Since so many high-rise elevators omit floor number "13", I've often wondered how many 20 story buildings are actually only 19 stories tall. And what do they do in Europe; what we call the 2nd floor, they refer to as the 1st floor.
Yeah, but this building gives NOTHING. It's not about geometrical shapes either. The building seems to be minimalist in approach and whether it was designed purposefully to be so, I don't know.urban_dilettante wrote:As with every project built nowadays, it could use more texture (preferably some exquisitely detailed teracotta) but I think there's something to be said for not straying too far away from traditional urban form in most places. I mean, late 19th/early 20th century cities were visual feasts not because the buildings were all sorts of ridiculous geometric shapes but because they were elaborately and variably decorated.
Nonetheless, I could see something as simple as a LED canopy (or halo) extending from the rooftop - like what is planned for Lindell Residences - to give it more character.
Ever been to New York? London? Los Angeles? or even Chicago? Variety, options, diversity are the spices of life.urban_dilettante wrote:While I certainly appreciate imagination, I'm not so sure that infinite variety makes for a livable, comfortable urban experience. IMO.
The building in its current form definitely would be an enhancement to the site, but it would still fall short of what St. Louis truly deserves.quincunx wrote:Current conditions.
Thanks for the shot.
- 3,762
i could get behind something like that. i'm just saying i'll take a simple design using tried-and-true materials and good form 80% of the time over something experimental.arch city wrote:Nonetheless, I could see something as simple as a LED canopy (or halo) extending from the rooftop - like what is planned for Lindell Residences - to give it more character.
i've been to New York, London, and Chicago and while those places have more visually "cutting edge" buildings than St. Louis they also have many many more traditional buildings than they have "cutting edge" buildings. i'm not opposed to "cutting edge" i just think too much "cutting edge" makes a city look like a theme park (many Londoners are none too happy about some of London's modern skyscrapers). IMO the ratio of new "cutting edge" to all new construction should be something like 2/10. granted St. Louis isn't even getting 1/10 at the moment but i guess i'm just partial to the design of the Loop building.arch city wrote:Ever been to New York? London? Los Angeles? or even Chicago? Variety, options, diversity are the spices of life.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a minimalist design; while it is a bit polarizing, many people appreciate the clean lines and purity of form.
But for modern minimalism to work the materials need to be above average. Think of the Chipperfield addition to the art museum. It's very 'plain' in design, but the glass and facade are top-notch, lending a premium feel. The simplicity of design lets the construction materials themselves speak to the observer, imbuing the design with a sense of permanence and place.
This is not to say that Clayco has to build the building to the standards set by Chipperfield, and neither is this design purely minimalist in the strictest sense. But the idea is the same - absent extravagant ornamentation, the cladding is what will speak to the observer as to the quality of the building itself. if Clayco builds the tower in the renders clad with EIFS and lowest-bidder glass panels, it is gonna look just plain cheap. But clad the same thing in, say a quality polished concrete aggregate and good glass, and the same design all the sudden looks streamlined and sleek.
I hope Clayco isn't going to build to the cheapest possible price point, but I do understand they're not building this out of pure altruism; they're expecting to make money on it. If they can find an acceptable compromise I'm sure that design can look just fine.
-RBB
But for modern minimalism to work the materials need to be above average. Think of the Chipperfield addition to the art museum. It's very 'plain' in design, but the glass and facade are top-notch, lending a premium feel. The simplicity of design lets the construction materials themselves speak to the observer, imbuing the design with a sense of permanence and place.
This is not to say that Clayco has to build the building to the standards set by Chipperfield, and neither is this design purely minimalist in the strictest sense. But the idea is the same - absent extravagant ornamentation, the cladding is what will speak to the observer as to the quality of the building itself. if Clayco builds the tower in the renders clad with EIFS and lowest-bidder glass panels, it is gonna look just plain cheap. But clad the same thing in, say a quality polished concrete aggregate and good glass, and the same design all the sudden looks streamlined and sleek.
I hope Clayco isn't going to build to the cheapest possible price point, but I do understand they're not building this out of pure altruism; they're expecting to make money on it. If they can find an acceptable compromise I'm sure that design can look just fine.
-RBB
I can see that for the tower, thanks. Is the retail facade clad in a different color brick, then? And is it actual brick , brick panels, or precast concrete imitation brick? This is where a higher-res render would help...quincunx wrote:Clayco said they intend to clad it in brick.
-RBB
I don't know. Clayco didn't address that specifically. I presume we'll find out when it's run by the SD Historical committee, CRo, et al.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I can appreciate minimalist design, but as you stated it can be polarizing.rbb wrote:There's nothing inherently wrong with a minimalist design; while it is a bit polarizing, many people appreciate the clean lines and purity of form.
But for modern minimalism to work the materials need to be above average. Think of the Chipperfield addition to the art museum. It's very 'plain' in design, but the glass and facade are top-notch, lending a premium feel. The simplicity of design lets the construction materials themselves speak to the observer, imbuing the design with a sense of permanence and place.
This is not to say that Clayco has to build the building to the standards set by Chipperfield, and neither is this design purely minimalist in the strictest sense. But the idea is the same - absent extravagant ornamentation, the cladding is what will speak to the observer as to the quality of the building itself. if Clayco builds the tower in the renders clad with EIFS and lowest-bidder glass panels, it is gonna look just plain cheap. But clad the same thing in, say a quality polished concrete aggregate and good glass, and the same design all the sudden looks streamlined and sleek.
I hope Clayco isn't going to build to the cheapest possible price point, but I do understand they're not building this out of pure altruism; they're expecting to make money on it. If they can find an acceptable compromise I'm sure that design can look just fine.
-RBB
The dilemma is certainly the materials, which is why I acquiesced a little and suggested the final design could turn out better than the rendering. But I don't see Clayco going out of the way for high quality materials for this project. The area is not that mature price-wise. I could be wrong.
With that said, I have no problem with SLAM's minimalist East Wing. I fully get its context (and contrast) in relation to Forest Park, the Grand Basin and the original Beaux Arts building. While some people may view the new East Wing as plain and underwhelming, I see the new East Wing as beautiful, sleek, calming and yet quietly regal. It's hidden for a purpose.
The Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts building, on the other hand, looks like a bunker externally. It's a sterile and cold-looking building. However, the lines (both inside and out) of the museum compensate for the bunkerish cold exterior. I think finding a hill (or slope) in Forest Park near a lake for it would have been better. Just my opinion.
Minimalist projects, in my opinion, deserve the right settings. Not sure if this design is right for the Delmar Loop. Maybe Grand Center or CWE (north of Lindell)?
In my next post, I am going to post photos and renderings of minimalist residential towers.
^Could you start a different thread for that since it applies to so many of the new projects in St. Louis?
A minimalist residential tower planned for Toronto. Appears to be no balconies.
![]()
![]()
The Selby, Toronto
Click for larger rendering HERE
The Selby, Toronto
Click for larger rendering HERE
There's already a thread HERE.quincunx wrote:^Could you start a different thread for that since it applies to so many of the new projects in St. Louis?
I think as long we continue to discuss Clayco's proposal without veering too far off track, I think we're okay.
The Optima Center I & II, Chicago. Modern minimalist, no balconies.
OneEleven, Chicago
Horrendous minimalist residential high-rises under construction in The Philippines.
![]()
One Castilla Place, Quezon City, The Philippines
![]()
The Pearl, Manila, The Philippines
One Castilla Place, Quezon City, The Philippines
The Pearl, Manila, The Philippines
- 8,155
^ Dan Gilbert is planning a 13 story tower in downtown Detroit filled with micro-apartments... it'll be interesting to see the design when renderings come out.
- 8,915
For an "arts and entertainment district" this is so bland. Needs more color. St. Louis can look so dreary in the winter and that's partly because all of our buildings are earth tones. Maybe some funky colorful lighting?
- 1,044
I can't help but also feel disappointed in the design. One only has to look a couple blocks west to see how poor the Moonrise turned out. Fear this will be more of the same.
^I do. It just looks very cheap and low-budget. I rather like the new apartment proposal, though. Go figure.
This project has a different architect, developer, and construction company than the Moonrise. So there's really no reason to fear that they'll be similar at all. Unless that's based on some perceived similarity between the designs, which seem pretty different.
Zoning variance?
LOOP CENTER NORTH LLC Building 12/15/2015 MULTI FAM/COMM $0.00 Description: CONSTRUCT MULTI FAM & COMMERCIAL BUILDING PR PLN(ZONING ONLY
LOOP CENTER NORTH LLC Building 12/15/2015 MULTI FAM/COMM $0.00 Description: CONSTRUCT MULTI FAM & COMMERCIAL BUILDING PR PLN(ZONING ONLY
- 1,320
^That's usually what that means. The site is currently zoned for neighborhood commercial, which wouldn't support mixed-use residential without a zoning change.
Article in the PD with a more refined rendering.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 417cb.html
![]()
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 417cb.html
