . . .
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostOct 04, 2007#2532

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.


sounds like a lot of architecture gobbledygook



impenetrable fortress - It has clear glass that opens up to the street. Chemical Bldg. is just as "impenetrable"..



isolate those within walls - again, walls of glass?



imposing monolith - umm what is ANY tower over 10 floor high downtown???

:roll:



gotta love that LG Building
766
Super MemberSuper Member
766

PostOct 04, 2007#2533

JCity wrote:
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.


sounds like a lot of architecture gobbledygook



impenetrable fortress - It has clear glass that opens up to the street. Chemical Bldg. is just as "impenetrable"..



isolate those within walls - again, walls of glass?



imposing monolith - umm what is ANY tower over 10 floor high downtown???

:roll:



gotta love that LG Building


You asked why I don't like the LG. I elaborated; and now you're going to dismiss my explanation? Hmmf. I should have said, "because it's ugly" and left it at that. :P
69
New MemberNew Member
69

PostOct 04, 2007#2534

Tysalpha wrote: You asked why I don't like the LG. I elaborated; and now you're going to dismiss my explanation? Hmmf. I should have said, "because it's ugly" and left it at that. :P


Haha, you should have!



To the other post, I don't see how anything over 10 stories has to look monolithic. Maybe that could be clarified?



As Tysalpha suggests, I won't bother writing a response that is simply dismissed as gobbledygook...but then, I didn't think "monolith" was that tough to understand...
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostOct 04, 2007#2535

It's modernist architecture. It came about for specific reasons in a specific time. Just because we are returning to a period of ornementation and complex symmetry and asymmetry in our buildings, I don't think we have the right to look back at a building whose aim was extreme simplicity and clarity and ask "what were they thinking?"
291
Full MemberFull Member
291

PostOct 05, 2007#2536

stlmike wrote:It's modernist architecture. It came about for specific reasons in a specific time. Just because we are returning to a period of ornementation and complex symmetry and asymmetry in our buildings, I don't think we have the right to look back at a building whose aim was extreme simplicity and clarity and ask "what were they thinking?"


I agree completely. Architecture is a reflection of the times and time doesn't stand still. I'd say the 20-50 year period after construction of any period building is the time it faces the most criticism as newer forms of architecture emerge. I hated 50's architecture growing up but at some point it emerged as something of merit to a new generation and is now appreciated even by me. It's stood the test of time and I've learned you have to give architecture that time for it to be fully accepted and embraced.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 05, 2007#2537

^ Kind of like immigrants! I know I shouldn't have typed that - I do.



I think the curved design showed in the rough display when Centene announced their move downtown is a good start. It would be great to have something distinctive on the roof - shape/style, etc. The main issue though is how the street level retail and parking are handled. The interesting/quality skyscraper design is all overseas. When was the last truly remarkable building build in the US? Nothing stands out to me.
362
Full MemberFull Member
362

PostOct 05, 2007#2538

The two that come to mind are Museum Plaza in Louisville and the Chicago Spire. But I agree the cutting edge building design right now is in Dubai, Europe, China ... heck even South America and Russia have some interesting things going up. I guess the days of the U.S. leading the world in skyscraper design are over. Not sure why that is. Maybe here in the states we just don't spend money like we used to. Functional boxes. That's our MO.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 05, 2007#2539

^ Both are very cool projects. The Louisville project has an interesting look to it, but it really just reminds me of a jacked up Sears Tower. Projects do not need to be large to be exciting either. If Chicago follows the spire with a few more gems, they will reclaim the mantle of most architecturally interesting (for big buildings) city in North America.
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostOct 05, 2007#2540

I guess the days of the U.S. leading the world in skyscraper design are over.


I'm beginning to wonder...



Tysalpha, don't mean to be a prick, just disagreeing with your argument. I really don't understand what your point was. It's too "monolith"?? that's it? How does one build a 30 story tower that is not? please elaborate.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostOct 08, 2007#2541

Here's another one for comparisson out of San Fran...

482' tall at 34 stories. Contains 550,000 sq. ft. of office space.







We have been longing for more height in our skyline to the South to balance out the Met on the North for far too long. I REALLY hope Centene doesn't skimp on the height. This same building, built out to 700,000 sqft (Centene's needs) ends up at a height of 644.24 feet. I'm not saying they need to go this high (all though im sure you all know I'm in favor of this), but I really hope they break 500 with a slightly more slender building, as opposed to building a more bulky 400.



Edit: Allright I'm done with comparissons for good now. Jesus get us (me) a rendering for this one quick.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostOct 09, 2007#2542

^What makes you think they'll even get to 400'? At 27 stories, I'd guess they might not even make 350' unless they add some sort of spire or other architectural schlock. In any case, don't hold your breath for those renderings. It is going to be awhile...
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostOct 09, 2007#2543

yeah no kidding. I'm well aware of this and will be going crazy quietly within my own head waiting for them. I was basing the ~400 guess on the famous wood-fascade models given to us by Centene during the presentation. Going off the height of the Bank of America building (384 feet), the model for Centene Center appeared to eclipse 400. Office buildings are much taller-per-floor than most other buildings. A residential building might be 38 stories tall at 410 feet, while it is not uncommon for an office building with upper 20's to low 30's to be the same height. The Met is only 42 stories tall but is 593'. Eagleton is only 29 but stands at ~550. It all depends on the needs of the company.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostOct 09, 2007#2544

^12.5' average floor to floor height is usually a pretty good guestimate for most office buildings. If you take out the 40-50' of architectural schlock (the pointy green roof) and account for the 40' high lobby on the Metropolitan Square, it fits this rule-of-thumb pretty well.



In any case, I don't think anyone knows, but is it supposed to be 27 stories including the 2 floors of retail, or is 27 stories of office on top of the retail?
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostOct 09, 2007#2545

Good question. Playing around with some numbers here...

If the total floor count is 27, then in order to obtain 700,000 sq. feet of office space in the remaining 25 floors, the floor-plate of the tower would be 200x140 feet (28,000 sqft per floor. A pretty fat building. This, however, is counting raw space only. When the core is included, with elevator shafts and everything else necessary, we are looking at much larger floor-plates than that. Taken at purely square footage v. floors (I know, not very scientific), the floor plates of the Eagleton building would be 200x172 (I'm just dividing everything by 200 to make an easier comparisson). We are looking at a pretty husky building if this is the case.
139
Junior MemberJunior Member
139

PostOct 09, 2007#2546

I'm guessing that a couple of thebuildings will be in the mid 300's and one close to 400 foot after looking at the model.



You guys are right though, an office building quite a bit higher floor to floor than residential buildings. One good example is the Millenium Hotel at 30 stories and somewhere in the 270-280 foot range versus the Eagleton at 27 floors and 557' 2 1/2".
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostOct 09, 2007#2547

Eagleton is a bad comparison. It's floors are really two.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostOct 10, 2007#2548

^Yeah, I was about to post that. The floor plates of the Eagleton are divided into office space and courtroom space, so each "story" really has two levels of office space...or, maybe every two "stories" has three levels of office space? Anyway, it is not your typical office building.
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostOct 10, 2007#2549

Even though they said how many floors it might have, I think this is more of an incidental feature to their purpose. It would be better to start from how much floor space they are planning to create than how many floors there might be.
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostOct 10, 2007#2550

jlblues wrote:^What makes you think they'll even get to 400'? At 27 stories, I'd guess they might not even make 350' unless they add some sort of spire or other architectural schlock. In any case, don't hold your breath for those renderings. It is going to be awhile...


The closer the building is to the riverfront, the more presence it has on the typical St. Louis skyline photo. Based on the location of this building, 350' will still have an impact.
Read more posts (2210 remaining)
Share