The rendering that was in the PD.
![]()
In my mind, remaking Tucker into the great boulevard that it should be may be one of the most important tasks for downtown.
Looking at the rendering, I definately think that there is too much greenspace along Tucker. Do we really need two blocks of park space to the south of it? I can see keeping the one immediately west of it, though I would still prefer development here as well.
Looking at the rendering, I definately think that there is too much greenspace along Tucker. Do we really need two blocks of park space to the south of it? I can see keeping the one immediately west of it, though I would still prefer development here as well.
- 10K
I agree, stlmike. Just think of the canyon effect that could be created by building on the parcel to the south of the Union Pacific Building. I hope that we'll eventually see construction north of the Bogen on the west side of Tucker as well - right now, it's just a sea of parking lots.
stlmike wrote:In my mind, remaking Tucker into the great boulevard that it should be may be one of the most important tasks for downtown.
Prophetic . . .
- 6,775
DeBaliviere wrote:On the rendering, it looks like the park to the west of the building will have some kind of small pond/water feature...
A perfect place for the homeless to take a bath, if not properly patroled.
Thanks for scanning/posting the rendering.
Awesome! I liked it when I read about it but this is cool!!
Awesome! I liked it when I read about it but this is cool!!
Looking at the rendering, I can see we have the makings of a nice square - in front of the library. Building on the park south of the Park Pacific would help tighten the square - and make Tucker look better. I would like to give the square in front of the library an identify, name it something like Library Square. On the south park, I imagine a row of tall brownstone type townhouses facing the memorial and a highrise facing Tucker - or high rises all around! If both the Park Pacific and the Ford have retail on the first floor, maybe with tables on the sidewalk facing the park, it would create a great new space for the city. And it would promote cross pedestrian traffic through the park.
The Park Pacific is setting the stage for all kinds of possibilities. I never thought I would see the day...
The Park Pacific is setting the stage for all kinds of possibilities. I never thought I would see the day...
- 6,775
Cityboy wrote:My only problem with the plan as shown in the print edition of the Post is the focus of the PUBLIC park on the UP building. In my mind that park should have a greater emphasis on the relationship of Soldier's Memorial and our grand public library. I applaud the Lawrence Group for co-opting public space to enhance their development but I think that park has a higher civic purpose than to just serve their residents.
This made no sense to me. Am I missing something? Could you expand on your remarks? Thanks.
I won't speak for Cityboy, but I thought the same thing. If you look at the park in front of the library, it appears to be focusing on the Park Pacific. Look at the lines that look like extended sidewalks on the street. And there is a loop on the west end of the park forcing people to walk through the grass or out of their way if they are going from the middle of the park over towards the Ford. But, I am not losing sleep over it. First of all, this is just a rendering meant to make the Park Pacific look even more important. My guess is that reality will not be so onesided. Though it doesn't hurt to pay attention and see what their intention is - after all these are public parks. My goal would be to promote pedestrian cross traffic throught the park.
- 6,775
^^^Hmmmm....OK. I guess I would file that under "mountain out of molehill". But if that is the only thing anyone can find wrong with this plan, then I think it is a success!
Personally, if they are paying for the upgrade, I have no problem with them "focusing" it on their building. I don't think the average person will notice or even care.
Personally, if they are paying for the upgrade, I have no problem with them "focusing" it on their building. I don't think the average person will notice or even care.
What a great project. I was able to skim this article earlier, and didn't notice anything about a new tower, unfortunately I was unable to have my full attention on the article. But it looks great, and I love the idea of a new building being built. New construction is vital for St. Louis if we're going to continue this renaissance.
But I agree that the green space is a little over the top.
But I agree that the green space is a little over the top.
Agreed, Central Scrutinizer, this project appears to be a success! I love it. But, it doesn't hurt to pay attention, these are public parks, and everyone is paying for them. Everyone has a stake in them. Yet, I am grateful they are paying for upgrades and think it is smart of them to use the parks to enhance their building. Like I said, I am not losing sleep over it.
Edit - They are asking for plenty of money from the city plus tax credits. So, I see no harm in having expectations of how the parks are developed. But, I am not trying blow this out of proportion, I am all for this development.
Edit - They are asking for plenty of money from the city plus tax credits. So, I see no harm in having expectations of how the parks are developed. But, I am not trying blow this out of proportion, I am all for this development.
- 252
Yet another project I can?t wait to see completed! I really like the old/new contrast with this one, and the one at Washington Ave & Tucker just down the street. As for the parks, I hope they put a lot of thought into how it is done. Once again, London is a perfect example to follow. There are so many amazing parks of various sizes all over London.
Well, I hate to be a downer here, but I'm not so sure about the design of the new tower. Granted, the rendering only shows its "back" sides, and the Tucker facade may prove to be spectacular. Studying the rendering, it looks like the Tucker side may be gently curved, which could be really cool. But from what I can see, it looks a bit too much like a hospital or something. In fact, when I first glanced at that page of the newspaper the other day, I assumed it was another addition at the Barnes complex.
I don't mean to gripe too much here. Its really a great project, and the new tower will be a great visual addition to Tucker Blvd. I just hope the design turns out better than the rendering.
I don't mean to gripe too much here. Its really a great project, and the new tower will be a great visual addition to Tucker Blvd. I just hope the design turns out better than the rendering.
I am not so concerned about the new tower, as it looks like the important Tucker facade, while definatly barnes like, will add some interesting design to such a dull street.
I am more concerned that the park space between City Hall and the complex will be dominated in the center by such an ugly parking garage. This is the very reason why the park should lots next to the UP tower should be built on, as any park in that area should focus more on the beautiful civil courts, Kiel, City Hall, and any new building built, not on a complext that is esentialy ignoring the space.
I am more concerned that the park space between City Hall and the complex will be dominated in the center by such an ugly parking garage. This is the very reason why the park should lots next to the UP tower should be built on, as any park in that area should focus more on the beautiful civil courts, Kiel, City Hall, and any new building built, not on a complext that is esentialy ignoring the space.
Framer, I TOTALLY agree with you. Man, any new development and especially a new tower downtown is fantastic news, BUT.. I agree, the tower isn't that attractive to me. Maybe it's the rendering, but I don't think it compliments the UP(MOPAC) well enough. Look how grand the UP building is in the rendering, it could stand next to the GE (RCA) building in New York. The new building should at LEAST attempt to soar like the UP does. It does look like a new hospital addition. And PLEASE, no one take this as any new development should mirror older ones. As anyone who's read my threads knows, I'm all about raising the bar, modern etc.. But if they wanted to be bold and modern they only came up with a new "modern" hospital wing. What about those bold modern towers in London that someone recently posted?
Only thing that bothers me is the garage. They should dress that up somehow.
I agree to an extent. Until I see more renderings, I think the residential portion of the addition looks fine to me. The garage could use some more work to make it look less like a garage.
- 182
Overall this plan is awesome. It's always good to hear about new construction. However, I would really like to see more detail on the new tower. According the the scanned rendering I don't like the south facing street level facade. It looks like a blank wall. Also I think it should be taller. I would like to see it at least as tall the building across Tucker.
Something as easy as street level retail could really spruce up the garage.
And I kinda like the fact that the new building doesn't compliment the old one.
And I kinda like the fact that the new building doesn't compliment the old one.
For those wanting to see the rendering. MattnSTL posted it on his blog @ http://stlevolution.blogspot.com/.
I'm not saying that the building HAS to compliment the older one. The new building just isn't that striking to me. If you look at the UP tower next to the other one, it blows it out of the water. They should have a bolder design. Again, maybe its just the rendering, but St. Louis should strive for better.
MattnSTL wrote:It's also on page 4 of this thread.
Hmmmm! How did I miss that?