urbanSTL

ComandanteCero-- This is the city, any place is good for a highrise. There is a vibrant and progressive Midwest city that demonstrates the success of highrise residential construction very well-- Chicago. The Near North neighborhoods of that city are a hodgepodge of buildings of all sizes. Highrises do not and should not be confined to specific zones. They should be intermixed throughout the urban fabric. That's what a city is-- a mix.

You'd be surprised at the urban design guidelines they have in Chicago (particularly along their more famous highrise corridors running along Grant Park), I'm not saying everything has to be top down planning but good urban design guidelines will give you quality, spontaneous urban fabric (and i would argue that many of the streets where you find too much of a hodgepodge of buildings ((in terms of height, style, mass)) tend to be aesthetically weaker than the more related and context sensitive streets).



If we take the attitude that being in the city justifies indiscriminate placement of highrises throughout the city regardless of context then we might as well encourage bad Modernist architecture or a suburban sense of context (which i know no one would want, but i'm just pointing out that one could interpret the statement that way). Not to caricaturize things, but as an example: I don't know how appropriate a highrise at the intersection of Clayton and Tamm would be, even though that's as "urban" an area as any. Again, in terms of urban design you have to consider the grain of the fabric and the "massing" of the buildings in the general area (as well as in the immediate context).



Like I said before i think the CWE is a pretty good neighborhood for mid/highrises (precisely because of the issue of context), however a 20 some story tower would be more appropriate on a principal street or edge, not in the middle of the neighborhood. But anywho, i guess that's all i have to say about that, like i said it's not a horrible location, it's just not ideal. I'm sure i'll like it once it's constructed, if only for the fact that it filled up that surface lot

i would argue that many of the streets where you find too much of a hodgepodge of buildings ((in terms of height, style, mass)) tend to be aesthetically weaker than the more related and context sensitive streets

I disagree with this. Take, for example, my favorite street downtown--Olive. What's great about it is that it has texture. Old and new, high and low, with that "hodgepodge" of styles you referenced. I think it works better than Washington, which presents itself as a monolith: one string of equally tall and massed buildings of similar style and all almost exactly the same age. My point is, "hodgepodge" is OFTEN what works best.



That said, you're right: you can't just plop down a highrise wherever you want in the name of "texture." One would look ridiculous across from, say, Francis Park.



But Euclid is ideal. Just because a street has only one lane of traffic going in either direction doesn't make it a "side" street. Euclid could well claim to be the chief street of the district, perhaps not for vehicular traffic, but certainly for its concentration of retail, office, and restaurant space. It is the heart of the region, and when one metions "Central West End," I think most people think of the Euclid business district.



Sure, if they wanted to plop it down on Westminster or some other primarily (single family) residential street, it would look ridiculous. But its location on Euclid, where many shops have either apartmetns or offices above, puts it in very close proximity to the Forest Park Hotel Apartments, the Chase, and BJC (included for its massing). I think it would have been difficult to find a better location.

steve, i don't think we disagree on this point, i said "too much" of a hodgepodge, which is to say that moderate amounts of hodgepodge are fine and even desirable. I was thinking of places where you have a very large building (like a 26 some story tower) across the street or right next to a relatively small building (such as a two story building)....... Anywho, i'm sure this building will be nice for those of you who enjoy being overwhelmed by height, but i think Euclid, regardless of commercial activity works best as a mid intensity street...... There's a reason the taller mid/highrises in the CWE are located (for the most part) on the higher traffic/wider streets (reasons i've posted in previous comments). Anywho, like i said before, this isn't horrible, but it's definitely not the best design for its specific location, immediate context, neighbors or street (although it does maximize private amenities such as condo views and developer profits). anyway, this is just my opinion, and you're all welcome to disagree. I'll leave it at that

This just in folks...



Ground Breaking and earth moving begins on Tuesday, March 8, 2005. Construction will be swift because residents will be given Fall 2006 move in dates.



These photos were taken by me today (Sat. 3/5/05 of the site. This will be the last you see of this ugly parking area - yippie!)

Thanks for the update. I am going to try to be there to take pics of the groundbreaking since I am on Spring Break this week, thank God, finally.

use away.

I don't see what's wrong with this location. As others have said so far on this post, Euclid, no matter how wide, is a commercial street. And the Central West End is a high and mid-rise district. To me, the development is exciting for the CWE and shows a newfound confidence in the area's urban livability.



The design doesn't floor me or anything--but it's not terrible. I guess it's just something modern to compete with Clayton. Nothing's wrong with that, right?

An afternote: In what follows, I use the word 'we.' I'm taking a liberty in doing that since I won't be an official, bona fide St. Louis resident until later this year. In that connection, I will risk repeating what has been said to me since I began posting here and on other StL blogs and sites:



Very often, a newcomer can see what longtimers, too caught up in past history, can't. That's not an insult; it's an observation that's probably as true of me in relation to New York as it is of some St. Louisans. At any rate, I mean no disrespect nor offense toward those who take positions different from mine.



--------------------------------------------



I introduced the question of height not out of some lame low-scale-good/highrise-bad perspective, but solely in relation to the dated, self-conscious, everything's-up-to-date-in-Kansas-City-ain't-it? look of the Park East Tower design.



In the abstract, I have no problem with bulk or height, but I think this building simply adds to the census of uninspired, what-were-they-thinking? highrises--for example, on West Pine. IMO, a parking lot is simply a placeholder--and vastly preferable to another dreary, shadow-casting behemoth that will be an embarrassment in a few years.



The CWE--the entire central corridor, for that matter--is too important to be allowed to be picked off, ad hoc, by developers whose goals seldom align with those of the people who live and work in or near the projects they develop--or the overall future of St. Louis as a dynamic urban center.



IMO, The Central West End should be a district with legally enforceable protections, where design quality, height and bulk, appropriateness, traffic, parking, and interaction of mixed uses--not tertiary considerations, like whether StL is competitive with Clayton--determine what is built.



St. Louis will become more and more competitive as a business and residential environment when it stops apologizing for its recent history and demands architecture of the kind of quality too many people seem to take for granted in the existing built environment. We will get it, and deserve it, when we demand it.



This is not a charity operation. Developers are increasingly active here because they perceive an evolving market for what they build. We should not, IMO, be cheerleading for a third-rate design but should demand work that is of a quality equivalent to its surroundings. In the CWE and everywhere else in St. Louis.

I think St. Louis's historic architecture is one of its best assets. At the same time, though, I think having a couple modern high rises can't hurt, especially in the Central West End. You're right to assume that things such as "competing with Clayton" or "showing County people that the City can build modern buildings too" are "tertiary" concerns, but everything has a ripple effect. The people that move into this Park East are big dollar signs for the city...both because of property/earnings tax and because of people with high discretionary income. The positive effects that they have on the neighborhood could outweigh any of the typical NIMBY doom-and-gloom predictions, in my opinion.



Plus...has there really been much NIMBY resistance (either by surrounding businesses or residents)?

Interesting opinions. I kind of like the design. What would the dissenters on this thread prefer - solely out of curiosity? Perhaps a similar building type for example?

With respect, Matt Drops the H, you are referring to this building not as the physical entity it will remain for decades; not as the product of a creative idea; not as an exemplary or pedestrian piece of design, but as a symbol.



I understand the symbolism of large investments, the confidence they are said to represent, the ripple effect they sometimes have and often do not. But if all we ask a building to do is to symbolize the moment, we relieve its designers of the need to set their sights higher and direct their vision more broadly, resulting in a building that reflects its own time but can speak to the next generation and the generation after that.



Height and bulk and exuberant decoration--whatever they may symbolize at this transitory moment in St. Louis's history--are no substitute for that.

I personally like the design, but I understand that others definately will not. I have my fair share of buildings that I do not like too. Now could have the PE been better, just like any design really, yes. But I do like it in it's pressent state, which as we all know, could always change again.

It's funny, I was talking to someone who worked at Little Saigon, directly across the street from the Park East site and I asked him if they're excited to have so many new residents right across the street. Our conversation went something like this:



HIM: That's where our customers park now. I don't know where they will park when that thing is built.



JIVE: Well this is the city, people can walk.



HIM: Yeah, but it's going to suck to not have that space there. I don't like the idea of a building going right there in middle of the neighborhood.



JIVE: You'd rather see a bunch of cars parked there instead?



HIM: That building is going to look so stupid right there, so yes.



JIVE: That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. A parking lot over a nice new building? Wow.



HIM: We need the parking.



JIVE: You need to get a clue.



HIM: You need to leave.



JIVE: See you at the groundbreaking!

jjb13 asks,



What would the dissenters on this thread prefer - solely out of curiosity?



Thanks jjb13, for the opportunity to elaborate.



IMO, one of the most interesting buildings in St. Louis (and I have to caution that this impression is formed solely from photographs) is the Third Baptist Church in Midtown (at Washington and Grand? is that right?).



This building is not content to refer solely to the Gothic, comforting and predictable as that might be. Nor is it content to paste Art Deco decoration onto a Gothic underlayment. Even now, 50 years after the last stage of its construction, this structure refuses to recede into venerable rectitude and irrelevance.



Despite all we think we know about this church--judging from its form and decoration--it is determinedly mysterious and a little scary. To me, that formidable, cavernous entry--though it is only a few steps from the sidewalk--is like the injunction over the ark in my current synagogue, where the Torah scrolls are kept. That injunction reads in Hebrew, "Know before Whom you stand."



Much sacred site architecture is beautiful, inspiring, noble, lofty--all of that. But sometimes, the architecture succeeds in doing something riskier--suggesting the magnitude, grandeur, mystery and terror of the universe and our lives within that universe.



This building was not just another commission, not just another project. It was created with a seriousness of intention that continues to compel our attention today. That's because, like so much of art that really succeeds, it helps us to understand more fully something we already sense but may not be able to articulate in words.



So the issue is not opposition to height or bulk per se. The issue is whether we have the confidence in the city's future to challenge developers to create something exceptional, something original and unexpected like the Third Baptist Church. That should be our standard for new building in St. Louis.



The results may fall shy of the mark, but the attempt alone will result in a contemporary architectural landscape that is the equal--or attempts to equal--the quality of so much of what already exists.

Benj. I love your philosophical thoughts on Third Street Baptist, about time I spelled Baptist correct, and I now understand where you were getting at with the architecture of Park East and other people's comments too. Now that you've made this new light judgement better understood Park East does not look as amazing as I once thought because it replicates and is not very innovative. Whereas, Third Street captures the onlooker into amazement. Now, granted a building is a building and New York, and all cities. has more than its fair shair of bland and replicating architecture or coninuous boxes, squares, rectangular buildings everywhere in Manhattan. I myself have some fear of "innovative" or "cutting edge" buildings that are proposed around the world that make one say, "What were they thinking?" Few architects can master the art of contemporary or new like Gehry, and as a St. Louisian I am comfortable with Park East instead of Seattle's new Central Library, which is a mess of metal mesh and a junkyard in the sky. I agree with the comments on design regulations, but not so far that they inhibit spirit or become too conservative. We can't always look to the world cities of fashion because anything that some highly egotistical person who belives that they are "sophisticated" (not you, but many cunning architects who think they know design but create crappy art like a huge white painting with a black dote in the middle) would erect gargantuous buildings from another world. Human touches and inequalities need to be reflected in buildings. When walking along the street I want architecture to encourage me to ponder about beauty, majesty, and grace not purgatory or the thoughts of the insane!!! A new era of architecture is approaching and may it reconcile those of the past and abolish modernism like Vander Rohe or Le Corbusier with their death cold avant garde shapes and textures. Enough concrete unless it has definition and meaning! It's strange how this thread has expanded so quickly, six pages? Back to topic, Park East is not as extraordinary as I once thought, although it is less boring than the 1960s apartment buildings on Lindell. We need Vancouver apartment buildings, now those are awesome! For now, PE will do because construction is ready to start and any attempts to block it from being built any further will only delay what the CWE deserves which is the national attention this building will bring and more residents and more projects that lean on the success of Park East. Sorry if this is an understatment or overstatement.

I actually think the Park East has a very attractive, classy, timeless design. It offers an infusion of modernity while drawing from the signature characteristics of other notable St. Louis buildings (most prominently the Continental). I do not see how anyone could consider the Park East a poor design. I think it is awesome. I can't think of any building in St. Louis-- residential or otherwise-- that is of the same style.

bencharif wrote:The CWE--the entire central corridor, for that matter--is too important to be allowed to be picked off, ad hoc, by developers whose goals seldom align with those of the people who live and work in or near the projects they develop--or the overall future of St. Louis as a dynamic urban center.

bencharif, that is such an undeserved comment. Careful consideration and respect has been given to this project over and beyond expectations. Steven Anrod, of Chicago, practically lived in St. Louis and gave much attention to detail to ensure this project was right for the neighborhood.



He worked his butt off. And recalling his genuine enthusiasm for the project, it ticks me off a bit that you would jump to such a conclusion. This is not just some fly-by-night, pity party project. This project has been over two years in the making. I have spoken to the people closely associated with this project - particularly Steven Anrod and Kathy ? occasionally. They have been totally genuine. It is totally unfair and uninformed to suggest that this project has been ad hoc. Just totally na?ve, IMO.



Also, the fact that the only major complaint has been a lawsuit over sewer lines is testament to the fact this project is seen as appropriate, a boon, and a great addition to the CWE.



Furthermore, I respect and agree with you on a number of your points, however, what you must begin to realize is that this project is avant-garde for the CWE (and St. Louis in general) in its own way when considering other towers in the Central Corridor. PE's slight avant-garde appearance is enough that it could inspire more daring buildings in the corridor.



Without a doubt, PE is a breakthrough condo design in the region. The design is not retrogressive to the point where it forsakes creativity. I don't see a lack of creativity at all. The architects simply took some architectural elements of the past and incorporated them into a contemporary impression.



Furthermore, The Plaza in Clayton, Clayton on the Park, and Maryland Walk, all in Clayton, are nice, new, and clean condo designs, but they pale in comparison to PE. PE, on paper, is already more avant-garde than condo towers recently finished or under construction in Clayton, which went with more traditional St. Louis looks.



One of the reasons I like PE is because I believe it will raise the bar for residential high-rise design ? and perhaps ? office tower design in the region. Although I was born and raised in St. Louis, I am technically speaking as an outsider having lived in Houston for nearly 20 years. Seeing places like Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta build more cutting edge towers, while St. Louis went the conservative or unification route in design, trust me, this residential design is cutting edge for St. Louis and Missouri.



Last, I am surprised to the 10th power that more resistance wasn't demonstrated against PE because of its architecture.



Did you see the Cornerstone Forest Park thread about a condo tower that's on hold? Did you read about the level of opposition that surfaced behind the project's height and design? This is what St. Louis deals with. From St. Louis to Clayton to Chesterfield and beyond over-critiquing design and height is part of the St. Louis fabric. I don't know why, but it has always been that way.



Nonetheless, I feel that things are changing because Park East Tower is rising.

Well, Arch, we disagree. Not for the first time and probably not the last.



As for community opposition, you'll find me on the opposite side on that one, too. Community opposition is what saved New Yorkers from near-blunders that have become near legendary in urbanism:



Moses's Lower Manhattan Expressway

Koch's Westway

Proposed demolition:

Carnegie Hall, Grand Central and Cass Gilbert's Surrogates Court Building, among many, many others



With any luck, we'll render Mayor Bloomberg's current waterfront sports stadium proposal dead as dead ducklings, too.

bencharif-- it baffles me how you can make an analogy between the Park East Tower and Robert Moses' freeway plans for Manhattan. The latter quite clearly destroys the urban fabric, the former enhances and adds to it. Apples and oranges. btw, there was relatively little opposition to the Park East.



Here's a testament to the passion and sincerity of the Park East's original developers-- When the project was announced, there was an article written about it in the West End Word. Apparently one of the neighbors panicked and wrote a letter to the editor in the following issue denouncing the plans for the Park East, saying that it will eliminate her "breathing space." I wrote a follow up letter to the editor that was printed in the next issue expressing my full on support for the Park East. I got a call the very next day from Steve Anrod, thanking me for my thoughtful letter and inviting me out for a beer when he was in town. I took him up on it and actually became quite friendly with the whole development team (prior to Opus). These are genuine people with a strong vision and confidence in our great city. STL needs more bold projects like the Park East.