You know, the person who wrote that article has a point. The building is ugly and tearing it down for something else that would preserve the density and activity it generates wouldn't be bad. What's awful is the parking lot concept. I think too many people may be trying to make the argument that the building should be saved for other reasons (i.e. preservation because of its important design), which distracts people from the real issue and undermines other arguments.
Be careful or this will turn out just like the Pave Avenue Extension issue, where it seems like all you heard on the news was that the extension was bad for the environment, which St. Louis County voters couldn't care less about, not the long term tax implications, which most voters do care about.
slap some new paint, light up the exterior, replace the windows, and lanscape that thing and it could be one of the coolest looking buildings around. The problem is the in the color scheme and the the fact it's been neglected and vacant for a year. Not to mention in its previous use, it was a senior living residence. (not typically known for cuttin edge design).
My point is, someone with vision and a little coin could transform this into a modern beauty. This aint rocket science here. You could learn all this from a gander at the before and after thread of wash ave, or watching an episode of "curb appeal."
Go to South Beach, LA or New York and see what cool things they have done with renovated mid-century buildings. They make hip boutique hotels. With the San Luis' hallways that have one side of glass...imagine cool blue lighting radiating out. Paint the rest of the building a bright white. It would be perfect.
The building's precast panels cannot, and will not be painted. Setting aside the notion that this situation in any way resembles a fix-up for a quick real estate flip, which it does not, we must all realize that a large part of refurbishment incentive for a developer is historic tax credits. If this building can be qualified, and therefore allow a developer/owner to receive tax credits, then the essential architectural qualities of the building may not be altered. Now considering the notion of painting the concrete cladding panels, originally precast with a mineral aggregate (quartzite?) intended to sparkle reflection of the light of the sun, we'd be commiting a at least a small sacrelege to 'spruce up the place with a few coats of paint'. Details like new replica windows, and yes, painting the troweled surfaces of the stair towers with their striking circular ends and even simpler site condition clean-ups are in order and would certainly be employed.
.
For those who keep saying the building is ugly, you are free to voice your own opinion but know that it is yours- you don't speak for everyone, and without the emphasis on PRESERVATION of this building, you can BET YOUR ASS that this corner site will quickly become a surface parking lot. Assuming that the AD would, in good civic faith, build a replacement building on the lot that not only met the needs of the establishment, but would also create a more satisfying urban street edge is ludicrous. No building = parking lot, and you can bet your last dollar on that. While a good many dedicated urbanists may not feel that this particular building, designed or not by some little known, award-winning modernist architect of now distant era, and not acceding to the urbanist's ideal tenets of good street edge quality, there simply IS NO OTHER ARGUMENT than to preserve what keeps this corner site intact and aligned with the great wall of buildings along Lindell Boulevard. This building can be made to be the remarkable example that the Roberts Hotel Indigo has just become, down Lindell to the west near the corner of Euclid, just like the crumbling history down 14th Street in ONSL has been given a new chance to shine.
On one hand this is a kickin' building and we will regret it if it's torn down. On the other hand I understand the idea that we should advocate for density on this site if it is inevitable that the building will be demolished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . afer some thought - I think it's 100% worth fighting to keep this building. If it's lost, THEN we can worry about what goes there.
john w. wrote:The building's precast panels cannot, and will not be painted. Setting aside the notion that this situation in any way resembles a fix-up for a quick real estate flip, which it does not, we must all realize that a large part of refurbishment incentive for a developer is historic tax credits. If this building can be qualified, and therefore allow a developer/owner to receive tax credits, then the essential architectural qualities of the building may not be altered. Now considering the notion of painting the concrete cladding panels, originally precast with a mineral aggregate (quartzite?) intended to sparkle reflection of the light of the sun, we'd be commiting a at least a small sacrelege to 'spruce up the place with a few coats of paint'. Details like new replica windows, and yes, painting the troweled surfaces of the stair towers with their striking circular ends and even simpler site condition clean-ups are in order and would certainly be employed.
I was speaking solely of exterior renovation in my previous post. I was advocating lighting/painting the stair towers, I will have to take another look this afternoon at the exterior panels. Having not toured the building, I have no reference as to the current condition. I will say however that in my limited work on larger projects such the sporting news, the paul brown, and the arcade, I know quite well the importance of a variety of availabe tax credits.
And you likely know much, much more than I ever will. If there is mercifully enough time to assemble a presentation exhibiting the artifacts of mid-century modern buildings in the city, and especially in the CWE as there is a high concentration, we could then relate the salvation of the San Luis to the larger legacy of modern architecture in the city. We could show the relevance of such nearly forgotten buildings as the newly restored Indigo Hotel, and other examples in the city or across the country, and then propose an adaptive reuse for the building in a visual manner that would be hard to misunderstand. The reuse would most likely be a reversion to the original purpose as a hotel, and of course this building lends itself well to the possibilities of vivid nighttime imagery along this great Lindell Boulevard wall of buildings. We clearly cannot wait around for some imprimatur from the AD to publicly explore adaptive reuse possibilities, so we'll have to rely on the talent we know we have to render this building in a manner that makes clear the possibility of preservation.
.
As the Friends of the San Luis are now more coelesced, there will be need for both a concerted effort toward a presentation of adaptive reuse proposal and a concerted effort to inform the public about the imminent danger of demolition that the building is currently in. Now, the latter effort is most important, as it appears the AD is moving ahead with their intended plans to demolish the building, and without the awareness of the neighborhood and hopefully the sympathetic advocacy from some, the wishful plans of concerned urbanists will be meaningless. The involvement of others interested in this effort needed.
I took these pics yesterday from the rooftop of the Pierre Chouteau:
It's quite obvious from this angle that the context and continuity of the streetscape would be decimated by the loss of this building. The parcel is huge. Can you imagine a SURFACE PARKING LOT here?
The first picture shows perfectly what the loss of the San Luis would do to that row of businesses. A parking lot would be completely out of place and scale to the rest of it. Not to mention, just ugly.
WOW a parking lot in one of the densest areas in the region.
What really sucks about this is that this area has access to metrolink and apparently there is parking within a block or two, but like someone else said people in St. Louis praise Chicago, Boston, and New York for their density and right off St. Louis as being a boring suburban town. I guess I know why now, we ignorantly destroy our urban fabric at the cheapest chance. How can we get a ordinance on the books to prevent buildings from being turned into surface lots? Even a garage with ground retail wouldn't be near as bad. The mindset in this town is so 1950/60s urban renewal. How many more buildings most fall in the name of easy parking?
Those high-rise buildings are not businesses, with exception to the farthest west end near the intersection of Euclid and Lindell, but nonetheless the physical fabric would obviously be irreparably harmed by a huge hole at this intersection. This AD plan of surface parking at the corner is as un-neighborly as can be imagined for an institution that is surrounded by urban neighbors. If the AD wants to surround itself with sprawl-pattern land form, then let it move out to the county somewhere, and let another congregation assume use of the cathedral
john w. wrote:Those high-rise buildings are not businesses, with exception to the farthest west end near the intersection of Euclid and Lindell, but nonetheless the physical fabric would obviously be irreparably harmed by a huge hole at this intersection. This AD plan of surface parking at the corner is as un-neighborly as can be imagined for an institution that is surrounded by urban neighbors. If the AD wants to surround itself with sprawl-pattern land form, then let it move out to the county somewhere, and let another congregation assume use of the cathedral
Righto, they're apartments/condos. My girlfriend's cousin lived in the neat old one next to the brand new one. Whatever they are, they're big buildings that deserve to be near other big buildings.
goat314 wrote:The mindset in this town is so 1950/60s urban renewal. How many more buildings most fall in the name of easy parking?
I was criticized the other day for saying our mayor doesn't fully appreciate the value of our built environment. To be sure, he has been a champion of historic preservation tax credits, and many historic buildings have received new leases on life during his time in office largely in part to this economic development tool.
OTOH, we have lost architecturally significant buildings like the Century Building for additional parking, and the criteria used to preserve historic buildings is not consistently upheld whenever favored developers (Desco, Roberts, etc.) and/or Rev. Biondi want to demolish a significant structure for parking, or just because.
So the fight to save the San Luis/DeVille complex is further evidence that our city's leaders have not learned from the best practices embraced by most cities large and small over the last 20-30 years. As you said, we're still locked into an obsolete and narrow-minded 1950s-1960s urban renewal mentality. And this has got to change if Saint Louis is ever going to have a chance to realize its full potential.
Listening to the Deputy Mayor of St. Louis talk about ANYTHING architecture or planning related should be evidence enough that those currently in power at city hall couldn't care less about our built environment.
^ That's such a kickin' building. What needs to happen IMO is to find a buyer - an option for the Archdiocese. So who's out there that could take this on? The Gills? Kevin McGowan? The Roberts'? It wouldn't take much (relatively) to secure the building for a year or two and move a project forward when funding is available. This would be fantastic for small apartments or a hotel.
