Proposals for northeast corner of Grand and Lindell

thewayofthearch · PostMar 27, 2008#1512008-03-27T15:29+00:00

How has anyone even formed an opinion on a project of this size based on that minimalistic rendering?

I think everyone needs to go back to "Start" on their Jump to Conclusions Mat.

matt drops the h · PostMar 27, 2008#1522008-03-27T22:18+00:00

TheWayoftheArch wrote:How has anyone even formed an opinion on a project of this size based on that minimalistic rendering?

I think everyone needs to go back to "Start" on their Jump to Conclusions Mat.

Right. That way, farther in the planning process, we can say we dislike the designs that are already practically set in stone. Then we can complain about how mediocre it is for the next 35 years until its demolition.

<end devil's advocacy>

thewayofthearch · PostMar 28, 2008#1532008-03-28T16:00+00:00

Because right now you've got them on the line, letting them know your opinion, right?

And they care, right?

matt drops the h · PostMar 28, 2008#1542008-03-28T16:46+00:00

TheWayoftheArch wrote:Because right now you've got them on the line, letting them know your opinion, right?

And they care, right?

And thank you for the counter-devil's-advocacy.

No, but seriously, sometimes all it takes is a few people to criticize a design and see it changed/altered. In a market this sensitive, I'll bet developers are willing to listen to what people--the building's potential users--are going to want.

And the best avenue might not even be to get the developer on the phone--it may be the alderman, who carries a lot of button-pushing and string-pulling powers with the political structure of our city.

gone corporate · PostMar 30, 2008#1552008-03-30T02:32+00:00

Matt Drops The H wrote:
TheWayoftheArch wrote:Because right now you've got them on the line, letting them know your opinion, right?

And they care, right?

And thank you for the counter-devil's-advocacy.

No, but seriously, sometimes all it takes is a few people to criticize a design and see it changed/altered. In a market this sensitive, I'll bet developers are willing to listen to what people--the building's potential users--are going to want.

And the best avenue might not even be to get the developer on the phone--it may be the alderman, who carries a lot of button-pushing and string-pulling powers with the political structure of our city.

Who will be using this building?

1. McCormack Baron Salazar.

2. Saint Louis University.

If Richard Baron and Fr. Biondi are promoting this, then we can expect it will be done to their likings.

And, as it has been noted by multiple posters here, it is a very preliminary schematic, so the aforementioned "need" of some to criticize for the sake of expressing criticism can be expected to increase with time. I'd ask that, should anyone be wanting to call the Aldermen to let them know of your critical opinion of the proposal, that you give the project some time to at least be announced in the newspaper first.

Honestly, though, I think the City would probably look forward to a new series of high rise buildings in Midtown, as well as corporate relocation in tandem with it, and the furthering of macro perceptions for both Grand Center and SLU, more than what some people think about the retail side's perceived "excessive" outdoor dining space along Lindell.

moorlander · PostMar 30, 2008#1562008-03-30T03:42+00:00

Arch City wrote:Is this just another rough design? Like the height. Hate the design. Don't need another plaza in Midtown. Don't need another Council Plaza in St. Louis.

1 council plaza is 2 too many, Fugly! Can someone please explain to me the benefit of no windows on 2 sides, yuck!

framer · PostMar 30, 2008#1572008-03-30T03:53+00:00

^It's a very narrow building. Sure, they could build a shorter, squatter building, with windows all around, but personally, I like tall and thin.

Looking at other work that the architects have done, I think it's a safe bet that this will be a very high-quality product. In fact, it'll probably raise the bar for future projects in St. Louis.

I think the proposed development looks great.

ntbpo · PostMar 30, 2008#1582008-03-30T07:53+00:00

It's a very narrow building. Sure, they could build a shorter, squatter building, with windows all around, but personally, I like tall and thin.

Looking at other work that the architects have done, I think it's a safe bet that this will be a very high-quality product. In fact, it'll probably raise the bar for future projects in St. Louis.

I think the proposed development looks great.

Agreed.

kustramo · PostMar 30, 2008#1592008-03-30T19:16+00:00

And I would guess that with McCormack Baron Salazar moving their headquarters here they would want it to be a showpiece to future clients.

jcity · PostJul 08, 2008#1602008-07-08T03:50+00:00

the building SLU just tore down nearby. not sure where the original thread is regarding this building.

http://www.mohistory.org/exhibits/Swekosky/auto-01.asp

what's really neat to look at is maps.google.com and see the "street view" of the new surface parking lot! (locust and channing, stl) THANKS SLU!!

debaliviere · PostJul 08, 2008#1612008-07-08T13:13+00:00

^

Man, that's a shame. That's the first picture I've seen of that building without paint on it.

In better news, the building right next to it is being renovated.

gone corporate · PostJul 09, 2008#1622008-07-09T20:29+00:00

Now that this has been up a few months, I'm still surprised to see that the intent of the design, including the outdoor plaza, hasn't been said.

Look at the design again, particularly the bottom left corner:

ChesterfieldKid03 wrote:

http://www.paceproperties.com/images/listing/194.pdf

The gray building with the sideways "L" shape? That's Jesuit Hall, which has a great view of the City.

Why is the new building on an angle, and with a big open plaza?

Because SLU doesn't want to destroy the view of Downtown that residents of Jesuit Hall have. Building directly on that corner would disrupt the view so it could be taken by another, potentially substituting a student view with that of a corporate tenant. Now, by casting the base half a block north, everyone gets the view.

See the forest for the trees, but also see the forest.

framer · PostJul 10, 2008#1632008-07-10T04:32+00:00

I love this design, and if it ever gets built, I predict that the plaza will become one of the most popular gathering spots in Midtown. Remember, the first floor of the new complex will be retail and restaurants.

jlblues · PostJul 10, 2008#1642008-07-10T04:42+00:00

Framer wrote:I love this design, and if it ever gets built, I predict that the plaza will become one of the most popular gathering spots in Midtown. Remember, the first floor of the new complex will be retail and restaurants.

Gee, don't set the bar too high.

framer · PostJul 10, 2008#1652008-07-10T05:30+00:00

OK, uh, let me re-phrase it:

I predict that the plaza will finally draw the SLU crowd into Grand Center.

jmedwick · PostJul 10, 2008#1662008-07-10T13:09+00:00

I don't think that sets the bar to high. Think about it, there are few if any plazas that serve as "popular" gathering spots in Midtown right now. All it must do is attract a few people more than Leon Strauss Park does now. Not that hard.

jlblues · PostJul 10, 2008#1672008-07-10T15:35+00:00

JMedwick wrote:I don't think that sets the bar to high. Think about it, there are few if any plazas that serve as "popular" gathering spots in Midtown right now. All it must do is attract a few people more than Leon Strauss Park does now. Not that hard.

Yes, that was the point...

dredger · PostJul 10, 2008#1682008-07-10T16:37+00:00

I tend to belief that the street level retail would benefit with some open space adjacent to the street. I think the plaza has a lot do with selling street level space and getting a premium on the lease instead of the next door neighbor. My second thought, market studies might suggest a limit on how much space you want to build or least how much space that the banks are willing to finance on. The design is probably getting some more height by incorporating the street level plaza by reducing the building footprint. Really think this is a good design for the area (Go a little more vertical on Grand Ave while offerring some premium sidewalk/plaze space to ground level tenants).

debaliviere · PostJul 10, 2008#1692008-07-10T16:52+00:00

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of compromise - perhaps design the base of the building, the first two stories, to go up to the sidewalk, then set the tower portion back from the street.

jlblues · PostJul 11, 2008#1702008-07-11T00:46+00:00

zink · PostJul 11, 2008#1712008-07-11T03:30+00:00

^funny

framer · PostJul 11, 2008#1722008-07-11T04:07+00:00

^^Damn, I wish I could do that. I'm still trying to master emoticons!

kustramo · PostJul 11, 2008#1732008-07-11T19:44+00:00

JMedwick wrote:All it must do is attract a few people more than Leon Strauss Park does now. Not that hard.

So having 4 homeless people sleeping in it instead of the typical 3 at Strauss would do the trick

moorlander · PostNov 14, 2008#1742008-11-14T13:32+00:00

Friday, November 14, 2008

SLU scraps $100 million plan for Grand and Lindell

St. Louis Business Journal - by Lisa R. Brown

A year after Saint Louis University announced a $100 million development for land it owns at Grand and Lindell, the school is no longer pursuing a mixed-use project backed by McCormack Baron Salazar.

SLU cited the slow economy as a reason for pulling back on the plan.

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... tory4.html

debaliviere · PostNov 14, 2008#1752008-11-14T13:57+00:00

Sure would be nice to still have the Marina Building at that corner. It could have easily been renovated by now.

Proposals for northeast corner of Grand and Lindell

Choose Display Mode