urbanSTL

I think it looks pretty good. 

It's not in any local district, so CRO review shouldn't have been necessary.  https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... istmap.cfm

And to be fair, we don't know if they went to the CRO Hotspot for guidance either.

The black windows look great!

The windows don't match the time period of the house whatsoever! I guess the black is alright on the window frames but come on. Why would they ever take out those lovely fins? And don't get me started on that ugly ass door. Anyone with a sub-surface level appreciation for MCM architecture should see this and wince. Since when did people on this forum like painted brick? Dear lord, it's horrible. 

Painting brick is one of the stupidest ideas mankind has ever come up with. 

i think it looks fine, too. bricks from that era are not particularly attractive or high quality anyway. i would never advocate painting STL's historic red clay bricks as they can't be produced anymore, but i don't have a problem with painting these ugly brown bricks. and the fins might have looked cool from the outside, but they probably blocked light and limited the field of view from the inside. it's still a cool-looking MCM house.

I'm with you Elek. You can embrace MCM and make it timeless or you can give it a update that will need another update in 10 years. 

Prelim agenda - Lots of proposals including 5612 Waterman - 

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 4-2021.pdf

Final - Pretty packed this month - 5612 Waterman looks nice, opting for a classic design 

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 4-2021.pdf

spouse and i rented at 2859 Indiana about 20 years ago. that intersection (Indiana and Pestalozzi) has come a loooong way since then.

beer city wrote:Final - Pretty packed this month - 5612 Waterman looks nice, opting for a classic design 

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 4-2021.pdf

5612 Waterman looks great. Cant get built fast enough. The more density we get in the area, the more vibrant the neighborhood becomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even the plan that was denied (again) at 2034 Ann isn't too bad at all. I suspect they're just getting dinged at this point because they didn't submit a proper site plan.

Nextstl - Architectural Mimicry Makes a Mockery of Historic St. Louis

https://nextstl.com/2021/06/architectur ... -st-louis/

^ That is a good take.  Preservation review has a place. It's fantastic for making sure historic structures are maintained and updated/modified in an appropriate way - replacing custom wood windows with cheap vinyl, for example.  But I've never liked the mandate that new construction be a copy of historic structures. It nearly always results in a building that looks like a poor copy by comparison.

Infill like this, on the other hand, is appropriate IMO- even in a historic district. Say what you will about the design of that particular building, but it respects the form and massing of its neighbors without resorting to mimicry. It, like its neighbors, is clearly a product of its time - and that's good! It tells a story of the neighborhood, that it's lived in and updated. I see nothing wrong with that. There can still be restrictions and requirements, but those merely help the architects design buildings that respect the placement, massing, and ratios of what's in place = e.g.: no suburban-style, vinyl-sided homes hiding behind a 2-car garage with a curb cut in front built in a block of second empires.

Think of the neighborhood in musical terms.  A group of people singing don't all need to sing the same notes - a song can sound better if they harmonize, especially if different singers don't naturally sing in the same range.  Forcing modern buildings to be constructed to mimic historic buildings is the equivalent of forcing a tenor to sing baritone - he/she/they might get close, but it's not gonna have the same result.  But a preservation review district that embrace context-sensitive new construction in complimentary styles allows for modern infill in a historic neighborhood to have architectural 'harmony' - historic + modern 'ranges' - with guidance to minimize the possibility of off-key results.

-RBB

quincunx wrote:Nextstl - Architectural Mimicry Makes a Mockery of Historic St. Louis

https://nextstl.com/2021/06/architectur ... -st-louis/

I generally agree with this. I think some areas like Lafayette Square and Soulard have benefited from using historic models combined with very high quality construction. It goes south fast though- so many poor copies with vinyl siding returns and whacky proportions. I would rather have modern contextual infill than poor quality faux historic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My fiancee and I actually took a stroll down Dolman last night and marvelled at the high quality faux historic architecture. Lafayette is certainly an exception not the rule though for how things have turned out here. It's certainly a tough cookie to crack as requiring new construction to look like Dolman would crush the prospect of affordability. 

Perhaps historic districts should aim less to make the street look like it did when it was built, and shift to making sure that existing structures are maintained and prevent new construction from being terrible. Bonus points if they define maintaining the historical integrity of the neighborhood maintaining its density. AKA prohibiting single family conversions or building single family homes where apartments once stood (IE those new giant houses on Lafayette in McRee Town)

tztag wrote: ↑

Jun 09, 2021

I generally agree with this.  I think some areas like Lafayette Square and Soulard have benefited from using historic models combined with very high quality construction.  It goes south fast though- so many poor copies with vinyl siding returns and whacky proportions.  I would rather have modern contextual infill than poor quality faux historic.  

But the type of client & architect that did that lack luster faux historic probably wasn't going to give us a good looking contemporary building. I'm opposed to traditional style as the default a la Trump's "Great Architecture" order or whatever, but I do think these historic district regulations on new construction have their place. As long as they're not restricting height and density. 

^Right. A lot of the worst faux-historic offenders, like La Colina on the Hill, aren't even in neighborhoods with ordinances requiring model examples or specific historic design considerations anyway. And those neighborhoods with the most famously picky ordinances are also the ones that have, by and in large, gotten the highest quality infill. (Soulard, Lafeyette Square, and the Central West End.) . . . Because those are also the most pricey neighborhoods where it is easiest to demand quality. For better or worse, some of it really is just style. La Colina, while revivalist, is also fairly clearly developer contemporary. You see stuff just like it in middle-income suburbs all over the country.

Final agenda

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 2021-2.pdf