urbanSTL

Not sure where to put this, but after looking at the unique St. Louis row house from the other thread that’s going viral on Zillow, I stumbled upon this just a couple blocks away. What looks to be a church built in 1869 has been completely renovated into a house. Pretty remarkable.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1320 ... e=txtshare


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm really glad that building was able to be put to a practical use again. It adds so much to the square and I feared it would sit abandoned for a while.

Nothing special about this pic, but I like the way it shows the growth of the East Loop:

 

^The expansion of the East Loop has been pretty astounding.

^It's also an interesting response to the idea that faithful revivalist architecture devalues historical spaces and necessarily looks like a cheap knockoff of the original due to changing materials and construction techniques.

It has that reputation in the United States because it so often IS cheaply built with low quality materials. But the basic argument is faithless balderdash. I personally think that revivalist architecture is merely one more artistic trend that comes and goes from time to time. It's a little out right now, and that's okay.

I've always been impressed by how seamlessly the new addition to SLU's Cook Hall blends in with the original. I guess time will tell if the quality holds up, but visually they did a great job (photo from Built STL):

S

^I'd say it's a mix. You get Neoclassicism early going up alongside vernacular structures. The Georgian and Paladian styles arguably begin to break away from that with freer treatment of decorative elements according to local tastes. While the Second Empire and Victorian styles still use historical ornament I don't think anyone would confuse them with a straight revival. And the Chicago School is a fairly clear new architecture which could have happened nowhere and no when else. (And I love my deco and moderne and even my brutalism and new international, so I'm not here to knock new architecture.)

But getting back to revival ist structures, Gothic revival churches often use historic examples as models, much like the Soulard code. (St. Francis Xavier turns to the Cobh cathedral. St. Francis de Sales supposedly turns to Berlin, but there's arguably a nod to Ulm as well.) Honestly, a fair part of Europe's historic architecture is also faux historic. (Neoclassicism is a thing there as well. I don't think the Greeks built temples in York or Edinburgh, yet there they are. Much like Philadelphia or St. Louis.) And no one seems to believe that replacing damaged structural elements in the historic style is a problem, so I don't see why a whole new structure really is either. Let folks build what they want. That is, after all, how fashion works.

(And in Benton Park I think they want historic revival by and in large. Maybe it's a problem that the neighbors have a vote on your house. But that's pretty normal anymore, really. To my mind it's really nothing more than an HoA with teeth.)

I think it's fair to judge neighborhood level 'faux historic' construction separate from institutional 'faux historic'.

Yes, neoclassical, Greek revival, Italianite, second empire. etc. styles by their very nature are inspired by older buildings and ideas. This is nothing new.  I think the difference is the money and time needed to do it well.

SLU, Wash U have done revivalist architecture well.  Why? They can spend to build with the same materials as was used on their older buildings.  They have massive endowments to pull from, and they're not worried about whether they can make money in the near-term selling the building once it's built.

It's a far different thing to build a new second empire home, as was the target of the NextSTL article.  Is it possible? Sure, but typically It's just not financially feasible today to build a new home in the same way and with the same materials as was used during the city's heyday - at least not at a price point that remains reachable for the majority. Building materials that were plentiful and cheap 100+ years ago are not today, so you end up using cheaper materials to make the end product reasonably-priced and the result is more often than not a an apparent imitation.

It's fine to look to older homes and older architectural styles for influence in new design. It's far better when new buildings are designed with their neighbors in mind & to fit into the context of the neighborhood.  Modern design doesn't automatically equal better design - there are tons of examples to the contrary, even locally.  But great design is design that makes the best use of the building materials available.  Forcing an architect to imitate a specific style without the ability to use the same quality of construction materials used in the style being mandated is putting the designer at a disadvantage, and the result is a higher percentage of poorer outcomes.

-RBB

^very well said

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Jun 12, 2021

Saw this picture in a listicle in the Post-Dispatch.  Don't often see press photos with the completed BPV.  Pretty good shot.  Not a PD photog by the way...I'm not sure who took it, was a Shutterstock credit.

Cool to see updated skyline shots.  Love what the residential tower does for the south side of the downtown skyline.  Google Maps is so far behind on it's St. Louis areal shots it only shows a dirt hole where BPV Phase 2 is now.

Also, this picture REALLY highlights the extreme contrast between the MO/IL side of the Mississippi.  Shame that there is 0 momentum for any developments just over the river.

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Jun 14, 2021

I've biked by this house 10 times and finally told myself to stop and take a photo. I'm thinking its been posted here before, but just in case... its so fun.  4217 Swan

That reminds me so much of the fairytale house at the corner of West and Ash in Columbia it's slightly spooky. Turns out the CoMO example is a historic log home that was reskinned at some point. (Maybe not all reskins are bad. Even reskins of historically interesting structures. But . . . most are.) Anyway . . . 

So I was randomly poking around on Street View. Yikes. C'mon, St. Louis.

I love the reaction of the gal that looks to have been out with him. As the G-cam passes you can see her notice. He's entirely blurred out, but she seems to be chasing him. Almost looks like she's got a water gun or something. Either way, you can kind of see her beginning to notice the G-mob.



In the second image, the one where he goes full Q-dumb, she's clearly mugging for the camera. Excited. Almost jumping. Looks away from her target for a sec . . .



. . . and then she looks back and sees what he's done. I can almost hear her mood souring. Her posture is completely different. Much less happy and excited and more "What?" I can almost taste the lecture he got for that. I hope she was his girlfriend. (Emphasis on the was here.)

He could also be playing the circle game. Straight, white boys be doing that in photos. I see it on IG all the time. It predates the supremacist meaning.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk