urbanSTL

The Count wrote: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?

Just because a building is old doesn't mean it's not "faux historic". Many of the design elements on these buildings aren't unique or original - they're reinterpretations or reproductions of styles that long pre-date the buildings themselves. Yeah, I'm making a nitpicky point here, but there's no reason to throw out all faux historic structures or buildings.

The Count wrote:Why not something like this: A functional, elegant and contemporary design.

Not enough money.

Alex Ihnen wrote:Just because a building is old doesn't mean it's not "faux historic". Many of the design elements on these buildings aren't unique or original - they're reinterpretations or reproductions of styles that long pre-date the buildings themselves. Yeah, I'm making a nitpicky point here, but there's no reason to throw out all faux historic structures or buildings.

It's not nitpicky. You knew from my first post what I meant by faux historic elements.

Not enough money.

This type of design is being used succesfully and economically all over the world. I don't buy the no money argument.

At least the towers won't have green roofs on them. (I hope)

Overall, for a "signature bridge", I'm not impressed...but I'll wait until it's built to form an opinion. The integration of Metro, bus stops, biking, and lighting seem like an improvement.

This is the problem, not the money:

The new design attempts to echo the original structure built in 1890. (From your article about the new Bridge)

Old:


New:


I'd say the attempt to echo the original design has failed miserably.

We need to abandon this longing to the old days and start building solid, original, quality contemporary design. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be respectful of historic design (even faux historic elements) when rehabbing existing structures.

lukethedrifter wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:

So you are in favor of cheap looking faux elements then.

Nope. Who's in favor of that?

TimeForGuinness wrote:At least the towers won't have green roofs on them. (I hope)

Look at the picture one page back in the thread.

I also don't get the knee-jerk reaction against "faux historic design". It's been used for centuries and when done will it's excellent. Among the "faux historic" buildings I generally like in St. Louis are: Six North, the WU campus, parts of Lafayette Square, and even Busch Stadium.

There was no knee-jerk reaction to "faux historic design". This is what I said: "Let's from now on ban any new design in St. Louis that contains "faux elements."

In St. Louis it seems almost mandatory to implement "faux historic elements" (for instance: "faux" copper roofs or "tudor-style" look) in newly designed structures, often resulting in horrible, cheap-looking, convoluted design.

Again, respecting historic structures or new neighborhood infill that respects and mimics the historic buildings around it (if done well), fine.

If there's no money for a "signature" bridge, then build a purely functional one. But don't put cheap-looking, non-functional, faux historic towers on it just because that's what you can afford. Alternatively, a well-designed, good-looking contemporary bridge could be built with the available budget.

^ I wasn't attacking what you said verbatim. Take it easy. I think the reality is that people like little add-ons or homages to the past. I wish a contemporary design were used as well, but it doesn't seem that the firms the City uses do that kind of work. What we're getting is what the City has released. All-in-all it's going to be pretty sweet.

I am quite relaxed, thank you.

On a side note: Does every thread on this forum have to end with an Alex Ihnen post?

The Count wrote:

TimeForGuinness wrote:At least the towers won't have green roofs on them. (I hope)

Look at the picture one page back in the thread.

Nooooooo...is there anything SLU won't put a green roof on?! Next time I'm on campus, I'm gonna put a green roof on Biondi's golf cart.

I believe I saw Biondi's golf cart the other day at a SLU parking lot in Midtown:

Wah ha ha ha ha ha

The Count wrote:I believe I saw Biondi's golf cart the other day at a SLU parking lot in Midtown:

LOL...awesome.

They ran a story on Channel 4 news last night. According to them the bridge will be coming down in January.

Link to Story

Do we have a definite idea to which Metro-link the 70 Grand will disembark?