^ ha...made me think of "SLUburbia" as a title for SLU's planning.
The fact that they plant palm trees on campus is a clear indication that they fell as if they are an oasis in the midst of an ugly urban jungle. Where in the hell do palm tree grow in St. Louis? Why not plant trees that are native to the region? The Missouri Botanical Gardens could definitely help them plan out a beautiful landscaping plan of native trees. Why Palms? They even try not to over do palm trees at Florida State University and palms grow naturally throughout Florida. Very depressing indeed. SLU has the potential to be a legitimately urban university like Washington University, but it rather take the commuter college route.
- 1,218
Are you including the biliken topiary on the east side of Grand just north of Del Taco as decent landscapingTimeForGuinness wrote:I've always thought SLU did a decent job with their landscaping.
?- 339
...it keeps me chuckling...but most of their flower beds are well done and well kept. I haven't been back to campus to vigorously inspect their landscaping in 4-5 years, but from what I remember (and I was there for 6 years)...they did a nice job.Mark Groth wrote:Are you including the biliken topiary on the east side of Grand just north of Del Taco as decent landscapingTimeForGuinness wrote:I've always thought SLU did a decent job with their landscaping.
SLU has the potential to be a legitimately urban university like Washington University, but it rather take the commuter college route./i]
I couldn't agree more. They should let Wash U landscape their grounds. their taste is appalling. And that "art".. was that a student prank?
I couldn't agree more. They should let Wash U landscape their grounds. their taste is appalling. And that "art".. was that a student prank?
Palm trees simply do not belong in Missouri. Our native flora is beautiful; no need to pretend we're somewhere else.
- 11K
Here here!Framer wrote:Palm trees simply do not belong in Missouri. Our native flora is beautiful; no need to pretend we're somewhere else.
- 339
I don't think Sweetgum trees would go over well next to a pool.Framer wrote:Palm trees simply do not belong in Missouri. Our native flora is beautiful; no need to pretend we're somewhere else.
/not defending the palm trees
//can't believe they tore down a perfectly beautiful building for a suburban backyard pool and 4 palm trees
- 11K
Any thoughts on the Grand Avenue Viaduct itself?
The original:![]()
A rendering of the new:
![]()
The original:
A rendering of the new:
- 2,929
I think it's modern and streamlined, with an appreciation to its past as a cable-stayed suspension. The roads will be cleaned up and maintained (no, I don't have a problem with SLU cutting the grass & trimming the hedges), with more easily negotiable stops for buses and Metro dropoffs.
Plus: Look at all the trees underneath. This bridge was consciously designed for an eventual Choteau Greenway running underneath.
Plus: Look at all the trees underneath. This bridge was consciously designed for an eventual Choteau Greenway running underneath.
- 320
At the Kingshighway bridge, crews are removing the double-globes. It looks like a smaller pedestrian style lamp is going in as a replacement.
The globes were overkill on a sound idea. No need for 2 globes on each standard. And perhaps only half as many standards would have been better.
The globes were overkill on a sound idea. No need for 2 globes on each standard. And perhaps only half as many standards would have been better.
The City has been unable to get replacement globes as they are no longer manufactured, so I guess replacing everything is the only solution.
- 339
Somehow I seem to recall those globes not being able to throw enough light on all of the lanes when they were first installed...which is why they had to install the taller street lights on the viaduct, as well.Chris_on_Kingsbury wrote:At the Kingshighway bridge, crews are removing the double-globes. It looks like a smaller pedestrian style lamp is going in as a replacement.
The globes were overkill on a sound idea. No need for 2 globes on each standard. And perhaps only half as many standards would have been better.
Am I on crack, or does anyone else remember this?
- 11K
Here's a quick drive-by pic:
![]()
They're going from a double light to half as many light standards (poles) and a single light. They're hoping to put some kind of ornament on the spots where they're removing poles. It will reduce the city's light bill as well.
They're going from a double light to half as many light standards (poles) and a single light. They're hoping to put some kind of ornament on the spots where they're removing poles. It will reduce the city's light bill as well.
I think this will be a huge improvement. Really, they should probably just remove the old poles completely. Half as many will be twice as nice, aesthetically.
Also, notice the new lights have caps on top, which will direct the light downward, as opposed to the globes on the old ones that allowed light to leak up into the sky.
Also, notice the new lights have caps on top, which will direct the light downward, as opposed to the globes on the old ones that allowed light to leak up into the sky.
- 712
Framer wrote:Also, notice the new lights have caps on top, which will direct the light downward, as opposed to the globes on the old ones that allowed light to leak up into the sky.
Excellent. It's a start. As a former astronomy major and current 17th floor resident of a light polluted megacity, I'm very pleased to read your words.- 11K
More renderings/drawing of the new Grand Avenue bridge:
[blog] http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=10
![]()
[blog] http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=10
Please abandon the faux towers. And while at it: let's from now on ban any new design in St. Louis that contains "faux" elements.
- 1,000
Generally, I think it's a good idea to forgo any element that will look "cheap" ten years down the road.
- 11K
^ I'd hate to see what our city would look like if we ascribed to the two criteria proposed above!
Something like this: Historic architecture, complimented by original new design without the use of faux historic elements.
- 11K
^ I'm sorry, but I can see quite a number of "faux historic" buildings and elements in that photograph. And I like it. I think the issue is simply whether it's well done or not. I like the towers for the Grand Avenue bridge because they will help create a sense of place, at least indicating that one is on a bridge - and a significant one at that. Hopefully they're lit well.
- 1,000
Wait, you're in favor of elements that will look cheap in ten years??Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I'd hate to see what our city would look like if we ascribed to the two criteria proposed above!
95% of the buildings in the foreground of that picture are 100 years or older. The new buildings are in the background. Where do you see faux historic features?
The faux towers as proposed on the new Grand Blvd Bridge are non-functional, plain ugly and look like they were moved from a parking lot of an 80's mall.
Why not something like this: A functional, elegant and contemporary design.
![]()
The faux towers as proposed on the new Grand Blvd Bridge are non-functional, plain ugly and look like they were moved from a parking lot of an 80's mall.
Why not something like this: A functional, elegant and contemporary design.
