^I am glad you mentioned remembering when they were built. I don't remember, but I can imagine they brought with them a feeling of moving forward and a bright future for the city.
Yes, Expat, it was a very exciting time in St. Louis. The arch began to rise in early 1963. At that time I remember a model display of Mansion House for public view in the Famous & Barr parking garage street level window on, I believe Olive, and I remember thinking "Wow--these are neat" (I was only 14) They began to rise in 1964, along with the arch, and by the summer of 1965 when the towers and the arch were nearly complete, to see all this major construction all at once driving over MLKing Bridge (then Veteran's Bridge) and all together was something that has by far yet to be equalled in St. Louis. They REALLY changed the look of the St. Louis skyline. You can look at old pictures, but to have witnessed it as it was happening is...well, akin to looking at pictures of the Grand Canyon and actuallly seeing it.
I'm casting my vote to keep Mansion House as is, for the reasons already stated by others. Buildings around 40 to 70 years old always seem to be under the biggest threat, until they age enough to become "cuddly" in the mind of the general public.
and that new building they're talking about at the north end of the complex is, well... uninspiring, at best. it looks like they took some designs off the shelf that had been sitting there for 15 years. it'd be wicked if they could do something bolder on that site - like maybe re-using some of the arches from the soon-to-be-gone busch stadium! that would make for quite a block of condos.
and that new building they're talking about at the north end of the complex is, well... uninspiring, at best. it looks like they took some designs off the shelf that had been sitting there for 15 years. it'd be wicked if they could do something bolder on that site - like maybe re-using some of the arches from the soon-to-be-gone busch stadium! that would make for quite a block of condos.
- 479
In principle, am not opposed to new construction or to recladding buildings. One could devise a recladding for Gentry's Landing that wouold be an improvement and would harmonize with the other two Mansion House towers. This proposal ain't it, by a long shot. The new building's faux historicism and the recladding's clumsy attempts are at odd with each other and the surrounding environement, and rely upon materials that will not age well. They will look dated from the start, with the Dryvit walls, masonry panels and plastic roofing materials. Like many bad new pdesigns, this one employs cheap materials while ripping off old styles through parody and exaggeration. What a waste of such a great site!
Although I agree that there are instances downtown where recladding went horribly wrong, I feel that if they do this one correctly it could look good. If it's going to look like fake brick panels, don't bother. On the other hand, if it will use preconstructed brick panels like the new stadium, I think it could look good. I will say, however, that we have enough brick in St. Louis. It'd be nice to see a modern building or two. (I don't mean '50's-'60's modern like the days inn.)
a re-clad brick ediface on an international/modern building? why don't we re-create the arch to be a "traditional arch", mirroring eads bridge. This is so embarrasing for our city. How much more impressive would 1015 Locust be if it were left, un- reclad.. Now, if they HAVE to redo the exterior, maybe replace the glass wall, as it currently looks.
EXCELLENT point about the arch, JCity. Reguarding Mansion House being reclad, this is the kind of "silliness" that takes place when something becomes popular. You can argue that St. Louis is a "brick city"...and I would vehemently defend that arguement, but this pertains to the character of the neighborhoods of St. Louis and historic (warehouse/loft) district downtown and other contemporary (to that time) structures. The Mansion House complex does not fit into that category. Now that our old architecture has become valued, urbanites and young professionals are moving into the city and SOME are savvy about architecture, we have these know-nothings who try to capitalize on it. To try to make the Mansion House complex "fit in" with century old structures would be a horendous bastardization of the structures, and the developers are too ignorant to see this. These structures were built in the mid sixties...to change them into something they're not won't work. Look at the sad sample just to the north of there, the Hampden Inn. Disgraceful, IMO, a now bland and unimaginative structure compared to what it looked like when new. Good architecture is good architecture, reguardless of timeline.
- 23
This is going to seem like a contradictory post, but I agree with many of the forumers that state that bastardizing the legacy that is modernism with cheap cover-ups is a travesty. We should hold onto the best examples of any architectural design era, but I then have to agree with JMedwick with regards to the character of the Mansion house building. Mies van der Rohe began the modernist design craze for downtown residential buildings. Unfortunately, there were very few architects who could faithfully recreate that kind of architecture. There are an extraordinary number of cheap, hollow and disingenuous replications throughout the country and these three "Modernist" buildings are examples of just that. There was a logic used to design buildings such as the Lakeshore Drive Apartments and the Toronto-Dominion Centre, a logic that was ignored by architects that simply wanted to embrace the look of the buildings (Mansion House), ignoring the proper combiniation of curb appeal, verticality, material consciousness and design simplicity.
The same argument was probably advanced by individuals when "Modernist" cladding was proposed for turn of the century warehouses. Sometimes the cladding is useless and poorly conceived, leading to a hopeless creation that attempts to reflect the design of the times (the Hampton Inn). But in my opinion, from the limited visual foundation we have to start from, I feel that the design for this development is classy and appropriate for the site and the city.
The design attempts to use the century+ old architecture as a transition from Washington Avenue to the buildings that lie futher south on 4th street. With this said, the caveat is that the execution of the design should be faithful to that idea. That should be the overriding consideration in this development. Unfortunately, the Hampton Inn is an instant and unavoidable eyesore to that area...I think if this is built/finished properly, there will be immediate evidence on how to properly redesign a site and how not to.
The same argument was probably advanced by individuals when "Modernist" cladding was proposed for turn of the century warehouses. Sometimes the cladding is useless and poorly conceived, leading to a hopeless creation that attempts to reflect the design of the times (the Hampton Inn). But in my opinion, from the limited visual foundation we have to start from, I feel that the design for this development is classy and appropriate for the site and the city.
The design attempts to use the century+ old architecture as a transition from Washington Avenue to the buildings that lie futher south on 4th street. With this said, the caveat is that the execution of the design should be faithful to that idea. That should be the overriding consideration in this development. Unfortunately, the Hampton Inn is an instant and unavoidable eyesore to that area...I think if this is built/finished properly, there will be immediate evidence on how to properly redesign a site and how not to.
I don't think anyone would presume to have someone believe that Mansion House is as good as a Mies van der Rohe design...it certainly isn't. But the buildings certainly weren't ugly structures in their time, either, just as every building made of brick and terra cotta in 1900 were not masterpieces. However, I think it's more important to know those structures were built in the mid sixties and remain true to their original design. To change their character for the sake of "street scape" is a strange statement, since any older, healthy CBD would include a true mix of styles and periods.
Is someone, through deceit, trying to show the world that these buildings were part of the skyline in 1900? Is the goal to show the world what little progress was made in St. Louis since? Or are we trying to erase architectural history, a foolish mistake that's been made again and again and again in order to "improve" things. These are the only realities I see in the bastardization of these structures, and I for one don't care how pretty they look in sketches. A structure should remain true to its original design. Future generations will thank us for that.
Is someone, through deceit, trying to show the world that these buildings were part of the skyline in 1900? Is the goal to show the world what little progress was made in St. Louis since? Or are we trying to erase architectural history, a foolish mistake that's been made again and again and again in order to "improve" things. These are the only realities I see in the bastardization of these structures, and I for one don't care how pretty they look in sketches. A structure should remain true to its original design. Future generations will thank us for that.
- 23
I certainly did not want to imply that the Mansion house is as good as a Mies van der Rohe building, and compared to much of the "Modernist" architecture present in Clayton, I would take 3 more Mansion House buildings to be sure.
I suppose I should have structured my previous post in another way. I could live with the towers either way, with cladding (I still think the new design concept is nice, in rendering)or not (I would definitely be against a "bastardization" of all three "Modernist" towers, since they are all independent entities...if they were united in the same complex as when they were built, then I would not want to see one of them touched). My real problem with their current situation is the fact that they are not masterpieces of Modernism and ignore any pedestrian concerns with regards to their barricade-esque retail/etc space.
Every building from a certain design era cannot be saved, otherwise we will just wind up with rings of decades that create our cities. But, given their proximity to the arch and the lack of other similar, or even Modernist structures, I can definitely see your point in arguing for their continued existance without distorting their fascade. Indeed, it would not be wise, architecturally speaking, to simply relegate Clayton as the reservior for Modernist buildings and remove or reclad all of the existing structure in downtown St. Louis
I agree with JCity that the cladding of the 1015 Locust building was a tragic error in judgement as the cladding does exactly what my previous post spoke of: going for a Modernist look without the REAL design. Fortunately for us forumers and admirers of GOOD architecture in general, this cladding/removal of mid-century buildings is a debate raging in nearly every metropolis in the nation, thanks to not only a concern for architectural integrity, but a concern for design aesthetics in areas of residential and commercial densities. The intent of my previous post was an attempt to look at any of the positives of the design, not an attempt to force feed my interest in the design proposal.
Hell, maybe spend the money on soundproofing the building and cleaning/replacing the exterior panels, try to integrate the balconies and update the interiors and we might have a nice complex. My question would then be, would the current design concept be more cost effective than an exhaustive overhaul? I am still new in my architectural education and therefore am not yet familiar with such renovation/budgetary concerns.
I suppose I should have structured my previous post in another way. I could live with the towers either way, with cladding (I still think the new design concept is nice, in rendering)or not (I would definitely be against a "bastardization" of all three "Modernist" towers, since they are all independent entities...if they were united in the same complex as when they were built, then I would not want to see one of them touched). My real problem with their current situation is the fact that they are not masterpieces of Modernism and ignore any pedestrian concerns with regards to their barricade-esque retail/etc space.
Every building from a certain design era cannot be saved, otherwise we will just wind up with rings of decades that create our cities. But, given their proximity to the arch and the lack of other similar, or even Modernist structures, I can definitely see your point in arguing for their continued existance without distorting their fascade. Indeed, it would not be wise, architecturally speaking, to simply relegate Clayton as the reservior for Modernist buildings and remove or reclad all of the existing structure in downtown St. Louis
I agree with JCity that the cladding of the 1015 Locust building was a tragic error in judgement as the cladding does exactly what my previous post spoke of: going for a Modernist look without the REAL design. Fortunately for us forumers and admirers of GOOD architecture in general, this cladding/removal of mid-century buildings is a debate raging in nearly every metropolis in the nation, thanks to not only a concern for architectural integrity, but a concern for design aesthetics in areas of residential and commercial densities. The intent of my previous post was an attempt to look at any of the positives of the design, not an attempt to force feed my interest in the design proposal.
Hell, maybe spend the money on soundproofing the building and cleaning/replacing the exterior panels, try to integrate the balconies and update the interiors and we might have a nice complex. My question would then be, would the current design concept be more cost effective than an exhaustive overhaul? I am still new in my architectural education and therefore am not yet familiar with such renovation/budgetary concerns.
- 1,610
Ideally, I too would like to see the addition on Washington be of Modernist design, respecting the three mid-century towers to its south, while still adding to the streetscape of Washington and 4th streets.
But I imagine since the products of Mansion House and Gentry's Landing are so similar, that the developer is trying to distinguish their product with the recladding and more post-modern addition. Yet supposedly, there are plans for these two to again merge, so if ultimately the plan, then what gives?
Still, if the developers were to currently control both residential towers, plus the similar Radisson hotel tower, I wonder then if renovation and a respectful addition would have been proposed instead.
But I imagine since the products of Mansion House and Gentry's Landing are so similar, that the developer is trying to distinguish their product with the recladding and more post-modern addition. Yet supposedly, there are plans for these two to again merge, so if ultimately the plan, then what gives?
Still, if the developers were to currently control both residential towers, plus the similar Radisson hotel tower, I wonder then if renovation and a respectful addition would have been proposed instead.
I don't think that any of the proposals for the towers is likely until the underlying (sorry!) legal and ownership disputes are resolved. The land under the towers is owned by one group; the buildings themselves are owned by other groups whose leases on the land will expire.
Right now, it seems like a judge has the most say in what our skyline is going to look like.
Right now, it seems like a judge has the most say in what our skyline is going to look like.
If the parties responsible for the proposal want to respect the architectural integrity of the area and strengthen a CONNECTION, then they need to start by repecting the original design of the towers!
I, too, want to know who these bozos are and why they are so obsessed with trying to make a modern building look like something from the 19th Century. Why does St. Louis as a whole have this obsession
People here marvel at the architecture of other cities, but act as though STL has to stay stuck firmly in the past.
A variety of architecture is what makes cities like Chicago GREAT! That plus the fact that they haven't destroyed so many of their older buildings that they feel like they have to start over by recreating the days of yore
Leave the outside of the towers alone
Clean them up and add new panels that are modern versions of what's already there so that the buildings look newer and cleaner. And yes, something MUST be sone with the street level retail/business portion to make it more street and pedestrian-friendly, but without resorting to the "good-old-days" syndrome. The Mansion House fountain should DEFINITELY stay with some greenery added to make the area more welcoming. Any new tower added to the north end should reflect new MODERN thinking. A building that is more glass than steel, but that also ties in with the original Mansion House towers would be more appropriate.
More money should be spent on the INSIDE where people will actually LIVE. I've been in the Mansion House recently and was shown an apartment that had the original 1968 stove in it
I know it WAS the original because when we had family friends living there, they had the SAME stoves!
Some of the apartments are so SMALL by today's standards that it's ridiculous - especially for the RENT they charge! How about investing in knocking down some walls to make for larger units and kitchens with bar counters How about bathrooms that reflect the same level of luxury as the RENT
And if the developers want to tie in with ANYthing downtown - how about making a modern connection with the proposed towers for the Bottle District
NOW THAT'S A VISION!
VISION LOOKS FORWARD!
HINDSIGHT LOOKS BACKWARD!
AND SO DOES THE PROPOSED GENTRY'S LANDING REDEVELOPMENT!
I, too, want to know who these bozos are and why they are so obsessed with trying to make a modern building look like something from the 19th Century. Why does St. Louis as a whole have this obsession
People here marvel at the architecture of other cities, but act as though STL has to stay stuck firmly in the past.A variety of architecture is what makes cities like Chicago GREAT! That plus the fact that they haven't destroyed so many of their older buildings that they feel like they have to start over by recreating the days of yore
Leave the outside of the towers alone
Clean them up and add new panels that are modern versions of what's already there so that the buildings look newer and cleaner. And yes, something MUST be sone with the street level retail/business portion to make it more street and pedestrian-friendly, but without resorting to the "good-old-days" syndrome. The Mansion House fountain should DEFINITELY stay with some greenery added to make the area more welcoming. Any new tower added to the north end should reflect new MODERN thinking. A building that is more glass than steel, but that also ties in with the original Mansion House towers would be more appropriate.More money should be spent on the INSIDE where people will actually LIVE. I've been in the Mansion House recently and was shown an apartment that had the original 1968 stove in it
I know it WAS the original because when we had family friends living there, they had the SAME stoves!Some of the apartments are so SMALL by today's standards that it's ridiculous - especially for the RENT they charge! How about investing in knocking down some walls to make for larger units and kitchens with bar counters
How about bathrooms that reflect the same level of luxury as the RENT And if the developers want to tie in with ANYthing downtown - how about making a modern connection with the proposed towers for the Bottle District
NOW THAT'S A VISION!
VISION LOOKS FORWARD!
HINDSIGHT LOOKS BACKWARD!
AND SO DOES THE PROPOSED GENTRY'S LANDING REDEVELOPMENT!
- 1,768
I'm not all ablout totally changing the architectural look of the towers. I just wish they could replace with new and perhaps a different color the gray-brown paneling and windows. Then ligh it up. I noticed on TV just a few days ago how little is lit up with architectural lighting. Aside from the top of the Met tower and the neon of US bank it looks like there is nothing behind the arch, and thank god they lit that up. A more clean and colorful looking exterior, not changed, along with some enhancing lighting would do a great thing for the front door of the city.
My complaint was not the architecture, but the grungy black hole like presence it exudes.
My complaint was not the architecture, but the grungy black hole like presence it exudes.
- 1,054
Let's not forget about the lack of through streets or completing the grid. Each building when redone with through streets could have restaurants facing the Arch and maybe Memorial could become narrow for pedestrian friendliness.
Welcome to the forum, Progress. (I see you figured out how the emoticons work).
But seriously, I agree with your views of the Mansion House Towers. They're classic, and they should be shown some respect.
But seriously, I agree with your views of the Mansion House Towers. They're classic, and they should be shown some respect.
This is the building that started it all. The Seagram building in New York. The U-CLub, the Sevens Building, the Mansion House are all copies from this famous structure.
(You have to point to the actual location of the image, not the page that it is on. MattnSTL)
Thanks for posting that pic, JCity. Yeah, it spawned a generation of boring and downright ugly structures (not refering to the U-Club or Sevens-they're quite nice, IMO), but the Seagram's Bldg is a true beauty. So is Mansion House, IMO. Mansion House just needs a little spiffing up, similar to what TheWayoftheArch says...but Heavens, I hope they don't cover the one with brick as is (was?) planned.
Today's modern skyspcrapers are returning to this style. The building "floats" on pilotis (mies van der rohe). The open lobby with walls of glass and the box "floats" above it. I think it's actually pretty cool. Again, I don't think the Mansion House is the MOST attractive, but then again, it hasn't been well taken care of either. Retro-fitting it with faux traditional brick is like brining BRANSON downtown. Honestly, who's the architecture firm doing this? I'd really like to know.. where'd they study?
This is from MayorSlay.com...
LCRA has approved a modification to the Mansion House Center area to make tax abatement available for the redevelopment.of the northernmost building in this complex. The developer plans to rehab the existing apartment tower extensively; build a new condo tower; and, ultimately, covert the existing apartments to condos. I suspect that they will be selling river views.
Mansion House gets $7 million renovation
By Rebecca Roussell
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
08/30/2006
The Mansion House, a 1960s-era downtown high-rise apartment building overlooking the Mississippi River, is in the midst of a $7 million renovation.
Given a downtown apartment market that's being flooded with new units, the owners, Value St. Louis Associates, had little choice but to renovate, spokeswoman Julie Hauser said.
The complex, at 300 North Fourth Street, includes a 30-story residential tower with 416 units, a small commercial building north of the tower and a 600-car underground parking garage. The renovation is limited to the residential tower, Hauser said.
Work is expected to be completed by December 2007.
"The owners are still exploring a larger redevelopment plan," she said.
Original plans called for a $25 million renovation, but the owners were determined to pay off a $17 million debt accrued after purchasing the complex in 1988 at a foreclosure sale.
The debt was paid in May.
"They (the owners) wanted to begin this phase of the renovation with a financially sound project," Hauser said.
One stumbling block remaining is the land under the Mansion House, which is owned by Florida-based STL 400 North Fourth LLC. Value St. Louis Associates is negotiating to buy the land, and says it can't get financing to pursue a more significant renovation until a deal is done.
STL 400 also owns the land beneath two adjacent properties, Gentry's Landing to the north and the Radisson Hotel & Suites to the south. Owners of those properties also are seeking to acquire the land to help secure financing for respective renovation plans.
So far, 14 vacant units at the Mansion House have been renovated and are ready for occupancy in September and October. Work on the rest is expected to occur as leases expire.
Read More
By Rebecca Roussell
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
08/30/2006
The Mansion House, a 1960s-era downtown high-rise apartment building overlooking the Mississippi River, is in the midst of a $7 million renovation.
Given a downtown apartment market that's being flooded with new units, the owners, Value St. Louis Associates, had little choice but to renovate, spokeswoman Julie Hauser said.
The complex, at 300 North Fourth Street, includes a 30-story residential tower with 416 units, a small commercial building north of the tower and a 600-car underground parking garage. The renovation is limited to the residential tower, Hauser said.
Work is expected to be completed by December 2007.
"The owners are still exploring a larger redevelopment plan," she said.
Original plans called for a $25 million renovation, but the owners were determined to pay off a $17 million debt accrued after purchasing the complex in 1988 at a foreclosure sale.
The debt was paid in May.
"They (the owners) wanted to begin this phase of the renovation with a financially sound project," Hauser said.
One stumbling block remaining is the land under the Mansion House, which is owned by Florida-based STL 400 North Fourth LLC. Value St. Louis Associates is negotiating to buy the land, and says it can't get financing to pursue a more significant renovation until a deal is done.
STL 400 also owns the land beneath two adjacent properties, Gentry's Landing to the north and the Radisson Hotel & Suites to the south. Owners of those properties also are seeking to acquire the land to help secure financing for respective renovation plans.
So far, 14 vacant units at the Mansion House have been renovated and are ready for occupancy in September and October. Work on the rest is expected to occur as leases expire.
Read More
I actually think Mies Van Der Rohe's buildings are quite beautiful. There's something about them that really outdo all of the countless imitators.
- 1,026
so are they still planning on building the additional building on the corner of 4th and washington