Just trying to get an idea of scale. I wonder if they would be smart enough to build this parking as a podium under a building. Would give them much better views for an admninistrative type building if they put the parking spaces under the occupied floors.
It's hard for me to get an idea of the parking situations. It's not clear to me if that's a net increase in parking, or if the plan is to construct garages containing that many spaces, some of which will come from existing surface lots or empty land. It's also not clear what buildings/populations (current or planned) the parking would be expected to serve. The first phase of expansion only adds ~200 hospital beds, so adding >2000 parking lots just to serve those additional patients, and ancillary staff increases, would be massive overkill. Parking definitely needs to be redistributed around campus but I don't see the need for any dramatic expansion in parking numbers. Hopefully once concrete plans are announced we'll get a better sense of things.
- 11K
Adding beds will only be one small part of the medical campus expansion. The area could be under-parked today, but who knows? Anecdotally, hundreds, likely thousands of med campus employees park in Forest Park, The Grove, etc. and walk to work.
It makes sense that they would want to make the change at this time though. Personally I don't mind the piping (HVAC I assume) on one side of the station but I do not think it fits in with the rest of the campus. They have gone to great extents to make everything look neat and this station speaks against that. I would think that the station is going to be even more significant to them in the future and that they would want it to be representative of the rest of the campus.Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I have no particular knowledge of plans for the MetroLink station, but if you check out the videos, etc. envisioning changes at the medical campus, you see a plaza with buildings and a covered - basically underground - station. I've been surprised at how determined the entities at the medical campus seem to be to get that station rebuilt. I guess they think the industrial-ish view upon arrival doesn't reflect well on a modern medical facility. The challenge is that they aren't really able to close the station (ala Grand), in my opinion, due to its heavy use. At least it appears that the idea of moving the station to Kingshighway is being left behind.
My only complaint with the station (actually with a lot/most of metro stations) is that one has to walk across the tracks to get to the platform. To me that just looks pathetic. Walking over tracks belongs in a small village where the train stops so infrequently that it almost doesn't make sense to have a station there. It must at least be a safety concern. I think St Louis is better than that.
- 11K
^ A lot of the T stations in Boston too, as well as all the commuter train stations.
I don't think people are parking in FPSE or Forest Park because parking isn't available on-campus, I think people park there because:Alex Ihnen wrote:The area could be under-parked today, but who knows? Anecdotally, hundreds, likely thousands of med campus employees park in Forest Park, The Grove, etc. and walk to work.
1. On-campus parking isn't free (prices vary based on location, but if you don't buy a parking pass a garage spot is $5/day)
2. Depending on where you work, your allotted spot on campus may be further away from your destination than parking in Forest Park or FPSE (especially for employees at Children's).
Thursday and Friday I walked around some of the garages to get a feel for how full they were at either 11:00 am or 3:00 pm, times when I thought the garages would be about as full as they would get. Basically, pretty much all surface lots were full, garages that serve patients/patients' families were pretty full, and employee garages were not. I think most of the cars parked in FPSE/Forest Park would not have trouble finding a space if they were willing to pay for it.
1. The garage under Hudlin park serves patients and employees and was ~95% full.
2. The garage next to the new outpatient building serves patients and employees and was ~80% full (upper floors mostly empty); it will probably fill up a bit once all the clinics are consolidated, but that should open up spots elsewhere on campus.
3. The garage next to Parkway Hotel also serves patients and was ~95% full, only a few spots open per level.
4. The Northwest Tower garage at Kingshighway and Children's Place serves patients and employees and was ~80% full, with the upper floor almost entirely empty
5. The employee garage at Clayton and Taylor was ~60% full; the upper two floors were almost entirely empty.
6. The employee garage at Duncan and Taylor was ~90% full.
7. The Children's employee garage at Duncan and Newstead was ~75% full, lot of available spaces on the upper levels.
8. The Metro garage was ~60% full; the upper 3 floors all had a few cars parked next to the elevator with the rest of the floor being empty; based on this I think building a garage at a Boyle/Sarah station would be a mistake.
I didn't check the pharmacy school garage since it's a separate institution and many of their students leave over the summer, but it looked pretty empty on the upper floors from the outside.
Summary: there is probably a need for more patient/family parking, especially with the expansion, but don't expect an increase in employee parking to take any cars out of FPSE or Forest Park.
- 11K
^ The garages would be more full if parking restrictions were in place in FPSE and Forest Park as residents have requested. The Alderman isn't supporting this request.
It is disappointing that when we talk about institutional progress with respect to old buildings, there are just two choices: Rehab or Raze to the ground. The third option of partial rehab/partial demolition for new construction is not even talked about most of the time.
An institution with resources like BJC's could lead the region by example. For instance what if they turned this:
![]()
into something like this (I apologize for the beige/teal tower
)
![]()
You would have a nod to the original Jewish Hospital building and a sleek glass tower to serve emerging needs. It would be one-of-a-kind and would convey at a glance where we come from and where we are going.
I am trying to be pragmatic when it comes to BJC's expansion needs but I just can't seem to justify in my mind the proposed total loss of history here.
An institution with resources like BJC's could lead the region by example. For instance what if they turned this:
into something like this (I apologize for the beige/teal tower
)
You would have a nod to the original Jewish Hospital building and a sleek glass tower to serve emerging needs. It would be one-of-a-kind and would convey at a glance where we come from and where we are going.
I am trying to be pragmatic when it comes to BJC's expansion needs but I just can't seem to justify in my mind the proposed total loss of history here.
Here's the latest, from NextSTL:
http://nextstl.com/central-corridor/bjc ... -expansion
(perhaps this needs its own thread?)
http://nextstl.com/central-corridor/bjc ... -expansion
(perhaps this needs its own thread?)
I walked by today to see if I was just romanticizing crappy old buildings....
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
They are classic brick and limestone. (sigh)
They are classic brick and limestone. (sigh)
^Beautiful buildings. Progress is good and while I understand the need to have modern structures/facilities facing the majestic park, these structures should be saved.
Why not renovate them into more lab space for biotech companies or into a prominent medical or mental health institute? An extension of St. Jude's? Or why not renovate the space into offices for private doctors (MDs, Optometrists, dentists etc.) - not necessarily associated with BJC. It's a medical center so why not allow other non-BJC medical professionals there too. BJC could sell the buildings to a developer who could turn them into medical and/or biotech offices. Or BJC could renovate them and charge rent i.e. make money. How about offering the buildings to the St. Louis College of Pharmacy before it spends $150-million on new buildings?
BJC has a shitload of land banked that can be built upon. A lot of parking lots need to be and can be built upon. While a modern wall view from Forest Park would make for a great snapshot, these buildings are too beautiful to be destroyed. With a little TLC they could fit perfectly into the medical center's ever-changing modern fabric.
Why not renovate them into more lab space for biotech companies or into a prominent medical or mental health institute? An extension of St. Jude's? Or why not renovate the space into offices for private doctors (MDs, Optometrists, dentists etc.) - not necessarily associated with BJC. It's a medical center so why not allow other non-BJC medical professionals there too. BJC could sell the buildings to a developer who could turn them into medical and/or biotech offices. Or BJC could renovate them and charge rent i.e. make money. How about offering the buildings to the St. Louis College of Pharmacy before it spends $150-million on new buildings?
BJC has a shitload of land banked that can be built upon. A lot of parking lots need to be and can be built upon. While a modern wall view from Forest Park would make for a great snapshot, these buildings are too beautiful to be destroyed. With a little TLC they could fit perfectly into the medical center's ever-changing modern fabric.
To the commenters worried about patients on gurneys, this one's for you
![]()
- 1,320
Thanks for taking care of the kids on gurneys 
Those are all great photos. I do hope some of that stonework can get repurposed somewhere, even if not here.
I did notice this weekend that the beautiful porch on the Jewish Hospital building had been removed sometime in the 1950s or 1960s and replaced with a pretty horrible addition which really destroyed the overall effect of the facade. With that exception, I really like the bottom twenty feet of skin along the facades of these buildings.
Above that? ... Meh. These buildings were designed to be functional and have little of note with respect to design or proportion. On a strictly formal level, these buildings were utilitarian boxes decorated around the base. Contrast these to the main building of SLU Hospital (a beauty!) and you'll get where I'm coming from. Here, though, if you take off the rest of that bottom twenty feet of skin, then there's not much left to like.
Don't get me wrong. I do really love that twenty foot ribbon of skin. The arches are beautiful, and at least one good porch remains. Losing the rest of this will be a loss of something good. At the same time, it is curtain wall. It's not even structural. It's the icing that made utilitarian buildings pleasant to drive past.
It seems like a lot to ask BJC to scratch the past decade of master planning and construction because of some attractive decorative curtain wall. That would seem like the tail wagging the dog. I'd want to be sensitive to the reality that this site is at the heart of BJC. This is the building that kids in Children's Hospital will use every day to get to the Siteman Center to use the advanced facilities that Children's doesn't have. Hospital design is unique in that it is patient-centric. I'd rather the architects design whatever is best for the patients, and do so with respect for the surrounding city. If they can propose a design that accomplishes that, then I'll be willing to give up the old curtain wall.
Those are all great photos. I do hope some of that stonework can get repurposed somewhere, even if not here.I did notice this weekend that the beautiful porch on the Jewish Hospital building had been removed sometime in the 1950s or 1960s and replaced with a pretty horrible addition which really destroyed the overall effect of the facade. With that exception, I really like the bottom twenty feet of skin along the facades of these buildings.
Above that? ... Meh. These buildings were designed to be functional and have little of note with respect to design or proportion. On a strictly formal level, these buildings were utilitarian boxes decorated around the base. Contrast these to the main building of SLU Hospital (a beauty!) and you'll get where I'm coming from. Here, though, if you take off the rest of that bottom twenty feet of skin, then there's not much left to like.
Don't get me wrong. I do really love that twenty foot ribbon of skin. The arches are beautiful, and at least one good porch remains. Losing the rest of this will be a loss of something good. At the same time, it is curtain wall. It's not even structural. It's the icing that made utilitarian buildings pleasant to drive past.
It seems like a lot to ask BJC to scratch the past decade of master planning and construction because of some attractive decorative curtain wall. That would seem like the tail wagging the dog. I'd want to be sensitive to the reality that this site is at the heart of BJC. This is the building that kids in Children's Hospital will use every day to get to the Siteman Center to use the advanced facilities that Children's doesn't have. Hospital design is unique in that it is patient-centric. I'd rather the architects design whatever is best for the patients, and do so with respect for the surrounding city. If they can propose a design that accomplishes that, then I'll be willing to give up the old curtain wall.
Je vous presente!
BJC's track record in the West End!....the reason I don't have much faith in their master plan as far as aesthetics and pedestrian experience go.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Some of these would make Drury Inn proud.
BJC's track record in the West End!....the reason I don't have much faith in their master plan as far as aesthetics and pedestrian experience go.
Some of these would make Drury Inn proud.
I think one focus of the plan is to have the campus interact with Kingshighay, and the Park in general, in a more pedestrian friendly manner. They want Kingshighway to be BJC's "front door". Also, the last building of your post, BJC's latest, added retail space to that stretch of Euclid. I'm not sure if they have a tenant yet, or have built it out for the planned gourmet food court they had planned, but it's certainly designed with the pedestrian in mind.
I agree. The outpatient building is the least grotesque of the group. That beige concrete though.... so uninspired....
- 1,320
I agree it's a lot of beige. But otherwise, I've actually been impressed by BJC's newest buildings over the past decade. They've hidden parking garages, have created interest at street level with storefronts or lobby entrances or (when not possible) public artwork. I actually enjoy the walk from Euclid and Laclede down to the Metro station. The transparency of the Siteman Center's perimeter at Euclid is great, given that they had to create a patient drop-off there.
Three more recent BJC structures:
BJC Institute of Health with Maya Lin installation:
![]()
![]()
![]()
BJC Outpatient Center with first floor retail:
![]()
BJC Siteman Center:
![]()
![]()
Three more recent BJC structures:
BJC Institute of Health with Maya Lin installation:
BJC Outpatient Center with first floor retail:
BJC Siteman Center:
- 2,929
From what I've heard from people within the BJC system, the old buildings are completely unsustainable. While the existing buildings may be historical, that doesn't change them from being old and functionally obsolete.
The primary goal of the new hospital's construction is and has been for improving patient care: increasing patient privacy and quality of care, both for adults and children, while they're staying there as ill people seeking to get healthy again. The goal for Children's Hospital is and has been to increase total services available while increasing care of the individual child patients. Aside from quality of patient stay considerations, the next highest consideration has been facilities integration, seeking best flow-through of medical staff & patients across disciplines / illness categories.
Meanwhile, for the preservationists, some good news within the BJC press release:
Still hoping they keep the old Shriners building...
The primary goal of the new hospital's construction is and has been for improving patient care: increasing patient privacy and quality of care, both for adults and children, while they're staying there as ill people seeking to get healthy again. The goal for Children's Hospital is and has been to increase total services available while increasing care of the individual child patients. Aside from quality of patient stay considerations, the next highest consideration has been facilities integration, seeking best flow-through of medical staff & patients across disciplines / illness categories.
Meanwhile, for the preservationists, some good news within the BJC press release:
And on a personal level, I think these recent schematics look really cool. I think we all agree that hospitals, more than any other type of building, must seek functionality over aesthetics, and I think they're mindful of both here.Mindful of the history of both Barnes and Jewish hospitals, a BJH team has been established to preserve significant historical artifacts such as cornerstones, other architectural features and portraits on the north campus. The architects will develop plans to incorporate some of these elements into new buildings.
Still hoping they keep the old Shriners building...
Anyone know if there has ever been any talk about raising Forest Park Ave to be at grade at Kingshighway?
- 8,155
I haven't; but have heard of talk from city about at grade for Forest Park and Grand as a possible way to deal with that mess.kmurph42 wrote:Anyone know if there has ever been any talk about raising Forest Park Ave to be at grade at Kingshighway?
- 1,320
Demolition approved. New buildings to open in 2017. Though this is not a surprise, I realize not everyone will be happy with this decision.
So far, we've only seen massing studies. I do look forward to seeing the actual plans for the site as they develop.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... itial.html
So far, we've only seen massing studies. I do look forward to seeing the actual plans for the site as they develop.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... itial.html
- 3,762
well, i guess we'd better hope the actual plans are good since there's nothing we can do about it now (not that there ever was anything we could do about it since the city gives its large employers free reign with regard to real estate).Presbyterian wrote:Demolition approved. New buildings to open in 2017. Though this is not a surprise, I realize not everyone will be happy with this decision.
So far, we've only seen massing studies. I do look forward to seeing the actual plans for the site as they develop.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... itial.html
and yes, i'm disappointed that they're not even preserving the street-level facade which, i would imagine, is well within their means.
- 1,320
Wash U to construct new $75 million LEED Silver research building on McKinley just west of Taylor, losing two surface parkng lots:
![]()
![]()
https://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/25524.aspx
https://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/25524.aspx