urbanSTL

migueltejada wrote:Normally, I'm the one flying off the handle here - but seriously, how can anyone make judgment calls about this? The rendering is way too small to get any sort of detail. Why not wait until you get a better rendering before you pass judgment on the design or siting.

While the rendering is small, it clearly shows a parking lot on the west side of the buidling as well as a suburban front lawn. The entrance faces that lawn.



No new rendering is needed to discuss the lost opportunity for air rights.



Besides, if we wait to criticize until we have better renderings, we'll be too late to make any difference.

^Developers, brokers, planners and even a mayoral pundit are nobodies?

I have my own marketing banner for this project:



"COMING SOON...A NEW EYESORE FOR DOWNTOWN ST. LOUIS!"

migueltejada wrote:

ecoabsence wrote:


Besides, if we wait to criticize until we have better renderings, we'll be too late to make any difference.

Because the strained moaning of a bunch of nobodies on a small BBS website has been shown to make a world of difference to those in power.

Absolutely hilarious quote; nothing like a cold, hard dose of reality to put people in check.



Minor points to the person whose response sourced political pundits as a contributor USTL.



*Ding* Let round 2 being. *que scantly clad woman holding a large "2"*

migueltejada wrote:

ecoabsence wrote:


Besides, if we wait to criticize until we have better renderings, we'll be too late to make any difference.

Because the strained moaning of a bunch of nobodies on a small BBS website has been shown to make a world of difference to those in power.

That doesn't seem to stop some people from racking up over 5,000 posts!



Still, that's a valid point -- if all someone did was post their gripes here. Personally, I rarely post here because I know this is not my most effective means of reaching decision makers. Usually, that's a phone call.



But don't underestimate the trickle-up effect of this forum.

Seriously, this is an internationally read forum. Very important. Did you all know that there is even a guy in Australia that spends hours a day weighing in on topics posted here? Of course, he occasionally chastises us for being "moaning nobodys," but we can't all have our finger on the pulse of St. Louis the way he can living at the center of St. Louis political/development life.......Melbourne.

I do love the fact that the MVC is calling St. Lou home and across from Scottrade as well as next to an intermodal hub while at least creating some infill. The building might not be impressive. But having a NCAA rep or fan coming into town, hop the metrolink, watch a tournament, finding rooms downtown at three metrolink stops back to back, and see MVC is right their is impressive enough to me. Oh yeah, Div I national wrestling championship is coming to town this month.

I'd be interested to see what the north and east elevations look like.

Dredger wrote:I do love the fact that the MVC is calling St. Lou home and across from Scottrade as well as next to an intermodal hub while at least creating some infill. The building might not be impressive. But having a NCAA rep or fan coming into town, hop the metrolink, watch a tournament, finding rooms downtown at three metrolink stops back to back, and see MVC is right their is impressive enough to me. Oh yeah, Div I national wrestling championship is coming to town this month.

Frankly, I wasn't expecting an impressive building from the MVC, especially given that city officials have apparently now forgone even the meekest of polite requests that new buildings downtown should follow basic architectural and urban design standards.



I did expect, however - even in a city with the backbone of a sponge - that the MVC would build something that respected it's location, not a building that looks like someone transported a little slice of rural Missouri Valley into downtown. Think how impressed your NCAA rep or fan would be if they could do all of those things you mentioned and walk up to an MVC headquarters building that looks like it belongs in downtown St. Louis, not something that would barely be appropriate for the downtowns of Waterloo, Iowa or Evansville, Indiana.





Breaking news - I have just learned that Barnhart Credit Union wants to bring 83 jobs and all of the prestige that comes with their institution to downtown St. Louis. They will spend $7753.31 to set up their new global headquarters in several progressively-styled, beige double-wides on Gateway Mall. At a press conference, St. Louis Deputy Mayor for Development, Barbara Geisman, declared, "This is an historic day for St. Louis, an indication of the momentum that downtown has achieved, and a sign of even greater things to come." After the announcement, a large and wildly enthusiastic crowd of local rubes, including several Urban St. Louis forum regulars, ate complimentary pig snoots and engaged in horseshoes and llama-riding.

^

Didn't Lumiere Place notice the missing double-wides?

No doubt we all would have liked to see something much bolder here, but really, considering the site, I don't think it's that big of a deal. The site is basically cut-off on three sides. There's no street connection towards downtown, so it does make sense putting the entrance facing West.



Hopefully, the North/East elevations will feature some kind of dramatic visual statement that people will notice from ScottTrade and the Transport Hub. Then I think we'll all feel better.

migueltejada wrote:The hypocrisy on this website is incredible. You don't like the design, so you say it should be shipped off to St. Chuck. Fine - but if they had chosen to go out west, you all'd be decrying how they should be down town in the city.



You can't have it both ways people - either you enact hard design guidelines and deal when companies say we don't want to deal with it, or you don't and accept what gets built. I'm not saying one's better than they other, but you can't piss and moan when the HQ of a NCAA Conference plops down in your city just cause you don't like the house they've chosen. I'm sure Indy'd love to have them.

So, let's see - it's hypocritical to want businesses to both locate downtown and to do so in well designed buildings? If there's scowling when they locate elsewhere and whining if they throw up dung in the City, that's hypocritical? Don't think so. Hypocrisy is opposing a belief while holding the same belief. Isn't it two different things that are being opposed by "this website". One - pissing when a potential City business is lost to the burbs, and Two - moaning when a business opts for craptastic design. No "incredible hypocrisy" there, just a desire for both - economic development and good design. They're not mutually exclusive. Piss & moan away, kids.

Looks like Hastings + Chivetta has designed all sorts of boring buildings.



www.hastingschivetta.com

Don't worry guys, when the MVC gets a sweeter deal from another city in a few years, this building will be perfect for a Starbucks.

migueltejada wrote:You can't have it both ways people - either you enact hard design guidelines and deal when companies say we don't want to deal with it, or you don't and accept what gets built.

Members of this forum cannot enact any laws (and that's probably a good thing). They can, however influence those who have that power -- which is exactly what they do every day. There is no "having it both ways" to continue to critique projects while seeking design guidelines. In fact, that is actually quite consistent.

migueltejada wrote: ...If the city enacts hard design guidelines, people cannot piss and moan when a company (say brown shoe) says "bugger that, I'm going elsewhere where I can build cheaper". Surprisingly, there are consequences for every action.



Of course, the logical response for people on this forum is to then blame city officials for not trying hard enough to keep or attract said company...

Can you cite some of the examples you've found where "people on this forum" have blamed City officials for not trying hard enough to keep or attract a company which left the City due to onerous design guidelines?

You know what I’d like to see out there? A couple of hoops, some paint, a wire fence, and bleachers.

Great idea.

I don't think asking for sensible, urban-friendly design in an urban context is too much to ask. We as a city should encourage some good taste in our new buildings. This one doesn't make the cut.



I am convinced that migueltejada agrees with most of us here; he just likes to play devil's advocate to stir the pot. I guess Melbourne isn't that exciting.