BJC WUSTL Medical Center

framer · PostJan 24, 2008#12008-01-24T05:54+00:00

Interesting article in this week's West End Word about future plans for the medical center.

Sounds like quite a few buildings will be coming down, including the Ettrick Building at Euclid and Forest Park. Hate to see that one go, but its replacement will be 200,000 sq. ft., with the ability to add more floors later.

Also, no new buildings may be taller than the Park East Tower, and the City wants all new buildings along Forest Park Parkway to include street-level retail.

jmedwick · PostJan 24, 2008#22008-01-24T14:25+00:00

^ That's all good news. While I wouldn't mind things taller than the Park East (why couldn't they make the Chase Park Plaza as the max height mark), filling the district with 330 foot towers will still be both visually impressive and provide tons of opportunity to make the area very dense.

debaliviere · PostJan 24, 2008#32008-01-24T14:25+00:00

Framer wrote:Interesting article in this week's West End Word about future plans for the medical center.

Sounds like quite a few buildings will be coming down, including the Ettrick Building at Euclid and Forest Park. Hate to see that one go, but its replacement will be 200,000 sq. ft., with the ability to add more floors later.

Also, no new buildings may be taller than the Park East Tower, and the City wants all new buildings along Forest Park Parkway to include street-level retail.

Which one is the Ettrick?

castleman · PostJan 24, 2008#42008-01-24T15:40+00:00

the Ettrick is the brick building across Euclid from Tom's bar. It's the NW corner of Euclid and Forest Park Ave.[/quote]

debaliviere · PostJan 24, 2008#52008-01-24T16:31+00:00

castleman wrote:the Ettrick is the brick building across Euclid from Tom's bar. It's the NW corner of Euclid and Forest Park Ave.

[/quote]

Not good. That's an attractive building.

stlgasm · PostJan 24, 2008#62008-01-24T16:57+00:00

With all the vacant land throught the CWE, why does new construction almost always seem to involve tearing down existing buildings? Perfectly functional buildings are being obliterated while vast vacant lots remain unused. What is wrong with this city??!

Let's see... Magee's was torn down for a garden, the Doctor's Building is about to bite the dust, the Ettrick's days are numbered, and countless others have been lost over the years. Meanwhile, the American Heart Association building sits ugly and vacant, and the vast surface parking lots across from the Chase and at Euclid/Lindell have no plans for development.

Maybe we can thank the crybabies who so vehimently opposed BJC's acquisition of a useless sliver of Forest Park for the impending losses.

tb1000 · PostJan 24, 2008#72008-01-24T22:29+00:00

Some of the businesses in the Ettrick building have already closed. I have also heard that the building adjacent to it might also be coming down to make way for a bigger building.

drdrew · PostJan 24, 2008#82008-01-24T23:13+00:00

The Story:

http://www.westendword.com/moxie/news/g ... r-re.shtml

The Source:

http://stlcin.missouri.org/alderman/bbD ... ?BBId=3493

PostJan 24, 2008#92008-01-24T23:36+00:00

I'm not sure why they felt a need for a height limit- High-rise hospital buildings are a bit impractical due to the need to roll bedbound patients from floor to floor. If they want a 35-story hospital building though, why would we object?

The new resident clinic building will be great for the residents, and for their patients. Current clinic facilities for some of the departments, particularly OB/GYN, are deplorable. While I wish that Wash U had found a way to fit the building south of FP Avenue, the Ettrick is an underutilized building that really disrupted the pedestrian experience, with that depressed sidewalk section. They're really going to try to do this one right, with street-level retail, a pharmacy, optical shop, etc. Not sure when demolition will start; someone who should know said this winter, but I'd be surprised if it's that soon.

arch city · PostJan 25, 2008#102008-01-25T00:59+00:00

•"None of the buildings may be higher than 30 stories or the height of Park East Tower, the tallest building in the vicinity."

I'm with you DrDrew. Why the limit?

For the most part, I like the requirements. However, while height isn't everything, I long for the day that St. Louis gets over its fear of height.

In Houston, they are building super tall medical buildings throughout the Texas Medical Center. The TMC is booming and many new medical buildings that have come on line have been taller than some local skyscrapers. There's even a 35-story medical office tower going up in Houston's Memorial City area.

If there's a need to build medical facilities/offices taller than Park East in the designated zone, why not let it happen?

PostJan 25, 2008#112008-01-25T02:13+00:00

I don't think the Ettrick Building should be destroyed. Jive has a photo of the building.

Anyway, here is WUMC's campus layout.

Washington University Medical Center

framer · PostJan 25, 2008#122008-01-25T05:28+00:00

Egads that Houston building is hideous! Looks like something they'd build in Shanghai or Dubai. I don't mind tall, but how 'bout a little taste, please?

ben1040 · PostJan 27, 2008#132008-01-27T06:22+00:00

If there's useful retail space on the sidewalk level, I'm cool with it. The west side of Euclid just seems kind of drab, compared to the much greater number of shops (and people who patronize them) across the street.

I wish someone would have thought to make this street-level retail requirement back when Metrolofts was being built across Euclid. The Panera on the corner just doesn't cut it.

doug · PostJan 27, 2008#142008-01-27T19:17+00:00

William Ittner's Shriner Hospital and also the Central Institute for the Deaf are going to be demolished as well. Wednesday Morning, the Board of Aldermen are taking up the issue in the HUDZ Committee. They will vote to change the zoning thus allowing demolition. Roddy will push for it to be done and the rest will comply due to Aldermanic Courtesy. I love machine politics, don't you?

http://stlcin.missouri.org/alderman/bbD ... ?BBId=3493

Tell the members you don't support this action:

http://stlcin.missouri.org/alderman/com ... fm?ComId=1

Why the hell are we demolishing two Ittner buildings?

throatybeard · PostJan 30, 2008#152008-01-30T05:48+00:00

Tall's going to get harder and harder to heat and cool as energy prices go up in the future. 8-10 stories is the max you need...like the most attractive buildings in Downtown StL.

framer · PostJan 30, 2008#162008-01-30T06:19+00:00

Er, why would it be more expensive to heat/cool a tall, thin building as opposed to a short, fat building? Isn't square footage square footage?

drunkrusski · PostJan 30, 2008#172008-01-30T16:00+00:00

Framer wrote:Er, why would it be more expensive to heat/cool a tall, thin building as opposed to a short, fat building? Isn't square footage square footage?

This is totally a shot in the dark, but I would guess that it has to do with the fact that pushing air up several floors creates more of a distance needed for it to travel then if you had the same space laid out. This way you could have several different cooling/heating systems that were responsible for different parts of the building and they would only have to travel the distance for their area. If the building is tall, then the air would have to travel a longer distance up since the heating/cooling would still be in the basement, even if they are intended for the higher floors.

rbb · PostJan 30, 2008#182008-01-30T17:31+00:00

drunkrusski wrote:
Framer wrote:Er, why would it be more expensive to heat/cool a tall, thin building as opposed to a short, fat building? Isn't square footage square footage?

This is totally a shot in the dark, but I would guess that it has to do with the fact that pushing air up several floors creates more of a distance needed for it to travel then if you had the same space laid out. This way you could have several different cooling/heating systems that were responsible for different parts of the building and they would only have to travel the distance for their area. If the building is tall, then the air would have to travel a longer distance up since the heating/cooling would still be in the basement, even if they are intended for the higher floors.

I think that's a part of it. I was thinking there'll be more exterior wall area - and thus exposure to heat-leeching exterior windows and doors. Plus, the core of the building away from those walls is smaller. A smaller core is quicker to dissapate heat.

-RBB

drdrew · PostJan 31, 2008#192008-01-31T03:13+00:00

From VanishingSTL

This is a map, ostensibly from the zoning proposal, that shows the sites of new construction (green) and Possible demolition at the medical center in the near-to-mid future. I'm almost certain that not all of the buildings will be torn down, particularly 53 and 23. Those are actually the original Barnes hospital, hidden behind the main pavilion, and parts of that were included in the massive operating room renovations that Barnes is just now completing. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.

The plans explicitly state that both the shriner's and CID building's are being evaluated for remodeling or demolition. I have no idea about the CID building, but would be sorry to see it go. The original Shriner's building is also a gem, I wouldn't be surprised if the central building 8 is kept, with the two flanking structures 7 and 105 being demolished.

Finally, I'm thrilled to no end about one building marked in red, 80. This ugly old industrial building mars the taylor streetscape, and is a jarring contrast to the even uglier parking garage next to it. I wish they could both be removed, but the fact that 80 will be torn down and something new put at that corner warms the cockles of my heart.

http://vanishingstl.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... on-of.html

dmmonty1 · PostJan 31, 2008#202008-01-31T04:18+00:00

This is ridiculous! There are so many heinous pieces of architecture in the vicinity that should fall to the wrecking ball before they resort to tearing these beauties down. Shouldn't they be on the National Register?

tb1000 · PostMar 06, 2008#212008-03-06T02:34+00:00

hey, is that Joe Edward's hotel in that picture (2nd tallest building...on the left)

gone corporate · PostMar 06, 2008#222008-03-06T16:31+00:00

We shouldn’t fear the height limit.

First off, the BJC complex is one of the tallest clusters of hospital buildings in the world, with the Queeny Tower already tied for being the ninth tallest hospital tower in the world. And that’s before Biomed 21 is finished. Skyscraper heighth is not a problem for the BJC Complex.

Source: http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/ty/hs/

Also, is it so much of a crime that the new residential tower is to remain taller than the top of the hospital? I don’t think so. If I’m paying $3M for a penthouse, I want it to not necessarily be eclipsed by a helicopter landing pad.

It also helps establish a precedent for density. As mentioned above, I’d rather have a whole lot of 300’ building along Forest Park Avenue and clustered around the hospital complex than a hospital tower 600’ tall that is impractical by design.

As for the Ettrick Building, meh, it’s not that important. It’s a vacant hole amidst the life up and down the street. I’ve never thought to shop there; apparently, I’m not the only one, as no business located there is fighting the takeover. When you have one of the most modern and aesthetically pleasing advanced medical centers in the world across the street from a dumpy little brick shell, that’s eclipsed by a parking garage, it’s a low priority. Does it look like something that would attract investors to CORTeX?

With the new Shriners’ Hospital coming in, this little building, which all I can think of it holding is a liquor store, serves no substantive purpose in its present incarnation. If they have solid plans for the site that are better than anything the Ettrick could ever be, then by all means go for it. BJC & Wash U Med Center do own then, after all.

As with other buildings, if they’re that significant, then where are the preservationists willing to buy it?

If they’re out there, I’m sure they’ll make a play at the Ittners first.

jeff707 · PostMar 07, 2008#232008-03-07T15:50+00:00

The Ettrick was no good for the street -- why anyone thought building the first floor halfway below streetlevel, I'll never know.

Where did the idea of a heigth restriciton come in? Who cares? Why should Park East be the tallest? That seems so arbitrary.

On a positive note, the liquor store, the one place in that building I would be sad to see go, is just moving around the corner to the old Fortune Cookie spot on Laclede.

loftlaw · PostMar 08, 2008#242008-03-08T19:57+00:00

The UPS store is moving into the old Fortune Cookie space on Laclede. They have already switched the awnings over the storefronts, so the Fortune Cookie sign is hanging over the current UPS location. Perhaps the liquor store is moving in there?

jeff707 · PostMar 09, 2008#252008-03-09T01:44+00:00

LoftLaw wrote:The UPS store is moving into the old Fortune Cookie space on Laclede. They have already switched the awnings over the storefronts, so the Fortune Cookie sign is hanging over the current UPS location. Perhaps the liquor store is moving in there?

well, it's one of the two enpty spaces on either side of Rosie's. Must be the old India's Rasoi spot.