urbanSTL

Question on the shanly building. I was in it a couple weeks ago and based on the inside there wasn't really much about it that told me this needs any kind of saving. Do we know what the original inside was like? Does the inside have any significance or are we just looking at the outside?  

I get some people obviously think it needs saved but I personally wouldn't bat an eye if it got torn down. It is interesting, sure, but I don't personally see it in its current shape as anything special. Just always being a small office doesn't do much for me and it seems out of place. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I just didn't know if some restoration to the inside would make it more appealing. 

^Can't speak to the interior. The style of architecture doesn't do much for me and I'm in the same boat regarding this specific preservation fight. Also keenly aware of the slippery slope that is and the issues with personal/current taste contributing to preservation.

I know this has been universally ridiculed yesterday/today, but if there's momentum behind a preservation attempt and the best the developer can propose is the above? Well I don't quite care what the building is, error on the side of preservation and save it to build equity for substantial attempts at preservation I care about in the future. If it was even a halfway decent proposal? See ya - couldn't care less about the existing building.

delete

^Oh, the chevron upholstery. :) That's a really very nice interior. I love the stair, the light fixtures, the glass block. And the furnishing were lovely.

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.

This is most likely true. LG I believe was contracted for the construction documents. The design was pretty much set in stone the minute Kummer walked in the door. I don't know if you know Fred, but he is a, uhh, challenging client. Believe me that I'm positive that every architect at LG wanted to change this project in anyway possible. Unfortunately that's not an option. Ultimately, it's his money and he can build what he wants with it, pending review board of course. Which is pretty much the last line of defense, and what everyone is hoping for.

The fireplace is still there in the room where you renew your license plates. It might be that third photo, it's hard to tell.

Where does one even start to provide feedback on this? Maybe, “go back to the drawing board.” Or “please hire an actual architect and don’t try and design this in house.”

Here's a better view of the fireplace:

Question - if this hideous pink building gets built and replaces the Shanley building, in 50 years when they want to rip down the pink monster, will people freak out and try to preserve it because it's historic?

Honestly that's pretty much my thought on the Shanley building. Other than being designed by someone with a semi-famous name in architectural circles, there really isn't any redeeming quality. It's ugly, dilapidated, adds zero to the urban fabric of downtown Clayton. 

Jbacott, without digging into it too much, part of the significance of the Shanley (whether you appreciate its style or not) is that it was part of an entirely new style of architecture (the international school) coming to St. Louis and the Midwest. Same goes for the San Luis or Del Taco saucer (which represent a different style, but also inspired both a preservation fight from some and head scratching as to why from others).

The aesthetic of what’s being proposed has already been thoroughly explored across numerous tired, second tier Gulf Coast beach communities. Basically, it’s not simply that the Shanley is 50 years old, but that it added something new to the city’s architectural vernacular.

Although, now that I think of it, I don’t think the 70’s Florida condo trash school of architecture has any true representation in St. Louis. So maybe this would be saved.

Separately, I was a bit surprised to see in the Business Journal article that the units are proposed to be between 2,000 and 4,000 square feet. That seems really huge to me, but I guess the Crescent and Plaza buildings are mostly 2,000+ sf units? Quite the contrast in terms of sq.ft with the rental units that have been going up in the CWE.

I think someone may have already posted this but preservationists are doing a lecture and rally tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. at the St Louis Artists Guild at the old Clayton Famous Barr (Wash U West Campus). They'll walk to the Shanley Building afterward. 

stlnative wrote:

This is most likely true. LG I believe was contracted for the construction documents. The design was pretty much set in stone the minute Kummer walked in the door. I don't know if you know Fred, but he is a, uhh, challenging client. Believe me that I'm positive that every architect at LG wanted to change this project in anyway possible. Unfortunately that's not an option. Ultimately, it's his money and he can build what he wants with it, pending review board of course. Which is pretty much the last line of defense, and what everyone is hoping for.

I feel like maybe Fred only had beige, charcoal, gray, and pink Duplo blocks to play with when he was a kid.

This thing looks like something someone that was 90 would think looks good.

I’m really skeptical of this whole “entertainment district” plan they are now touting.

When I think of St. Louis’ marquee entertainment districts I think of The Loop, The Grove, Cherokee Street and to a lesser extent Wash Ave, Grand Center and perhaps Maplewood. And Laclede’s Landing as now being more or less defunct.

What do they all have in common? Intact stretches of historic storefronts (although GC could use some more continuity / use of its storefronts). And yet this development plans on replacing one of Clayton’s only similar streets!!!!

Of course BPV is maybe more what they’re going for, but it has a built in driver of 3+ million visitors a year, with additional support from other major events Downtown. And BPV was built in a parking lot, not on an already viable stretch of actual “village” or “district”!

A BPV-like concept and Clayton just don’t really make sense to me. And without that major driver of automatic traffic, I don’t see the carousing crowd making their way to DT Clayton. Which I also don’t see Claytonians wanting in the first place.

It just seems like a really odd strategy for the developer to take. Let’s tear down one of Clayton’s most beloved stretches of bars, restaurants and shops for an “entertainment district”, which is the one thing we think Clayton is missing. What??!!

This project will not get approved as presented. It’s ugly and too tall. The city doesn’t want another Maryland Walk where the high rise looms over the adjacent residential areas. There are plenty of lots closer to the center of Dowtown where higher floor counts are appropriate.

Regarding the entertainment district. This simply relaxes the required alcohol to food ratio of from the current 50/50 to 75/25. It also allows for outdoor music. The goal is to attract things like for example, a Jazz/ Blues Bar.
Personally I would be shocked if the buildings along Central are torn down and/or not replaced with comparable human scale type structures.

moorlander wrote: This project will not get approved as presented.  It’s ugly and too tall.  The city doesn’t want another Maryland Walk where the high rise looms over the adjacent residential areas.  There are plenty of lots closer to the center of Dowtown where higher floor counts are appropriate.  

Regarding the entertainment district.  This simply relaxes the required alcohol to food ratio of from the current 50/50 to 75/25.  It also allows for outdoor music.  The goal is to attract things like for example, a Jazz/ Blues Bar.
Personally I would be shocked if the buildings along Central are torn down and/or not replaced with comparable human scale type structures.

except another maryland walk would be a massive improvement.

....

i get the shanley building issue, but damn, gutting the pre-war heart of clayton out? there should be a "save historic restaurant row" or something group.

Clayton planning commission chairman is ripping this apart in the meeting. I didn't think it would go over all that well but I didn't expect a planning commission person to rip it apart like this. 

Even mentions he doesn't see a variance from the 4 story max height. 

You can follow here. https://twitter.com/michaelcalhoun

Good this thing is ugly ass hell. Clayton would be blind to allow something so homogeneous like this get approved. There’s zero creativity to this development


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk