urbanSTL

This question has really been hanging around with me over the last few weeks. After getting some input from friends in architecture, I think I'm more confused about the building process , how projects begin, evolve, and eventually come to fruition in various markets around the world.

An interesting comment from one of them (paraphrasing): the most striking exterior design doesn't always equate to the most functional or practical use of the external and internal space.

When we look at our "faux-historical crap", without intimate knowledge of how the interior flows and what the desired use of the space is, the budget, and what the client truly wanted, we only see a small piece of the puzzle. There are always reasons why a building looks the way it looks that go beyond a propensity for a certain style.

Another few interesting observations were potentially higher labor cost in St. Louis with the necessity of using unions. Also, whenever an abstract or extreme design is drawn by an architect, contractors usually charge a premium just to review it because of the extra time it takes to interpret the plans. The more the design breaks the mold of what contractors are used to dealing with, the more it will cost. If that cost is not feasible for the client, or the contractor convinces them they could save $xx,xxx by reducing the complexity of the design, then the idea can change in a hurry.

^Yes, that is a classic example of the complicated process.....

In that case, the first firm was hired for conceptual design ideas to help give the client an idea of what they wanted. The initial rendering was great, and they probably liked it. After adjustments were requested based on what they actually figured out they wanted (which was a mixture of indoor and outdoor usage with a courtyard connecting the existing and new buildings) and the associated costs, the working relationship between the first firm and the client broke down leading to the firm being fired.

The topography upon which the new building was built proved to add additional challenges for construction as well and played a role in the selection of the layout and details. You are dead on in the barn interpretation as that was the inspiration for the design. Laumeier's land once held a farm which included a large barn. The client liked the idea of the barn as enhancing the indoor/outdoor experience for their event space. The "pre-fab" look actually includes curved steel that was unique enough to cause many problems between contractor and designer throughout the process.

It is one thing to say STL has a paucity of good design. It is another to have it and have people not like it. What is better? To have a ton of weird, cool buildings that don't actually provide exactly what is or was needed? Or buildings that may not visually surprise, yet yield satisfied clients? In a perfect world, the combination of the two would manifest all the time, but then every building ever built would be a real shocker and that certainly isn't the case, even in cities known for great architecture. It is an interesting question which I'm sure there are many answers depending on one's perspective.

Like any piece of art, some may adore it, others abhor it. In the case of commissioned art, the client's satisfaction is really all that matters. You say what a shame, meanwhile the satisfied client says thank you for providing us with exactly what we wanted.

So basically today's builders in St. Louis (but not numerous other cities) lack the skills to efficiently build stuff that isn't garbage.

C'mon, man. A lot of time, effort, and money gets invested into these pieces of "garbage." Go tell that to the folks at Laumeier. Better yet, stand in someone's front lawn and tell them their new house is garbage.

It's not garbage if it fulfills a need. You may not like it, and that's the beauty of diversity, but don't insult the process. Architecture includes function and establishing a practical relationship between space and user. It's not a visual image in a vacuum. Fulfilling those needs is a level of success that people don't think about because you can't experience that from looking at a picture.

I think limitations of builders definitely play a role but that centers on costs. Why isn't every house or building that's built customized with every bell, whistle, and unique detail oozing with individuality? That process is not affordable for the majority of clients from private residence to corporate construction.

Edit: I just looked back and the Laumeier case referenced above won an AIA Award in 2013.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/prin ... wards.html

The fact that the published business journal rendering looks to represent a third iteration of what was constructed again shows how arduous a process it can be for the client and team to decide what is desired and/or feasible.

In terms of the other projects being constructed in other cities, whose to say there aren't various other renderings that were
much cooler and the end product, while great, could have been better?

^ holy crap that's quite a company name!

Interesting. I wonder how strongly the clients considered alternative locations.

I don't understand why that was a controversial design. It's a nice design and nicely executed.

Detroit is about to break ground on this-- it will be built on what is now a surface parking lot:



http://detroit.curbed.com/2016/2/18/110 ... dy-by-2018

Compare this attractive development to the Aventurda and Low Standard.

Various versions of the opus development on Lindell looked a bit like that. The look hardly pushes St. Louis' boundaries. How about something more like this:



The Detroit rendering does have more taste...

^Yes, the color comes from all the melted down abstract art SLU had sitting around.