I love it. Grover is in Boston and he is still haunting urbanstl. Junkie I love it. Grover is in Boston and he is still haunting urbanstl. Junkie
Things aren't always so simple as they may appear. Today's mouths are fed by new construction. Politics is politics whether we like it or not.bonwich wrote:In the "real world" of the early '80s, the Buder, International and Title Guaranty were, in fact "utilized" by real people. Lots of 'em. Their unneeded destruction was caused by the Great White Fathers' egomaniacal need to have a "new generation" of buildings downtown (great architectural result, too, don't ya think). Couple this with perverse incentives for developers and the City's obsession with "home run" megaprojects, and you get a bunch of murdered classic architecture.
Things sure have changed, haven't they?
Yesterday's buildings don't always meet the needs of people today. Either they must be adapted or torn down to make room for something that will.
It's just a building, not an idol to worship.
Buildings serve no purpose without people. And if there are no people to utilize them, it is likely there is no money to maintain them. Sure, those were nice pictures. But we live in the real world. If you wanted to save them, maybe the figurative 'you' shouldn't have left the damn city in the first place.
And if you want precious density back, some issues need to be addressed first:
- Job growth is unimpressive / Union stranglehold on St. Louis
- Homeless problem
- Poor schools
- Crime
This is true, but I think the point of the posts to which you were responding was only that density is better than what we have now, not that there aren't legit socio-economic reasons-- like lack of demand and some of the others you mention--that have contributed to what we are left with.
When a building is 90 percent occupied, I submit that it clearly "meets the needs of people today" -- even when that today was 20 years ago, when at least one of the three destroyed buildings had that level of occupancy.
Building for the sake of building just to generate new construction jobs is pretty well disproven as a valid economic strategy.
Building for the sake of building just to generate new construction jobs is pretty well disproven as a valid economic strategy.
Yesterday's buildings don't always meet the needs of people today. Either they must be adapted or torn down to make room for something that will.
I don't agree with this strictly pragmatic view of the world. There are some things that we preserve merely for the sake of beauty or history. Even buildings. Louis Sullivan's Wainwright building is a work of art an even if and when it is unable to serve a practical function, I would argue that it should be actively preserved and kept up, even if only for spectator purposes. Not evey building deserves this kind of attention, of course.
Things aren't always so simple as they may appear. Today's mouths are fed by new construction. Politics is politics whether we like it or not.
Yesterday's buildings don't always meet the needs of people today. Either they must be adapted or torn down to make room for something that will.
It's just a building, not an idol to worship.
Innovation, I usually agree with you, but you are off the mark on this one. As long as something replaces it that is BETTER, then I have no problem with the original structure being torn down. I'll take MetSquare over the 20 story building that used to stand in its place. I'll take Paul Brown over the building that used to be there. It's just sad that St. Louis had these grandiose plans of "land clearance" in the 50's and 60's that they thought was progress. Now we have a downtown that is somewhat vacant in sections it shouldn't be, anything along Market is a good example... Read Jane Jacobs, it explains it all.
- 1,610
^If comparing Met Square, I wouldn't take the half-block Gateway One of modest height and bland design over the full block of more intricately detailed, equally tall, if not taller, buildings it replaced of more diversified uses.
I agree with you, JCity. Although "better" surely is a qualitative, subjective metric. Obviously you know more about the city's past then I do. It just appears during the 50's and 60's that the city was going through a crisis. You know, stop the bleeding. Did they think their plan was a step in the right direction to do just that? Hindsight is 20/20, but I wonder what the common thoughts of most people regarding downtown were during this period.JCity wrote:Things aren't always so simple as they may appear. Today's mouths are fed by new construction. Politics is politics whether we like it or not.
Yesterday's buildings don't always meet the needs of people today. Either they must be adapted or torn down to make room for something that will.
It's just a building, not an idol to worship.
Innovation, I usually agree with you, but you are off the mark on this one. As long as something replaces it that is BETTER, then I have no problem with the original structure being torn down. I'll take MetSquare over the 20 story building that used to stand in its place. I'll take Paul Brown over the building that used to be there. It's just sad that St. Louis had these grandiose plans of "land clearance" in the 50's and 60's that they thought was progress. Now we have a downtown that is somewhat vacant in sections it shouldn't be, anything along Market is a good example... Read Jane Jacobs, it explains it all.
bprop wrote:^^
Why are there people in that concrete plaza?
Not sure, but there better be some ground floor retail along 8th and along the plaza otherwise, it will just be as dead as all of downtown's other plazas.
As for the revitalization efforts of the 1950's and 1960's, I have been under the impression that feelings were pretty positive that the decline affecting the City could be stopped and reversed. Articles from the Post and the Globe during that time are all very upbeat and rightly so, a new modern downtown was essentially being built south of Market adjacent to the older downtown. With additions like the ballpark, new parking garages, the Regal Riverfront Hotel, Mansion House apartments, and the Arch, combined with improving access to the core through highways, seems like most people thought downtown had a bright future.
- 1,044
Perhaps if many of those projects in the 60's had not been completed our city would have become another Detroit.
- 1,610
^Right, because Detroit never did any major urban renewal, or call them "Renaissance," projects. 
Stop posting those pictures of historic/demolished St. Louis. I'm already sick enough...
- 181
The site is defiantly a building burial ground.
They are moving around and pulling out huge pieces of stone,
concrete and steel beams.
I wonder if any of the facade will be pulled out.
that would be interesting..
They are moving around and pulling out huge pieces of stone,
concrete and steel beams.
I wonder if any of the facade will be pulled out.
that would be interesting..
innov8ion wrote:Yesterday's buildings don't always meet the needs of people today. Either they must be adapted or torn down to make room for something that will.bonwich wrote:In the "real world" of the early '80s, the Buder, International and Title Guaranty were, in fact "utilized" by real people.
Um, of those three buildings? One was torn down to make way for open land -- empty, unused grass that doesn't serve anybody's needs. The other two, which like the first were occupied, were torn down for a building of similar mass and height. How many of the small businesses driven out by the demolition of the Title Guaranty simply threw in the towel or couldn't afford to set up shop somewhere else?
The Gateway Mall plan was foolish, misguided and egomaniacal, and underlain by an unexamined and unchallenged assumption that all green space is good and useful. In the dense and bustling city of 1920, sure, it might've been beneficial. But by 1980? Death and Life of Great American Cities was already 20 years old, and anyone with eyes should have seen that they were heading down an idiot's path.
^ Good thing we are not repeating that mistake.
Back to the subject, any pictures of the construction site, particularly the pieces of buildings pulled out of the lot at 8th and Locust would be great. Expats like pictures.
Back to the subject, any pictures of the construction site, particularly the pieces of buildings pulled out of the lot at 8th and Locust would be great. Expats like pictures.
- 5,433
JMedwick wrote:bprop wrote:^^
Why are there people in that concrete plaza?
Not sure, but there better be some ground floor retail along 8th and along the plaza otherwise, it will just be as dead as all of downtown's other plazas.
I agree. And I hope the Roberts Bros. aren't so hell-bent on finding upscale tenants that the lower level sits vacant for too long. At least one quality restaurant and some specialty stores would make all the difference and add life to the plaza.
- 291
ThreeOneFour wrote:JMedwick wrote:bprop wrote:^^
Why are there people in that concrete plaza?
Not sure, but there better be some ground floor retail along 8th and along the plaza otherwise, it will just be as dead as all of downtown's other plazas.
I agree. And I hope the Roberts Bros. aren't so hell-bent on finding upscale tenants that the lower level sits vacant for too long. At least one quality restaurant and some specialty stores would make all the difference and add life to the plaza.
I sure hope you're right, but I really wonder if the footprint of this building will be large enough to accomodate retail on the first floor. By the time you put in a lobby, elevators, service rooms, etc. there might not be enough space left over for much retail.
- 5,433
^ I could see that. There are already Starbucks locations nearby in the Renaissance Hotel and across from Macy's at Sixth and Olive, but that level of saturation is consistent with what they've done elsewhere along with their expansion plans for the metro area (something along the lines of two dozen new stores annually).
What will play on the big screen in the plaza? Will it show performers or the like up close for those in the back? I believe there was mention of a stage....??? OR will plays or movies be shown? anyone know
Hopefully a mixed bag. I would think scheduled movies would be well received especially in the spring/summer. Also, Cardinals, Rams, Blues games and other big sporrting events (NCAA/Playoff games...).
- 2,386
Would be a great place for sporting events to be shown, as stated above. For some reason whenever I think of that I see an image in my mind of 50,000 europeans crowded into a square in England cheering on their favorite team in the world cup. (I'm a huge soccer fan, so that works for me, but translate that into cards and rams playoffs....giving me goosebumps!)
I see what they're trying to do here, and I feel I may support this project more. It seems they're trying to create a "Daley Plaza" style space. If this is the case, then get rid of the mall and Kiener plaza. Let's use this instead.
Maybe this could end up a center for rallies, speeches, and so forth...
Maybe this could end up a center for rallies, speeches, and so forth...