urbanSTL

meanwhile, in Toronto, entire rows of buildings are incorporated into new construction.

That's because it's Toronto, and market demand justifies the increased costs.  If there was anywhere near that much demand in St. Louis, we wouldn't have as many parking lots and vacant buildings downtown that we do.

urban_dilettante wrote:meanwhile, in Toronto, entire rows of buildings are incorporated into new construction.

BIG is a favorite firm of mine their website is relatively unique compared to other firms as well. I’m excited to see this project finish construction to see the built product and how well it maintained the design intent.

Sadly developers around here look at financials before aesthetics. Value engineering is fun.

^^ never heard that one before. all it would require is a setback (i.e. just don't demolish them) or an overhang with a few external piers. despite the lack of demand, it happens from time to time in St. Louis when developers are pushed to do more than the bare minimum.

There's quite a difference between "doing more than the bare minimum" and what you posted though.

^ it's an example. i'm not talking about building that or even changing the design of the proposed building, aside from accommodating the existing structures rather than bulldozing them. if there's anywhere in the region that can support such a thing, it's Clayton.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Sep 03, 2020

it's a gorgeous design. Toronto is something else. i realize that land isn't valuable enough in St. Louis to warrant projects of this magnitude, but it's like developers around here just don't GAF. raze everything, build cheap, and cash out seems to be the philosophy. (excepting, of course, some of the smaller local developers like Garcia, South Side Spaces, etc. that focus on rehabs.)

And often, even when they don't raze, and restore the historic building instead, it still somehow ends up looking like someone dropped a historic building in the middle of a Chesterfield highway off ramp development...

framer wrote: ↑

Sep 03, 2020

It's considered to be the first Modernist building in Missouri. It's historical. How it "interacts with the street" is irrelevant. 

Then they need to clean it up and make it something other than the DMV. Otherwise it will be bulldozed in the next 20 years anyway because it hasn’t been take care of correctly. At that point I still would have wished they would have just torn it down when this new building was built. I personally don’t care how historic it is if it isn’t going to be treated as such. Right now it definitely isn’t being treated like anything historic.

I used to preferentially go to the DMV in the round building on Lindell that was threatened by the CVS (PRO Link , NextStl Link , P-D Link ) just for the visual interest of it. If you have to wait in a DMV, it may as well be an interesting one. When I went to renew my driver's license recently, I found that they moved to the strip mall further west on Lindell, with the Schnuck's.

Here we go. Plans submitted to the Clayton Architectural Review Board and show up on the Pending Applications page.

Architect: Hord Coplan Macht (same as One Cardinal Way)
Developer: 2B Residential
Apartments: 242 Units (will include townhouse style units on Maryland)
Retail Space: 10,775SF
Parking Spaces: 346 in a partially underground garage
Primary face materials: Brick, cement panels, and glass
Amenities for the community: Wider sidewalks, 2-story restaurant at Maryland and Central, Plaza on Central, and burying of the power lines.
Cost: Not yet determined

Floor Plans...









Landscaping Plans...


Interior Renderings...




Exterior Renderings...











Shanley Building Renovation: Into minimal amenity space for the complex.

Is Esquina a thing?
Or is it there because it means "corner" in Spanish?

quincunx wrote:Is Esquina a thing?
Or is it there because it means "corner" in Spanish?

More than likely means “corner” than anything else

I wonder if a Maryland Walk style high rise would ever be tolerated on the USPS site.

That stretch of Maryland between Hanley and Bemiston is so prime and yet so much parking lot. 

Too bad they couldn't find a use for the Shanley building that would add some activity to that corner. Not likely anyone will ever use that Conference Room. Maybe the office rooms will get some use these days at least.

Look at all that sf for parking. 373 sf per space. A clue as to how much our auto-centric world consumes in space and wealth.

This project is so much more stomachable after that Kummer horror show. 

I am trying to figure out what is going on with the Maryland side. It looks like there are stairs up to 2 bedroom townhouses/apartments that only have that as an entrance. Interesting way to do it that I kind of like instead of just a blank wall of a garage. 

EDIT: I see that was mentioned in Chris' post. 

Maisonettes! Very New York. 

Stltoday- New Clayton luxury apartment plan saves historic Shanley

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/col ... 41a2d.html

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Sep 03, 2020

That's because it's Toronto, and market demand justifies the increased costs.  If there was anywhere near that much demand in St. Louis, we wouldn't have as many parking lots and vacant buildings downtown that we do.

Cincinnati:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=244015

when was the last time we saw a project like this in St. Louis?

^The Moonrise's preservation of its historic facade comes to mind. 

^ not really because the entire structure was demo'd and the facade rebuilt to resemble the original using mostly new materials. the structure behind the facade is all new.

the closest thing i can think of are the apartments (condos?) at 4530 Olive St., but that's just a "tower" plopped into the middle of a low-slung building with a large footprint so probably nowhere near as complex as the Cincinnati example.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Sep 25, 2020

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Sep 03, 2020

That's because it's Toronto, and market demand justifies the increased costs.  If there was anywhere near that much demand in St. Louis, we wouldn't have as many parking lots and vacant buildings downtown that we do.

Cincinnati:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=244015

when was the last time we saw a project like this in St. Louis?

Aside from the obvious that you would never get historic tax credits for that, the other major obstacle is that St. Louis has seismic design code requirements that Cincinnati does not. It's not impossible, but far more expensive here.