DeBaliviere wrote:Looking at the update photo of one of the units with the rounded windows, it looks like they just put standard rectangular windows behind the rounded opening instead of installing custom rounded-top windows. Weird.
this way you can open all 3 windows. if they did custom windows on the same plane as the brick, only the center window could open.
i noticed the new openings that are being cut out of the brick on the east side of the building. the have to be atleast 6'x8' with a vertical support in the middle.
They are going to be ALOT larger than I thought they were going to be.
i dont know what is going to happen with the west side of the building though.
The same thing is happening on the West Side, although we have a horrible view of that awful Days Inn building.
Noticed yesterday that they were taking a lot of materials into the section that will become Flamingo Bowl. It also looks like they are getting ready to install the wood frames for the street level retail.
avlis wrote:this way you can open all 3 windows. if they did custom windows on the same plane as the brick, only the center window could open.
Are the developers receiving historic tax credits for this? If so, then those standard windows behind the arch surround should definitely not be allowed.
I do not think they should be allowed anyway; you contrast these with the arched windows at levels of the Merchandise Mart and Vangard and it looks very poor, imho, and just completely inappropriate for this building.
I think once you see everything, in full context of the finished product, you will understand the appropiateness of the windows.
I'm not working on this project directly, but I know who is from within the office, and I am very confident that any and all required design issues (window details and designs, facade work, existing building sustainment, etc.) are being handled with adequate attention and focus.
This is going to be a great location, and w/ the developments at the Meridian, Bee Hat, and the Bogen, this will be a hot spot on Washington in no time.
apickett wrote:I think once you see everything, in full context of the finished product, you will understand the appropiateness of the windows.
Perhaps, but I have seen this done elsewhere and it has absolutely detracted from the developments. I can not imagine the finished project making it look anything more than glaring.
And the excuse about only the center window opening? Sure, but I am kinda certain this is because the proper windows would've been more expensive.
But hopefully you are right. Still, I hope other developers do not follow this trend.
Those rectangular windows behind the curves of the arches are completely, utterly inappropriate to this building. They destroy the historic profile of the window division in each arched opening, and should be enough to disqualify the project from receiving tax credits.
Why did the developers not create custom replicas of the original side windows that can open (such as side hinges or center rod) and fit the opening?
All window related decisions are made only after receiving the official approval of the State Historic Preservation Office. This process is long and detailed, but culminates with the following: All window shop drawings are reviewed by the General Contractor and the Architect for compliance with the architectural requirements of the historic tax credits. They are then forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office for their review and official approval. All details, colors, dimensions, assemblies, operability issues, etc. are then reviewed for compliance with the historic tax credit requirements. Absolutely no windows are manufactured or purchased prior to receiving the full approval of the State Historic Preservation Office. With that said, occasionally a construction method not clearly illustrated on the drawings is witnessed by the State Historic Preservation Office after construction is complete and they are verifying that compliance has been achieved. However, an issue such as this that deals with sight lines, profiles, operability, and the issues of modern technology and performance of today?s windows has indeed been reviewed, witnessed and approved for construction by the State Historic Preservation Office.
The original windows were in the exact same plane as the newly installed, historic tax credit approved windows with one exception. The upper sash that went into the sides of the arch was half glass and half solid panel to emulate the arch in front of it. Now, due to the desire to add ease of operation and economy to the buyer, the decision was made to forego the top sash panel in favor of a full upper glass sash.
To indicate that less than a 36? length of black window profile 3? in width, that will spend 23 hours a day in shadow is ?completely, utterly inappropriate to this building,? and that these small pieces ?should be enough to disqualify the project from receiving tax credits? is just a tad harsh in light of the lengths that the architects and developers who care deeply for these old buildings go to. So much time is put into making these buildings work for 2006 and beyond, both functionally and economically, that it is truly a shame to hear nitpicking of this nature. The funny thing is that no one said a word when a cast iron historic storefront was demolished in favor of a modern garage door on the Pine Street fa?ade of the Paul Brown building, but now we are ready to throw away historic tax credits over 36? of window trim.
I think we should remain nothing less than positive and be absolutely full of pride and thanks that our urban space is coming back to life and that the City, the Developers, the Architects, the Contractors, and the remainder of the Citizens are putting so much effort in this revitalization. Yes, all those involved in the development side want and need to make a profit for it to continue, therefore, for this process to achieve all our ultimate goal, the balance between economy and historic accuracy needs to be achieved and embraced.
apickett wrote:All window related decisions are made only after receiving the official approval of the State Historic Preservation Office. This process is long and detailed, but culminates with the following: All window shop drawings are reviewed by the General Contractor and the Architect for compliance with the architectural requirements of the historic tax credits. They are then forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office for their review and official approval. All details, colors, dimensions, assemblies, operability issues, etc. are then reviewed for compliance with the historic tax credit requirements. Absolutely no windows are manufactured or purchased prior to receiving the full approval of the State Historic Preservation Office. With that said, occasionally a construction method not clearly illustrated on the drawings is witnessed by the State Historic Preservation Office after construction is complete and they are verifying that compliance has been achieved. However, an issue such as this that deals with sight lines, profiles, operability, and the issues of modern technology and performance of today?s windows has indeed been reviewed, witnessed and approved for construction by the State Historic Preservation Office.
The original windows were in the exact same plane as the newly installed, historic tax credit approved windows with one exception. The upper sash that went into the sides of the arch was half glass and half solid panel to emulate the arch in front of it. Now, due to the desire to add ease of operation and economy to the buyer, the decision was made to forego the top sash panel in favor of a full upper glass sash.
To indicate that less than a 36? length of black window profile 3? in width, that will spend 23 hours a day in shadow is ?completely, utterly inappropriate to this building,? and that these small pieces ?should be enough to disqualify the project from receiving tax credits? is just a tad harsh in light of the lengths that the architects and developers who care deeply for these old buildings go to. So much time is put into making these buildings work for 2006 and beyond, both functionally and economically, that it is truly a shame to hear nitpicking of this nature. The funny thing is that no one said a word when a cast iron historic storefront was demolished in favor of a modern garage door on the Pine Street fa?ade of the Paul Brown building, but now we are ready to throw away historic tax credits over 36? of window trim.
I think we should remain nothing less than positive and be absolutely full of pride and thanks that our urban space is coming back to life and that the City, the Developers, the Architects, the Contractors, and the remainder of the Citizens are putting so much effort in this revitalization. Yes, all those involved in the development side want and need to make a profit for it to continue, therefore, for this process to achieve all our ultimate goal, the balance between economy and historic accuracy needs to be achieved and embraced.
-Adam
Well said, but it doesn't change the fact that the new windows (by comparison to the old) are butt ugly . . .
ok i must have missed something, because i dont get the reaction here. Before this building was rehabed, the apearance was ugly. yes ugly. the windows were broken with some stupid metal covers. I had to look at this building every day i lwalked out of my current residence.
for people to go this overboard about how aweful the windows are on the 6th floor, 75ft above the ground seem to be losing perspective.
I've been walking by this building daily for some time now, and not only is anything an improvement over the pre-development facade, but I think the new windows look great and the placement offset not only matches the originals, but adds appropriate depth to the arches visually. This is probably the effect the original architect sought.
avlis wrote:for people to go this overboard about how aweful the windows are on the 6th floor, 75ft above the ground seem to be losing perspective.
If these windows were on the top floor of a 50-story building their treatment would be no less worthy of attention.
I think that all matters of architecture need healthy and full public debate. We all have to walk these streets and look at these windows, after all.
Architecture is a cultural resource in which every St. Louisan has a vested interest. Criticism is only "going overboard" in a climate that lacks real architectural criticism. Developers hate such "nitpicking" because it forces them to spend more money on future projects, but people who live in those future projects are rewarded with better design and spaces that retain their value.
phobia wrote:I've been walking by this building daily for some time now, and not only is anything an improvement over the pre-development facade, but I think the new windows look great and the placement offset not only matches the originals, but adds appropriate depth to the arches visually. This is probably the effect the original architect sought.
I also walk by the building daily and am constantly drawn to those poor replacement windows. Of course the whole of the project will no doubt be an improvement over a vacant building facade, sure. I do not think anyone would claim otherwise!
I just don't think that should preclude proper rehab decisions made. And if the State Historic Preservation Office approved this, then there is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not think the State's approval should absolve the developers from making a poor decision on these windows, though. And I think the State made sketchy decisions in the past, too.
I find them glaring, that's all. I think the windows used say a lot about a development. On this floor, on this facade, I feel the developers could've done better. One need only look at similar arched windows on nearby windows to see that the look of the fitted window within the encasement is much more proper.
Rectangular windows do not fit within an arched surround. It is as basic as a child's shape sorting toy!
The only problem with the previous argument is that the old windows at the arch were rectangular sashed too. Also, it needs to be clarified that these windows are manufactured by Quaker (the same manufacturer of 85% of all Washington Ave Loft projects? windows) and the only difference between it and EVERY other historic adaptive reuse project on Washington Avenue that has historic replacement windows is that these windows had to correspond to the specific original windows that were removed with regards to all frame and sash dimensions, profiles and sight lines. No two historic replacement window profiles are exactly alike and are very expensive to manufacture. The intermediate mullions between windows, once finished shall resemble, literally, the original mullion detail. So in a very direct sense, by calling the new windows ugly, you are calling the original windows ugly as well. I think we need to wait and see the project finished, all the mullions installed, and all the caulking and trim work around the windows completed before judging, as the historic requirements dictate all the way through the process that these windows DO INDEED match the originals.
To clarify; we who are defending these windows are neither developers, nor are we window manufacturers. However, as citizens seeing and understanding the culturally, economical, and architecturally ?integrity conscious? intent that everyone directly involved in the development of an historic adaptive reuse project holds as law, we understand that compromises, sacrifices, and even bothersome ?historically moral? decisions MUST be made to get one of these projects complete. It is just simply not so easy as to say, ?let?s just spend a little more here and do historic replicated wood windows.? That decision, specifically in that project, would have meant a $200,000 to $350,000 add JUST in the price of windows alone. If we add up all the little ?historically accurate? items that fall onto the discussion table during a project such as this, each and every loft downtown would be so far out of the price range of 95% of those who want to live downtown that revitalization would die before it ever got off the ground.
Just a little more complex than a "child's shape sorting toy"... just a little...
The old windows were probably not original. Likley, they replaced the original windows other owners did not want to replicate. Since the building was used for warehousing and manufacturing, historic accuracy was far from the owner's mind.
Now that we are converting these old wholesale buildings into residences, we have the chance to enhance and restore their architectural features.
The real issue in a lot of developments is that replication of historic materials cuts into the profit margin.
apickett wrote:Just a little more complex than a "child's shape sorting toy"... just a little...
I was being a little facetious, obviously.
I agree with eco that this was an opportunity to really enhance and restore. One that was not taken to its fullest extent. I understand the actions taken by the developers--do not get me wrong. I just think the sacrifice is unfortunate.
EDIT: Adam, if the windows that were removed immediately prior to rehab were indeed rectangualr and sashed like the replacements, then that alone answers my question as to why that type of window was installed now. Obviously, it is replacing something similiar, even if these are sadly probably not original (judging by contemporary treatments on this building type).
1. The women's boutique will open in August. It is not the same owner as the men's boutique but they have some kind of partnership. The owner is very nice and is moving into the building with her boyfriend.
2. The cigar store will have an underground speak easy.
3. A trim has been added to the walls in the lofts and some lofts will have balconies.
4. The elevators are supposed to be "break neck" speed.
5. The rooftop deck is not what I expected. It's going to be elevated on a steel frame about 7 feet high. The pool is VERY small but the views are awesome.
6. The bowling alley will be over 20,000 feet.
7. There was no mention of a restaurant outside of the one associated with Flamingo Bowl.
8. The walls in the common areas are painted different colors on every floor. They look very good with the brick and hardwood floors.
I walked by the open house yesterday, my cousin and I were checking out wash ave on our way to see some of the game from the centerfield gate. The open house looked pretty crowded, the place looked good. I'm saddened to hear that I didn't see this random person walking around at the time, however.
Also went by the "grandopening" and am quite impressed with the build quality and character of this building. Any of you all that have purchased here made a great choice!
