New Hotel Indigo - Convention District (10th @ Locust)

debaliviere · PostOct 28, 2008#1262008-10-28T18:51+00:00

http://www.landmarks-stl.org/news/state ... o_project/

I wish they could at least incorporate 923 Locust into their plans. I realize that the building doesn't line up with the St. Louis Design Center building, but I'm sure a creative solution could be achieved.

moorlander · PostOct 28, 2008#1272008-10-28T18:57+00:00

That last sentence Rocks!

vollum · PostOct 28, 2008#1282008-10-28T20:03+00:00

I'll probably evoke an avalanch of criticism with this post. But, I have to admit I am comfortable with the decision. Our place looks out/over these buildings. The one on the corner is a true eyesore. And, from the posts here, it seems everyone is pretty much in agreement. I have a little heartburn over the 921 building's demo without a construction proposal on the table. But, my gut tells me that it really will happen. Many people on this site seem to be extremely critical (perhaps unduly) of Roberts Brothers developments. In this economic climate, I have a greater degree of confidence in their ability to make developments happen than most other developers. It seems to me they are really invested in this portion of downtown. They will see it as in their best interests to make the hotel development happen. And, I really like what they are doing to the building on Lindell in the CWE.

dredger · PostOct 28, 2008#1292008-10-28T20:19+00:00

In defense of the Robert Brothers, they seem to be disciplined in their approach of obtaining property and then making something happen. Maybe for better or worse dependeing on your viewpoint. But, the thing I appreciate is the willingness to do rehab as well as new build with a financial committment on their part to make it happen. The opposite would be John Stephen and his pyramid scheme that imploded.

urban_dilettante · PostOct 28, 2008#1302008-10-28T22:01+00:00

vollum wrote:The one on the corner is a true eyesore. And, from the posts here, it seems everyone is pretty much in agreement.

several people have disagreed, including myself. personally, i think the building adds diversity to the streetscape. if it's an eyesore it's only because it needs maintenance, not a wrecking ball. moreover, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, the current facade is not the original. i happen to like the current facade but i'd rather see the old one restored than raze yet another historic structure. this is a civil-war era storefront on a corner lot in the heart of DT and it's going to become either a driveway or a vacant lot. IMHO that sucks.

jlblues · PostOct 28, 2008#1312008-10-28T23:14+00:00

^Yes, but the Roberts Bros. are "good" developers. If they were "bad" developers, then we'd be against it.

Its funny how the ends justify the means for so many of you, as long as they are acceptable "ends". Demolition is ok as long as it is replaced by something "better". The problem is that the definition of "better" keeps getting rounded down.

citywatcher · PostOct 29, 2008#1322008-10-29T00:38+00:00

^

Yes, but the Roberts Bros. are "good" developers. If they were "bad" developers, then we'd be against it. Laughing

Its funny how the ends justify the means for so many of you, as long as they are acceptable "ends". Demolition is ok as long as it is replaced by something "better". The problem is that the definition of "better" keeps getting rounded down.

new development is better than surface lots or parking garages

I do wish they could have worked the middle building into the development.

It is a solid building and is not in the condition of the smaller building.

there is also some historic columns and iron work under all that junk that needs to be salvaged

also I think this should be moved to projects and construction thread

jlblues · PostOct 29, 2008#1332008-10-29T00:51+00:00

citywatcher wrote:It is a solid building and is not in the condition of the smaller building.

What makes you think the smaller building is in a less-than-solid condition? You can't see the structure, just dirty surface plaster and windows. You could do wonders with just a few buckets of paint and some Windex. And do we know that the historic facade is no longer intact under all that stucco? Even if it isn't, it could be reconstructed.

This is all the CRO had to say about it:

923 Locust, the corner of 10th Street and Locust, is non-contributing under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. It has been altered so severely that it no longer retains any architectural

merit.

BTW, I don't believe they really need this for a porte cochere. The real reason the Roberts want to demolish these buildings is so they can add an outdoor pool. That wouldn't be feasible on any of the existing buildings. That is not a sufficient reason to demolish two historic buildings.

debaliviere · PostOct 29, 2008#1342008-10-29T13:00+00:00

David Slay was going to rehab 923 for a restaurant a few years back. Judging from the interior photos I've seen, the building is in fine shape.

I really don't want to see these buildings go. It still irks me that viable buildings are being torn down when there is a sea of vacant lots to build on just a block to the west.

923 would make for an ideal pub that could be connected to the hotel.

olvidarte · PostOct 29, 2008#1352008-10-29T15:18+00:00

new development is better than surface lots or parking garages

We're getting a circle drive at the expense of 2 buildings.

While I'm up in the air about demolition (more against than for), I'd prefer a more urban design than a big drive way. Doesn't US Bank have one of those and look how awesome it is...

Can we please get some city leaders and/or developers in this town who actually know what a city is supposed to look and feel like?

zink · PostOct 29, 2008#1362008-10-29T16:38+00:00

From the rendering the "circle driveway" is only going to take up the first building. They will be building their lobby where the 2nd building is. So they will be making a new building... just smaller.

publiceye · PostOct 29, 2008#1372008-10-29T18:42+00:00

I do wish they could have worked the middle building into the development.

The testimony was that the floors did not line up on any of the buildings -- and that the re-use of the great 917 building as a hotel required the addition of windows.

From the rendering the "circle driveway" is only going to take up the first building

The Board was shown a new and pretty different rendering.

juiceinkirkwood · PostOct 30, 2008#1382008-10-30T01:38+00:00

How bout one of those new trendy McDonald's. Finally I can feel cool and hip when I eat there.

stlcardsblues1989 · PostOct 30, 2008#1392008-10-30T02:51+00:00

So they're demolishing the brick building? The Mothers Fish restaurant may make a cool-looking lobby, if it's not too big. I wish they'd at least save one of the buildings.

jlblues · PostOct 30, 2008#1402008-10-30T02:59+00:00

^Yes. The 4-story brick building and the 3-story "Tudor" building.

I don't know if either of these are the "new and pretty different rendering" to which publiceye was referring, but these are the renderings that were submitted to the CRO for the Preliminary Review on October 27th.

publiceye wrote:The Board was shown a new and pretty different rendering.

publiceye wrote:The testimony was that the floors did not line up on any of the buildings -- and that the re-use of the great 917 building as a hotel required the addition of window.

OK. So?

Give me the drawings and let me take a crack at it. Bet I can come up with a relatively simple solution to those "problems" in a few hours, that doesn't require the demolition of two historic buildings.

publiceye · PostOct 30, 2008#1412008-10-30T11:56+00:00

but these are the renderings that were submitted to the CRO for the Preliminary Review on October 27th.

No, those are two of the renderings submitted to the CRO. A new drawing was submitted for preliminary review.

I can come up with a relatively simple solution to those "problems" in a few hours, that doesn't require the demolition of two historic buildings.

That's great news.

threeonefour · PostOct 30, 2008#1422008-10-30T13:37+00:00

JCity wrote:Surface lots are not allowed in Toronto according to Rollin Stanley, it certainly seems to be working for them. If they wanted to tear this building down for a 10-50 story highrise, I wouldn't be opposed at all. The problem is having an intact corner being wiped to for a surface parking lot. surface lots and garages without retail on the first floor = dead downtowns. did you study urban planning? curious as to know how you're such an expert. I'm all for individual property rights, but tearing down historic buildings for something WORSE (surface lots) is 1960's thinking.

Exactly. I don't want to see the buildings demolished, but my viewpoint has less to do with the buildings per se than the inferior plans for which they will be sacrificed. But hey, who cares if the plans are inferior, this is St. Louis, where no building is too good to be sacrificed for something to accommodate more cars!

Of course the city will rubberstamp any demolition, especially this one since the Roberts Brothers are behind the project. Sometimes I wish I didn't care as much about St. Louis. It's clear that its leaders really don't.

vollum · PostOct 30, 2008#1432008-10-30T15:03+00:00

"Exactly. I don't want to see the buildings demolished, but my viewpoint has less to do with the buildings per se than the inferior plans for which they will be sacrificed."

Inferior to what other plans? I had no idea there were other plans. Some have suggested the building with the ugly tudor facade could be turned into gem with a few gallons of paint. I think it would take at least a couple of million dollars. And, you would end up with a two (not three) story building on small footprint. The facade on Locust is three but most of the building is two stories. And, the cost per square foot would be? And, you could lease it or sell it for? I don't think that dog will hunt.

the central scrutinizer · PostOct 30, 2008#1442008-10-30T15:08+00:00

vollum wrote:"Exactly. I don't want to see the buildings demolished, but my viewpoint has less to do with the buildings per se than the inferior plans for which they will be sacrificed."

Inferior to what other plans? I had no idea there were other plans. Some have suggested the building with the ugly tudor facade could be turned into gem with a few gallons of paint. I think it would take at least a couple of million dollars. And, you would end up with a two (not three) story building on small footprint. The facade on Locust is three but most of the building is two stories. And, the cost per square foot would be? And, you could lease it or sell it for? I don't think that dog will hunt.

Yep. It's easy to say what should be done when you're spending someone else's money.

matt drops the h · PostOct 30, 2008#1452008-10-30T15:17+00:00

vollum wrote:"Exactly. I don't want to see the buildings demolished, but my viewpoint has less to do with the buildings per se than the inferior plans for which they will be sacrificed."

Inferior to what other plans? I had no idea there were other plans. Some have suggested the building with the ugly tudor facade could be turned into gem with a few gallons of paint. I think it would take at least a couple of million dollars. And, you would end up with a two (not three) story building on small footprint. The facade on Locust is three but most of the building is two stories. And, the cost per square foot would be? And, you could lease it or sell it for? I don't think that dog will hunt.

Neither you, nor CS's unrelenting witticisms can justify the demolition of a building for a car turnaround--an autocentric use in the heart of the area's Central Business District.

It'd be different if downtown were much more intact and urban already. Unfortunately, it's been threatened to the brink over the past couple decades. This proposal furthers the mentality that brought downtown to its knees.

The proposal is actually worse than simply tearing the two buildings down and building nothing. At least then the vacant lots could be used for infill in a downtown sorely in need of more pedestrian activity and street level retail/restaurants.

the central scrutinizer · PostOct 30, 2008#1462008-10-30T15:24+00:00

Matt Drops The H wrote:
vollum wrote:"Exactly. I don't want to see the buildings demolished, but my viewpoint has less to do with the buildings per se than the inferior plans for which they will be sacrificed."

Inferior to what other plans? I had no idea there were other plans. Some have suggested the building with the ugly tudor facade could be turned into gem with a few gallons of paint. I think it would take at least a couple of million dollars. And, you would end up with a two (not three) story building on small footprint. The facade on Locust is three but most of the building is two stories. And, the cost per square foot would be? And, you could lease it or sell it for? I don't think that dog will hunt.

Neither you, nor CS's unrelenting witticisms can justify the demolition of a building for a car turnaround--an autocentric use in the heart of the area's Central Business District.

It'd be different if downtown were much more intact and urban already. Unfortunately, it's been threatened to the brink over the past couple decades. This proposal furthers the mentality that brought downtown to its knees.

The proposal is actually worse than simply tearing the two buildings down and building nothing. At least then the vacant lots could be used for infill in a downtown sorely in need of more pedestrian activity and street level retail/restaurants.

Great! Sounds like we'll soon be reading a story about you buying the (dreadful) tudor building and rehabbing it!

jmedwick · PostOct 30, 2008#1472008-10-30T15:32+00:00

My concern here is not for the loss of the two buildings. Simply that if they are to be torn down, something of value should replace them. The images above don't meet that requirement. I am interested to see the new images of a more urban solution.

debaliviere · PostOct 30, 2008#1482008-10-30T15:38+00:00

JMedwick wrote:My concern here is not for the loss of the two buildings. Simply that if they are to be torn down, something of value should replace them. The images above don't meet that requirement. I am interested to see the new images of a more urban solution.

I agree - if an infill building were to be constructed up to or above the height of the St. Louis Design Center building, I'd have no problem with that. The current plan just doesn't seem worth it.

doug · PostOct 30, 2008#1492008-10-30T17:02+00:00

We already didn't get Skyhouse. Where's the guarantee that this project will happen? We're in a recession.

jmedwick · PostOct 30, 2008#1502008-10-30T17:08+00:00

Doug wrote:We already didn't get Skyhouse. Where's the guarantee that this project will happen? We're in a recession.

This is also a valid concern. The buildings should not be coming down without a confirmation that something else will be put up in their place. Was the demolition approval conditioned?

New Hotel Indigo - Convention District (10th @ Locust)

Choose Display Mode