I think he was referring to TODAY'S buildings, not historical structures in st. louis.
A few random thoughts:
-This building is a site for sore eyes, coming from the Airport, on I-70.
-CNN , during our heat wave, reported from the upper floors of the building, and revealed a unique view that may be used by the media in future stories pertaining to St. Louis.
-I suspect this building will have a greater impact at night... well, obviously.
-This building is a site for sore eyes, coming from the Airport, on I-70.
-CNN , during our heat wave, reported from the upper floors of the building, and revealed a unique view that may be used by the media in future stories pertaining to St. Louis.
-I suspect this building will have a greater impact at night... well, obviously.
- 2,386
I think he was referring to TODAY'S buildings, not historical structures in st. louis.
True. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a brand new glass building in St. Louis, but I just totally disagree that with the opinion that we should "be greatful" for whatever some developer is willing to throw our way in poor old St. Louis. I'm sorry, but anything going up now should look nice all around, not just from one side. I do have high hopes for this building at night, as does everyone, but it's going to be seen by most during the daytime, maybe even more than at night, so I feel as though we are still allowed to demand a nice looking building.
True. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a brand new glass building in St. Louis, but I just totally disagree that with the opinion that we should "be greatful" for whatever some developer is willing to throw our way in poor old St. Louis. I'm sorry, but anything going up now should look nice all around, not just from one side. I do have high hopes for this building at night, as does everyone, but it's going to be seen by most during the daytime, maybe even more than at night, so I feel as though we are still allowed to demand a nice looking building.
I agree because it takes too long to even get a tower in this city, so now that we have one actually going up it better look like heaven.
- 10K
keef227 wrote:I agree because it takes too long to even get a tower in this city, so now that we have one actually going up it better look like heaven.
It takes a long time to get a tower built in any city. Complex developments take time.
Could we atleast let them finish putting the thing up in the sky......when it is going to be done anyway?
- 291
i rode past lumiere place twice today going north and south on 70 to and from the airport and my impression is that it's going to look good once completed. the relationship of the base to the tower is of little importance to me because the highway covers most of the base from view anyway. i didn't get a chance to see the entrance, but will hold off to pass judgement on that unitl the building's complete.
- 2,386
Im just still really pissed off about the sub-par glass on the North side. I LOVE the glass placed facing the South(Downtown), but the green glass on the North just doesn't look great. And the "light streak"....let's just hope it doesn't end up looking like a sh*t-streak during the day.
- 291
newstl2020 wrote:Im just still really pissed off about the sub-par glass on the North side. I LOVE the glass placed facing the South(Downtown), but the green glass on the North just doesn't look great. And the "light streak"....let's just hope it doesn't end up looking like a sh*t-streak during the day.
Are you sure it's not the same glass, but just hasn't had the backing taken off yet? I noticed there was variety in the color from the north, but I think that's due to some type of protective backing that hasn't been removed yet. The other prospect could be that light doesn't hit it from the north so it looks different from that side.
Unless someone knows the answers to my questions, I guess we wait to find out the answers when the building is further along.
how close do you think they will come to the picture of the rendering? It doesn't make sense for them to use different glass on the same tower...I think DTSTL Fan's protective cover theory is accurate...and that brown streak on the side must be what will be under the glass light streak (electric powerhouse for the gleaming light perhaps?)...can't wait to see the finished product....I present St. Louis' own nightlight...gotta luv it
They placed about 3 or 4 pieces of the sh*t streak on the east side of the tower today. Looks like it will all be in place tomorrow.
You can already tell that it will be significantly different from the rendering, if you are referring to the rendering on lumiereplace.com. The comb-over appears to be gone, replaced by the sh*t streak. The glass on the north and south elevations of the tower was always different, it is just the east elevation and possibly the west elevation that has changed. The transition between the glass was originally a narrow band of white something, which I assume was the light feature. That has gone from about 3' wide to 20' + wide and has apparently turned brown.STLight wrote:how close do you think they will come to the picture of the rendering?
- 2,386
Nicely put. I am 1000 percent positive that the glass is two different colors. There are no perspective issues. And you are right, that doesn't make any sense to me...which is why I am pissed off about this tower. I SINCERELY hope the sh*t streak is actually silver or something to that effect, and the brown is just a temporary sheathing cover during construction to avoid scratches. The way this tower has progressed though, it simply does not look that way. The North side panels do have coverings on some of them yet to be removed, giving it the "polkadot-esque" look right now. Have they totally abondoned the nightime gleaming tower concept that they initially proposed (aka light streak and comb-over) in preference to save money by going a much cheaper route?
- 1,218
newstl2020 wrote:I SINCERELY hope the sh*t streak is actually silver or something to that effect, and the brown is just a temporary sheathing cover during construction to avoid scratches.
Maybe this sh*t streak you refer to in actually trying to mimic the ultra-sh*t streak to the East...you know the Big Muddy??
- 8,912
newstl2020 wrote:Have they totally abondoned the nightime gleaming tower concept that they initially proposed (aka light streak and comb-over) in preference to save money by going a much cheaper route?
No! now relax
^And you would know this how, oh wise one? If you are working on the project, there is no reason why you could not at least explain the sh*t streak to us cretins. And where might we find an updated rendering???
********
A recent story in Constructors magazine:
The Changing Face of St. Louis May/June 2007
********
A recent story in Constructors magazine:
The Changing Face of St. Louis May/June 2007
- 8,912
oh wise one reporting for duty...
I know with 100% certainty that the light feature has not been abandoned
don't know about the comb over
I know with 100% certainty that the light feature has not been abandoned
don't know about the comb over
ANNNNNDDDD...will the light feature be baby sh*t brown, or is that simply a protective coating? I have been down to look at it, and short of sneaking onto the site, I cannot be positive, but the BSB Streak feature seems to be made up of opaque metal panels, and the surface seems to be the finshed surface.
As an aside, this site seems to have much more security than usual for a construction project of its size. I suppose they don't want anyone embedding electronic gadgets and whatnot into the building, although off-hand I am not sure what that would get you. Maybe some magnets under the craps tables?
As an aside, this site seems to have much more security than usual for a construction project of its size. I suppose they don't want anyone embedding electronic gadgets and whatnot into the building, although off-hand I am not sure what that would get you. Maybe some magnets under the craps tables?
jlblues wrote:ANNNNNDDDD...will the light feature be baby sh*t brown, or is that simply a protective coating? I have been down to look at it, and short of sneaking onto the site, I cannot be positive, but the BSB Streak feature seems to be made up of opaque metal panels, and the surface seems to be the finshed surface.
As an aside, this site seems to have much more security than usual for a construction project of its size. I suppose they don't want anyone embedding electronic gadgets and whatnot into the building, although off-hand I am not sure what that would get you. Maybe some magnets under the craps tables?
Or they don't want our pyromaniac friend to challenge himself with figuring out how to burn down a glass and steel tower.
- 86
The title of the article that jlblues posted above is very misleading.
That title makes it sound like the revitalization of the city core depends on the casino!
A more realistic title would say that the casino wants to be a part of the revitalization of St. Louis that is already underway as a result of the addition of downtown residents.
St. Louis relies on gaming and entertainment projects to revitalize city’s core and bring tourists back to the historic riverfront district
That title makes it sound like the revitalization of the city core depends on the casino!
A more realistic title would say that the casino wants to be a part of the revitalization of St. Louis that is already underway as a result of the addition of downtown residents.
looking nice from all around is subjective. i'm sure the developer and the parties responsible for approving it thought it looked good from all around. you can't please everyone unfortunately. who really thought this building was supposed to put stl on the architectural map anyway? i don't recall the developer making any claims to such. it's a casino hotel for goodness sake. think treasure island, paris, and new york new york in vegas and be thankful it ain't tacky looking like them.
as for the different color of the glass - i think it has to do with what's behind it. some of the glass seems to be stiched right in front of blank concrete while the others appear to be actual windows into the building. it makes some sense because noone in his right mind would want a hotel room with a gazillion candlepower burning outside of his room window at night. i guess we'll just have to wait and see though.
as for the different color of the glass - i think it has to do with what's behind it. some of the glass seems to be stiched right in front of blank concrete while the others appear to be actual windows into the building. it makes some sense because noone in his right mind would want a hotel room with a gazillion candlepower burning outside of his room window at night. i guess we'll just have to wait and see though.
newstl2020 wrote:I think he was referring to TODAY'S buildings, not historical structures in st. louis.
True. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a brand new glass building in St. Louis, but I just totally disagree that with the opinion that we should "be greatful" for whatever some developer is willing to throw our way in poor old St. Louis. I'm sorry, but anything going up now should look nice all around, not just from one side. I do have high hopes for this building at night, as does everyone, but it's going to be seen by most during the daytime, maybe even more than at night, so I feel as though we are still allowed to demand a nice looking building.
- 49
I didn't think Four Seasons would ever actually put their name on this hotel, but they have announced it on their website:
Four Seasons Hotel St. Louis: Opening early 2008
Four Seasons Hotel St. Louis: Opening early 2008
Wow, to be included with other new locations such as Florence, Alexandria, Mumbai & Istanbul. BTW, I'm not down with the poop-streak either. Visually, this thing is a bit uninspiring so far.Moog Rogue wrote:I didn't think Four Seasons would ever actually put their name on this hotel, but they have announced it on their website:
Four Seasons Hotel St. Louis: Opening early 2008