Abomination at Chippewa and Brannon

framer · PostMay 13, 2007#12007-05-13T04:33+00:00

Has anyone noticed the god-awful metal shed that has been added to the roof of the medical building at Chippewa and Brannon? It's freaking huge! It absolutely destroys the look of an otherwise impressive neighborhood landmark.

How did this happen?

ntbpo · PostMay 13, 2007#22007-05-13T07:32+00:00

I have noticed and it is friggin disgusting! Why they have decided to add this to such a beautiful corner building I have no idea. (storage?, apartment?, ac units?) I dont care it sucks.

MattnSTL · PostMay 13, 2007#32007-05-13T15:03+00:00

While a construction worker tried claiming it was for elevator coverage, according to Geo St. Louis it will be office space. They also got caught working without a permit as I suspected. That is why the whole city needs architectural review, because this is horrible.

stellar · PostMay 14, 2007#42007-05-14T02:00+00:00

That is such a beautiful building. I've been watching the progress for weeks thinking that at some point it was going to turn a corner and look really cool. Some modern sort of skylight or something that would be an asset to the structure, but it continues to get worse. I think they put vinyl siding on it last week. It's amazing what an eyesore it is. I was hoping it was going to be a cabana for a rooftop pool. That would be cool. Unfortunately...

brickandmortar · PostMay 14, 2007#52007-05-14T14:08+00:00

I saw this just the other day and I concur, it looks like crap. Ecology of Absence did a post on this back in March.

http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/2007/03/ ... lding.html

threeonefour · PostMay 15, 2007#62007-05-15T16:31+00:00

It's bloody awful. I get the urge to vomit every time I see it.

I agree with Matt- the entire city needs architectural review. The built environment here is one of our greatest assets, and it seems like developers and property owners keep finding new ways to eff it up.

debaliviere · PostMay 15, 2007#72007-05-15T17:24+00:00

It looks even worse now than in Michael's photo - it now has vinyl siding on it.

MattnSTL · PostMay 15, 2007#82007-05-15T17:27+00:00

The thing is, this addition could have been done in a pleasing manner. If it didn't look like half of a double wide covered in gray vinyl siding a fourth floor could work. There was already a third floor addition way back when that matches and enhances the building.

the central scrutinizer · PostMay 15, 2007#92007-05-15T17:56+00:00

Even if they didn't want to match the original building, I would have taken a glass box. I'm sure the tenants would have enjoyed the view more.

doug · PostMay 15, 2007#102007-05-15T20:19+00:00

Whether preservation review or historical review, seems like it will be an uphill battle because arbitrary discretion will be taken away from aldermen. Ironically, even aldermen who sit on the Preservation Board, like Kennedy, do not want it in their own district. But then he misses a lot of meetings so that might indicate how committed he is to review.

I see this building every day thus I agree it is needed.

threeonefour · PostMay 16, 2007#112007-05-16T04:11+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Even if they didn't want to match the original building, I would have taken a glass box. I'm sure the tenants would have enjoyed the view more.

With proper setbacks and scale, a glass-enclosed space would probably look fine. The top of the Chase comes to mind. And Kevin McGowan has plans for a glass-enclosed restaurant/banquet facility on top of an old department store that he intends to renovate in downtown Springfield, Mo.

Obviously, this thing was built on a tight budget, but IMHO that's no excuse for such an abomination.

stellar · PostMay 20, 2007#122007-05-20T16:28+00:00

Nuff said.

the central scrutinizer · PostMay 20, 2007#132007-05-20T17:11+00:00

stellar wrote:Nuff said.

Can that really be habitable? Where are the windows?

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 21, 2007#142007-05-21T02:23+00:00

OMG!!! How can anyone see this as anything other than a modular home having been dropped on this building? Anyone know what the chances are that they will be forced to change something?

trent · PostMay 21, 2007#152007-05-21T15:46+00:00

LAWL!

mcarril · PostMay 21, 2007#162007-05-21T15:48+00:00

Wow, that is aweful. I'm not sure they could make it uglier if they tried.

framer · PostMay 22, 2007#172007-05-22T03:40+00:00

The really wierd thing is that at some point, somebody actually said, "Yes, let's go ahead and build this".

Unbelievable.

the central scrutinizer · PostMay 22, 2007#182007-05-22T13:13+00:00

Framer wrote:The really wierd thing is that at some point, somebody actually said, "Yes, let's go ahead and build this".

Unbelievable.

They must not have used an architect. I can't imagine any architect attaching their name to that project. Unless they were about to go broke or something.

matt · PostMay 22, 2007#192007-05-22T13:50+00:00

IMHO, the city does a fairly poor job of connecting and coordinating plans and efforts.

In Soulard, some owners will have to literally go through hell and back for a plan while others basically do whatever they like.

The consistency and fairness of building code and historic code is awful.

Probably in this case, there is a hole in the code for the neighborhood and the owner could do whatever they wanted.

agent009 · PostMay 22, 2007#202007-05-22T14:08+00:00

After much thought and consideration of how to respond to this thread...

"Blech"