Well then, I guess we can chalk this up to The Lawrence Group being very good at giving their clients exactly what they want.chriss752 wrote:The Lawrence Group.urbanitas wrote:Who is the design architect on this? HBE?
That brick color often doesn't come across on renderings very well. I suspect the actual color would be much like the Ritz-Carlton.goat314 wrote: I agree with the South Beach Miami comment. Pink Salmon buildings have no business in any skyline outside of Florida and California.
This is truly awful. Really just bad, bad, bad. It's like 1960s public housing bad. Shockingly, face-slappingly bad. Revolting. Stomach turningly bad. I-don't-think-I'll-be-able-to-sleep-tonight bad.
- 595
Hey this is the new Griesedieck Residence Hall but in Clayton.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It looks like they walked into Lawrence Group and said, "We'd like it to look kind of like a Drury Inn & Suites but much more dumbed down."
The braindead design is accentuated by its interaction with the streetscape. This thing is an absolute fortress.
I thought 212 Meramec was bad/boring - at least it has a corner restaurant with outdoor seating.
The braindead design is accentuated by its interaction with the streetscape. This thing is an absolute fortress.
I thought 212 Meramec was bad/boring - at least it has a corner restaurant with outdoor seating.
As someone who lives fairly close to Clayton, I’ve been pretty happy with the Clayton developments but this is straight trash. There is no excuse for no street level retail on bemiston. They are even tearing down some for the tower, at least put some into it. Not that this block of bemiston has much going on, but still. At least they are burying the parking. So for that I am happy. Hopefully the review board pushes back some. Usually it is hard for me to get to upset when there are no incentives but this can and should be better.
- 6,117
Aw, c'mon! I don't know a single 1960s housing project that was half that bad when it was new. You're being remarkably unfair there . . . to Darst Webbe qand Pruit Igoe.framer wrote: This is truly awful. Really just bad, bad, bad. It's like 1960s public housing bad. Shockingly, face-slappingly bad. Revolting. Stomach turningly bad. I-don't-think-I'll-be-able-to-sleep-tonight bad.
It really looks like it was designed by HBE.chriss752 wrote:The Lawrence Group.urbanitas wrote:Who is the design architect on this? HBE?
This has to be one of plays where they start with something awful and then "compromise" with the NIMBYs (and the preservationists in this case) by improving the design. There is no way anyone is taking this design seriously.
- 2,620
Good god this looks like somewhere Lucille Bluth from Arrested Development would live. This screams "cheesy vacation condo" but in the heart of a thriving CBD. Also replacing two productive retail bays for no retail? Have we learned nothing?
- 1,792
The tower design is fine as far as I am concern. They could paint it purple for all i care.
But removing the block of retail on Central should be instantly disqualifying. They might not bring in equivalent property tax revenues but that block is the soul of Clayton if it has one. Clayton doesn't really need this project bad enough to sell their soul for, and there are other places to build it within the CBD. If they remove that block i will literally never have a reason to visit Clayton.
But removing the block of retail on Central should be instantly disqualifying. They might not bring in equivalent property tax revenues but that block is the soul of Clayton if it has one. Clayton doesn't really need this project bad enough to sell their soul for, and there are other places to build it within the CBD. If they remove that block i will literally never have a reason to visit Clayton.
- 1,610
Seems more like somewhere Lucille Austero would live, frankly.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: Good god this looks like somewhere Lucille Bluth from Arrested Development would live. This screams "cheesy vacation condo" but in the heart of a thriving CBD. Also replacing two productive retail bays for no retail? Have we learned nothing?
It honestly looks like he's paying tribute to the Pruitt-Igoe buildings.
It looks like that’s partially true, but that between 1 and 2 levels of parking are at grade to above ground (due to the southward sloping topography), which is the reason for the complete blank wall and absence of retail around the entire base.jshank83 wrote:At least they are burying the parking.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm almost 100% sure members of Kummer's team had a role in the design too. My bet: They are likely 60 and over - and lifelong St. Louisans. After the forward-looking designs (like 100 and OCW - in the city mind you) how could a firm agree to conjure up this vomit. I'm sure old people did this. This design sets back The Lawrence Group. For me, not even a fancy HD 3-D, AR fly-through could redeem this big monstrosity.
This is not a progressive design at all. This is a project Clayton NIMBYS need to nix.......ASAP.
This is not a progressive design at all. This is a project Clayton NIMBYS need to nix.......ASAP.
You're probably right. Let's say 1960s era Soviet-Bloc housing.symphonicpoet wrote:Aw, c'mon! I don't know a single 1960s housing project that was half that bad when it was new. You're being remarkably unfair there . . . to Darst Webbe qand Pruit Igoe.framer wrote: This is truly awful. Really just bad, bad, bad. It's like 1960s public housing bad. Shockingly, face-slappingly bad. Revolting. Stomach turningly bad. I-don't-think-I'll-be-able-to-sleep-tonight bad.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could just be that Lawrence Group is the architect of record, while another firm or individual is responsible for the design.
Maybe Chris would be able to speak to that.
Maybe Chris would be able to speak to that.
There is 0% chance that this design will pass as currently proposed. The Clayton NIMBYs that we get so frustrated by in regards to other projects will be our allies in this instance. I think almost anyone can see that this rendering makes the Robert Taylor Homes look warm and inviting in comparison. On top of the architecture of the tower itself, there's also the controversy surrounding the Shanley Building. And the most nonsensical part of all this is that the development calls for demolishing an intact row of historic, attractive, pedestrian-scaled occupied storefronts only to replace them with a new 1-story retail block completely devoid of charm, character or beauty. The proposal before us is almost comically bad.
Correction: The proposal before us IS comically bad.stlgasm wrote: The proposal before us is almost comically bad.
My understanding is that some folks from HBE Corp’s Architecture division were retained for this and aided in the design process. The Lawrence Group was the head architect but the input from Kummer and associated architects led us to this design.wabash wrote:Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could just be that Lawrence Group is the architect of record, while another firm or individual is responsible for the design.
Maybe Chris would be able to speak to that.
"Head architect" implies Lawrence Group is the architect of record, while the HBE folks are acting as design architect. That would explain this proposal.chriss752 wrote:My understanding is that some folks from HBE Corp’s Architecture division were retained for this and aided in the design process. The Lawrence Group was the head architect but the input from Kummer and associated architects led us to this design.wabash wrote:Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could just be that Lawrence Group is the architect of record, while another firm or individual is responsible for the design.
Maybe Chris would be able to speak to that.
For those new to the region, HBE designed hospitals. Everything they have designed for the last 40 years had a particular "style" and it hasn't changed in all that time. A few decades ago they also did Adam's Mark hotels and their HQ building at 11330 Olive Blvd.
See the resemblance?
stlgasm wrote: There is 0% chance that this design will pass as currently proposed. The Clayton NIMBYs that we get so frustrated by in regards to other projects will be our allies in this instance. I think almost anyone can see that this rendering makes the Robert Taylor Homes look warm and inviting in comparison. On top of the architecture of the tower itself, there's also the controversy surrounding the Shanley Building. And the most nonsensical part of all this is that the development calls for demolishing an intact row of historic, attractive, pedestrian-scaled occupied storefronts only to replace them with a new 1-story retail block completely devoid of charm, character or beauty. The proposal before us is almost comically bad.
This petition has reached over 1000 signatures. 1004, to be exact, at the time of this postsymphonicpoet wrote: So my cousin that works for the fancy pants architecture firm downtown posted a petition about the Shanley building. I think this could stand to be here as well.
To the Mayor of Clayton: Save the Shanley Building