urbanSTL

john w. wrote:I can't share your appreciation, and, unfortunately for me, I'm sure that modernist's primitive formal study will remain in the St. Louis grid for a long time to come. The brutality of the geometric composition reminds me of a lot of Pei's work.

I can respect that. While I certainly wouldn't design a building using such primitive elements as circles and squares, it was an method that had it's time and place; however, the experiment has run its course. The building has value insofar as it offers a snapshot at a particular time in architectural discourse. It certainly won't go down as one of St. Louis best buildings, but I'd still prefer its bluntness it to the blandness of the surrounding watered-down "modernist" structures.

Well, then perhaps he's not the master that all usually inscrutibly confer onto him, and others. Ironically, the lifted corner now addresses (or could possibly now receive) whatever signs of life that is hoped to be present in the mall, invited there by the new sculpture garden. I'm not sure how you could describe something essentially cubic in volume, then bisected by the diagonal cutting plane into displaced masses as "streamlined". I presume you're referring to the mullion grid pattern of the curtain wall, but I would describe the assemblage as 'abrupt'. If there was some rotation of a third, separated mass about the cylindrical atrium core, then the composition might actually make a bit more sense by demonstrating the dynamic implied by the geometric masses in motion.

^ In my mind, anytime you have a design that has been reduced to such a basic geometry, it's streamlined by definition. The building is simply boiled down to it's most basic elements: a bisected square and a cylinder. The detailing of the curtain wall certainly plays into this, because you read pure volumes without differentiation between translucent and opaque surfaces, and no difference between the top and bottom edges of a given volume.



While you could accurately describe this lack of differentiation as "abrupt," that appears to be the point. One reads basic volumetric form without a material differentiation to denote floor heights etc. The interior spaces still express themselves through the mullion pattern, but definitely not in a immediate, materially defined way.



This minimalist quality can be somewhat boring though, so I can certainly understand any disdain for the building...even if I don't whole-heartedly agree.



Wait, what is this thread about again?

I think comments regarding the Johnson building don't stray much from the BPV considering its proximity and full exposure to the [development, I suppose], but I'd differ with your definition of 'streamlined'. Not to pick nits, but 'streamlined' would appear to allude to the lines of a stream, which are of course fluid, and not chunky and elemental, but I'll leave it at that. If an eventual lease occupant could host some lunchhour affairs in the 4 story tall void among the pilotis with food and attractions, then the grossly overscaled corner void might actually provide some worthy urban venue. Even the the similar base of the Citicorp building in Manhattan was designed to defer to a historic church (demolished during design anyway), and provides a home for the NYC Subway entrance plaza that both submerges from street and emerges from the platform around a surprisingly pleasant water wall and pocket resting place.

john w. wrote:Even the the similar base of the Citicorp building in Manhattan was designed to defer to a historic church (demolished during design anyway), and provides a home for the NYC Subway entrance plaza that both submerges from street and emerges from the platform around a surprisingly pleasant water wall and pocket resting place.

Yeah, that's a great example of void that reinforces the urban environment. When I had an internship in New York a couple years ago, this was the subway station I used to get to work. Coming out from the depths of the subway and moving into this space was a great experience... especially with the building seeming to fall at any moment with the (visually) unsupported corners looming over you.



As far as the void of Johnson's building, I can't help but think it felt much different when it was first built, before the Gateway One fiasco. I'm not positive because I never experienced it, but I suspect the void had a much different feeling when there was an unobstructed view of the Wainwright Building. And I'm in agreement with you on the fact that City Garden could possibly bring this space to life and help it realize it's potential as an urban space.



As for our differing views on the term "streamlined." While you're using the actual definition, I'm obviously using the term in a much more loose way. Yeah, it's obviously not streamlined in the sense of aerodynamic qualities. I should have come up with a better way to describe it being boiled down to its most fundamental elements.



Anyway, when BPV is finally built, it will definitely be a shame that Johnson's building has it's back to the development. A more fluid flow through the building on street level would be nice.

I'm still hopeful that a tower of some significance will be included in the total complex that is the BPV. I still believe it would be best if they busted up the site into smaller parcels for more individual development opportunity, but I believe a tower of some recognition will bring some needed identity to that area of south DT and make a nice backdrop for the home plate backstop cameraman's vantage point as well as from the press box. I love our historic architecture, but some powerfully progressive architecture is just as badly needed in this city as is preservation.

john w. wrote:I'm still hopeful that a tower of some significance will be included in the total complex that is the BPV. I still believe it would be best if they busted up the site into smaller parcels for more individual development opportunity, but I believe a tower of some recognition will bring some needed identity to that area of south DT and make a nice backdrop for the home plate backstop cameraman's vantage point as well as from the press box. I love our historic architecture, but some powerfully progressive architecture is just as badly needed in this city as is preservation.

I couldn't agree more. Every point you make is dead on. The only place on the site that a tower wouldn't work is the southeast corner because it would block the view of the Arch from inside the stadium.



And yeah, the city desperately needs some progressive architecture to move it into the 21st century. Besides, progressive architecture makes historic structures even better. Barcelona is the perfect example: buildings of various eras being juxtaposed creates an incredibly vibrant urban environment where each building becomes more important than they would be in a singular monotonous city.

Someone will need to tell Prince Charles.

john w. wrote: I love our historic architecture, but some powerfully progressive architecture is just as badly needed in this city as is preservation.

Wait a minute...aren't you the guy that just proposed tearing down one of the few buildings downtown that fits that description?

"Powerful[ly]"..."Progressive"... On the immediate face of your point I'll say touche, but will retain my opinion of the building and also say that the historic architecture I was referring to was and continues to be lost and is thoroughly irreplaceable. I was actually making a point about the need for our new, progressive architecture to be respectful of our old, irreplaceable architecture while also presenting a departure. I suppose you could apply that description to the Johnson building if you wish, but I still see it as an aloof sculpture sitting in an obvious urban grid, and that it's not especially interested in its surroundings. Like I said, I'll probably get shouted down for saying this, but...

how many more pages do you guys plan on discussing the Gen American building in the BPV thread? I didn't realize it was so difficult to use the search button. I realize your a noob (you made quite a splash) but you'll catch on, everyon does. I get off topic as much as the next guy but you all are on your 3rd page!

I've tried a couple of times (as you can see from above) to steer it back to the specific buildings in the BPV, but I started the tangent in the first place. Sorry, but good conversations tend to migrate a bit. I would ask that you leave what's been said thus far in the thread, and the matter of the Johnson building will end. Don't tase me, Bro!

If we only had something BPV-related to talk about...

DeBaliviere wrote:If we only had something BPV-related to talk about...

We will in a few weeks when the grass starts growing. The Cardinals will mow it every now and then, right?

I always thought the GenAm would make a good downtown satellite of SLAM for modern art, especially now that the new sculpture garden is nearby, and even Serra's infamous "Twain." Add more sculpture along the Market side of Gateway One and/or a museum cafe and you'd have a contiguous 3.5-block indoor/outdoor attraction with some freebies, as is St. Louis tradition.

And a landscaped roof (of the lower mass in the southeast corner) with bikini ladies and beer.

The Cardinal owners are now saying they can't spend more on free agents because, unlike other teams, they have to make payments on a new stadium.



Wait a minute. We liked the old stadium. But you told us you needed the new stadium to generate new revenue from new luxury sky-boxes so you could raise the money that would let you bid on high priced ballplayers and keep the team at the level fans expected. And we agreed, because we would get Ballpark Village out of the deal.



You can't have it both ways. Or, you can't have it all 3 ways. 1) New Stadium with Luxury skybox revenue. 2) No investment in Ballpark Village, 3) No investment in good free agents. But you do have it all 3 ways. I just watched "Cathedrals of the Game" on the MLB channel. They had a full episode on Busch Stadium -- the old one. It really was a cathedral with the flying buttresses crown roof.



We should have realized Ballpark Village was a hoax. When you re-arrange the letters in Ballpark Village, it spells:

A BILK. ALL P-GRAVEL.

I always assumed the Cardinals would simply accept whatever penalty might be incurred for reneging on development promises tied to the original stadium financing, and sever ties with the remainder of the undeveloped land. It would just be easier for them to absorb a known cost (penalty) that can be calculated for long-term implications, then to continue to toggle between all-inclusive schemes, and schemes, and schemes, and...

Slay should threaten eminent domain.



Of course, this gives rise to the question of whether Slay could actually do it if he wanted to.

I think Slay is begging Dewitt & Cordish to splash a new set renderings right before the April Mayoral election because his hands are tied by allowing a new agreement to be signed off on. If he was ablet to do anything, he blew it by not handing Centene a slice of the pie through eminent domain (would have been a great way to break up the property while getting a solid DT tenant willing to build a new office tower in short order). My hope still rests on Stifel Nichols. They want some premium corner offices overlooking the ballfied and they have to be the only game in town for Cordish.

Maybe it's a blessing in disguise the BPV hasn't gotten off the ground.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ ... TE=DEFAULT