I have mixed feelings about this. I've never particularly liked the Ridgeway Center, but tearing it down seems wrong somehow. I do like the new design, though. 

From the parking lot:




From inside the Garden:




Interior:




Site plan:

Recalling my last visit which has been a while as well but like the idea of how they designed  the Main Lobby and its direct, open, lets go see the garden itself feeling.  I recall the current building as not being as direct.  

My biggest gripe in visiting places is that you have to go through some type of shop, sales, food venue on either entering or leaving.   

The current building is not very direct in that you need to go upstairs to actually access the garden. I'm hoping that the new building will allow garden visitors to access the grounds from the entry floor. 

Missouri Botanical Garden Breaks Ground On New Visitor Center

https://www-laduenews-com.cdn.ampprojec ... a.amp.html

Damn. I was hoping for a redesign. I really hate having the stairs in front of the building. 

Lot's of great enhancements with this new visitors center. The flow will be substantially improved, as the current design has some pretty serious bottlenecks - most notably getting through the front doors for tickets (which quickly become obstructed), or up the stairs or lone elevator to reach the main garden level. It looks like once you make it up to the main entrance via the wide staircase or multiple sloped pathways, you've reached elevation! I don't want to overstate this, but I feel like this is pretty huge for anyone pushing a stroller or using a wheelchair, which likely constitutes a good number of garden visitors. Not to mention the new landscaping and design just look beautiful!

The current elevator is off to the side but the new building could easily have 2, much more visible elevators. 
I've never used a wheelchair for any extended period of time or had to push a stroller around but having 200' of switchback ramps doesn't sound all that great either. 
And it's not just the ascension entry sequence, almost every architect or designer I've talked to in this city remarked how boring the design is. 

To each their own I suppose. But I just don't see how one, approximately 200-foot long switchback is an issue. This just isn't that far, especially when considering the scale of the garden. And, if it really is that much of a problem, I just don't see how you are going to be able to sufficiently get around the garden to enjoy it at all - even with the tram. Worse case is you go up one switch back, progress through the building, and hop on the nearest tram. That just doesn't seem like a hindrance to me - but that's just me.

Wash U returned to a classic 19th century and older university style architecture for its new structures. Wouldn’t it have been great if the new building went classical in the style of the oldest homes and buildings on the garden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Jan 11, 2020

Wash U returned to a classic 19th century and older university style architecture for its new structures. Wouldn’t it have been great if the new building went classical in the style of the oldest homes and buildings on the garden.

I think a post-modern design would have been pretty difficult. I definitely vote the modern route, this building is just boring though. It's a similar disappointment to the Art Museum addition. 

^Wash U is Collegiate Gothic, not Postmodern.

wabash wrote: ↑

Jan 13, 2020

^Wash U is Collegiate Gothic, not Postmodern.

As would be taught at the Sam Fox School or any other design school, any use of pre-modern aesthetics or building techniques after the 1970s is considered post-modernism. Brookings Hall is Collegiate Gothic. The East addition to Brauer Hall is post-modern in a faithful collegiate gothic style. The Brown School (Hillman Hall) e.g. is post-modern under any definition. 

Perhaps post-modern in terms of timing in that it came after the advent of Modern architecture. But not Postmodern aesthetically.

^The campus has grown stylistically eclectic over generations now. There are a few small buildings that could be a part of an estate; a pavilion here or a teahouse there. But mostly what they've built looks quite different than any estate I've seen. They've built galleries, greenhouses, classrooms, labs, libraries . . . in short they've built something that looks much more like a campus; an institution. And the styles have been consistent with that. And this is too. I wish they had stuck to the original plan of eliminating the parking lot and creating more campus space in the resulting void. Or even done something more akin to Washington University and buried the lot. (Charge for parking and reduce the price of admission. Now there's an idea for you!) Honestly, given their mission, I think discouraging private automotive entry would be prefect. But . . . they have to get locals in the door, I suppose. (Or at least everyone will say that.) If they'd done that, they'd have had a half a mile of linear space to landscape a way up to the raised plaza behind Ridgway that didn't require stairs. (I will also point out that it's pretty much flat from the parking lot into the Linean house and on to the original entry axis and the Climatron. So . . . there's really no need for stairs at all. Unless you want to make a statement. The current entry axis requires you to go up and down in more or less equal measure. Which is fine . . . so long as you can walk up stairs. Otherwise it's just damned silly. The land is actually pretty flat. I believe virtually all the grading, including that plaza, is entirely artificial.)

(Mind you, I actually do like the entry stair inside Ridgway. Just more skeptical of the one outside the new building.)

Anyway, now that I've blown off that bit of steam, I do actually like the general idea and I'm sure it will be lovely when it's done. It's not blowing me away, but . . . maybe it will in reality. Even though I will miss the lovely bright atrium and fiberglass barrel vault and stair. We'll see. I trust them to handle their campus, even on those few occasions when I don't care for the choices they make. Usually I've warmed to them over time.

And I appreciate their commitment to quality contemporary structures and landscaping. At every phase of their growth.

Geeze, tough crowd. Building looks fine. Its fairly minimalist, which is good. Nothing in the botanical gardens should draw the eye more than the gardens themselves. 

Complaints about lack of urbanism make no sense. There's 9' stone wall around the entire compound. Nothing will ever "interact" with the adjacent buildings.

^^ it would definitely be nice if it were built to the street and the parking hidden but... what would a building that enhances adjacent buildings of other periods even look like, in this case? and how does this design not do that? other than the Linnean House there really aren't any other buildings nearby—at least not within eyeshot—unless you're talking about the bungalows across the street. anyway, i think it's aesthetically fine. not exciting but certainly not ugly, IMO.

^Maybe someday they’ll be able to follow the likes of the St. Louis Art Museum or Wash. U. and put that parking underground.