urbanSTL

It's mostly late-19th and early-20th century brick actually...

ZZZZZZING! Let's put a stop to this tripe. What I would like to know, is, what is your point? What would you prefer Washington Ave. to be? Do you prefer it to still be empty like it used to be? I just don't understand the point of saying that it isn't a "real" neighborhood because it's been recalled to life. So we aren't NYC. Big Deal! Just don't forget the amazing resurgence of the brownstones in Harlem... Do you think those are "fake" or "plastic" too? Many previously run-down places in cities have become verrrry fashionable and expensive recently. I guess they're just false though and the people paying millions to live there are just stupid.

I already apologized for calling you a High Schooler. I was out of line for speculating that you were a fat kid. Geez. I'm not the only one to accuse you of being dumb. (apparently you're just impatient) Sorry. Calm yourself.

I think what draws many on this forum as well as many urban dwellers is the actual craftsmanship that goes into some of these buildings. When you look at the intracacies of the moldings, stonework and the diversity of the building designs you realize that many of these buildings were unto there own the architects, stone cutters and skilled laborers own masterpieces. The building facades of yesterday had a tangible human touch that they dont have today. I am by no means an architectural expert but over the years I have become an afficionado of it. The human element of these buildings to me is what sets them apart from some of their newer counterparts and the stories that they tell from the nuances of their individual histories. Trying to reproduce it in new construction is virtually impossible and tends to reflect more of a fabricated feel. Just my two cents.......

Very well said, Manchester...an interest in urban architecture both old and new is how I got here!

May I add that I think some who make statements comparing downtown St. Louis to other large urban centers don't realize that other such urban centers had not been abandoned on the scale that St. Louis had.

As for what has transpired in downtown St. Louis in the past 2 or 3 years, I find absolutely remarkable, and if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes probably would not have believed it. I don't know what those are looking for when they say something is lacking down on Washington Ave. Maybe they resent the fact that it seems to have become targeted to an upscale urban clientel. Maybe they think it's not happening fast enough(????!!!!) IMHO, it's about %#@*!! time someone had noticed our wonderful CBD and that there's plenty there, all the right things, to appeal to true urbanites.

dweebe wrote:Coming up next from Agent009:



Why The Grove reminds me of Gravois Bluffs



and



Why South Grand reminds me of Chesterfield Commons.

My favorite post in this thread, other than Jive's spot-on observations about Washington Avenue.



I was out of town for the last two days, and now I'm not sorry I missed out on the bulk of this discussion so far.

Ok, so I'll come to aid of Agent to a degree -



Let's ignore where Wash Ave was and look at where it is and where it's heading.



The good news is that obviously these old historic buildings are being re-used with great vibrant street level uses.



Of course, from a character point of view, it looks REALLY REALLY sterile. Like, the rehabs were so good, the street frontages so clearly glazed and so new, that it doesn't look like these buildings are "real" or have much character anymore. The new sidewalk treatment just goes to promote that image. It's kinda creepy in the same way that Cher looks better at 50 than she did at 34. Does that make it like New Town? No. Does it give the same eerie feeling - like this type of development shouldn't belong? Yes.



Of course active uses are better than vacant storefronts. Of course reused buildings are better than derelict ones. Wash Ave is going well and that's great. People have to admit it's a little weird to be walking down a former slum and seeing gelato shops and sushi bars. I think that's just as weird a visual image as driving into New Town and feeling like you just walked into St. louis circa 1878.



At least - I hope that's what you're trying to say?

^I urge you to look at pictures of New York's Upper West Side in the 1970s, or better yet-- Chelsea, Tribeca and Hell's Kitchen, or many neighborhoods on Chicago's North Side. Many people would call them sterile today, yet they are miraculously actually inhabitable. Let's face it, no developer is going to sink millions into renovating buildings without really cleaning them up and making them as attractive as possible to people with MONEY who would potentially live in them.



Trust me, I hear you loud and clear and even agree. That's one of the reasons Wash Ave is not a place I would live. I much prefer a more natural balance in my urban neighborhoods. Wash Ave is a bit too polished for me now. But I'm happy to have more to downtown's restaurant and entertainment options than just the Landing, and we should all be happy that downtown St. Louis is fashionable again.



And say what you want about gentrification, but it actually benefits marginal neighborhoods, because the people who pioneered the scene on Wash Ave slowly migrate to revitalize other neglected 'hoods that are more affordable, and it all spreads from there. Midtown is next baby. Oh Midtown.

migueltejada wrote:Ok, so I'll come to aid of Agent to a degree -



Let's ignore where Wash Ave was and look at where it is and where it's heading.



The good news is that obviously these old historic buildings are being re-used with great vibrant street level uses.



Of course, from a character point of view, it looks REALLY REALLY sterile. Like, the rehabs were so good, the street frontages so clearly glazed and so new, that it doesn't look like these buildings are "real" or have much character anymore. The new sidewalk treatment just goes to promote that image. It's kinda creepy in the same way that Cher looks better at 50 than she did at 34. Does that make it like New Town? No. Does it give the same eerie feeling - like this type of development shouldn't belong? Yes.



Of course active uses are better than vacant storefronts. Of course reused buildings are better than derelict ones. Wash Ave is going well and that's great. People have to admit it's a little weird to be walking down a former slum and seeing gelato shops and sushi bars. I think that's just as weird a visual image as driving into New Town and feeling like you just walked into St. louis circa 1878.



At least - I hope that's what you're trying to say?

Don't follow you there, bud. There are plenty of cities, in this country and around the world, that have very old buildings with new windows and fashionable people inside. Old does NOT equal, poor, dirty etc. (God I hate that mentality).



Second, Wash Ave is not a former slum. It was the second busiest garment district in the country, full of people, life, and can you believe it? fashionable shops.



Does Tribeca seem weird to you?



I may be wrong, but it just seems like you have the mentality of OLD=POOR.

I think it's interesting to hear what people think of as 'urban'. This conversation reminds a bit of another where people didn't like some bright colors being painted on buildings along Wash Ave. It seems today that we associate 'urban' with dirty - as if the new lofts should have some grime and a few cracks to be 'authentic'. There once was an urban that was new and shiny and clean. Bringing that back doesn't seem fake or sterile to me. New sidewalks - new lighting - new windows, none of this is 'anti-urban'. When downtown was dominated by fashionable clothing stores AND large regional/national retailers did everyone bemoan how downtown used to be wood framed homes w/o electricity and water? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think it's more correct to think of 'urban' as density and livability, access to cultural and commerical resources.

Come on kids, let's be nice to each other. Attack the argument, not the person, even if the grammar is atrocious and the argument has not validity at all.



And know when an argument should be given up because it's not getting anywhere and keeps changing as people attack it.

Why are you guys being such douchebags? Whatever you think of his opinion, calling him uneducated or underexperienced is an AD HOMINEM attack and has nothing to do with anything. And then after he tries to defend himself you say you're not impressed. This is pathetic. Can we please stick to the issue?



What Agent is trying to address is this, and I pretty much agree with him: When people drive to say Washington Avenue in the Loft District or Delmar in the Loop and park in one of the MANY parkinglots that are lined behind the action, it feels like a movie set. Driving, parking, and then walking down ONE major street, neglecting to stray off the path for fear of seeing those ugly parking lots and breaking the illusion of a healthy city, is a somewhat frusterating experience for anyone who has lived in a city without these problems.



Another thing I'd like to address: I'm sick of hearing "we're not there yet." Of course we're not there yet! That is the point. Where do we want to be? There is absolutely NO reason to voice what needs to be changed. We still need to be critical of what sorts of changes we want addressed. This "we're not there yet" shows a blind faith that everything will just work out by leaving things as they are.

stlmike wrote:What Agent is trying to address is this, and I pretty much agree with him: When people drive to say Washington Avenue in the Loft District or Delmar in the Loop and park in one of the MANY parkinglots that are lined behind the action, it feels like a movie set. Driving, parking, and then walking down ONE major street, neglecting to stray off the path for fear of seeing those ugly parking lots and breaking the illusion of a healthy city, is a somewhat frusterating experience for anyone who has lived in a city without these problems.

That's okay, 10 years ago there was no reason to even park in those lots. It won't happen overnight, but I firmly believe that eventually those lots will be built upon. Look at the SkyHouse proposal. Would you have ever imagined that would be taking place this soon on Washington?



btw, I don't think personal attacks are appropriate for this discussion either.

Driving, parking, and then walking down ONE major street, neglecting to stray off the path for fear of seeing those ugly parking lots and breaking the illusion of a healthy city, is a somewhat frusterating experience for anyone who has lived in a city without these problems.

We're all dealing with our own perceptions of what a city should be. If you're intent of 'fooling' youself into thinking that all of downtown is like Wash Ave by not venturing off the street then that's your wish. When I walk down Wash Ave I know there are parking lots behind many of the buildings and that streetlife wanes in every direction, but you know what? I don't care. I really enjoy Wash Ave. I don't see what's fake about it. It's only 'fake' if want to believe that it's something it's not.

migueltejada wrote:Of course, from a character point of view, it looks REALLY REALLY sterile. Like, the rehabs were so good, the street frontages so clearly glazed and so new, that it doesn't look like these buildings are "real" or have much character anymore. The new sidewalk treatment just goes to promote that image. It's kinda creepy in the same way that Cher looks better at 50 than she did at 34. Does that make it like New Town? No. Does it give the same eerie feeling - like this type of development shouldn't belong? Yes.

This debate has become contentious enough, so I guess I'll just say that I agree to disagree.



I just don't see what the big deal is. And if this supposedly sterility is actually a problem, I'd say it's a damn good problem.



There's nothing more for me to say...looks like we've all wasted enough time discussing this.

Agent009 wrote:You people really cant see that?...

It feels like you are buying into a certain image or idea, similar to what they are doing in new town.



Its plastic, just like LoDo is plastic...

Just like new town is plastic.

I agree with Agent, and I also think it is a bit dense to reflexively point to warehouse architecture as the sole evidence that Washington Avenue somehow is an objectively superior place to live. But I also think that there are plenty of neighborhoods in the city, let alone the region, and that everyone can find her own cup of tea. But if you can't take mild criticism, don't be so rabid in dishing it out.



And here is where I will deviate from the topic and say something that I'm sure will bruise many fragile egos. But before I start, here's this disclaimer: I shouldn't have to say that I live in south city, that I have lived in the city for 14 years, in several neighborhoods, and that I went to college in the city and that I have made a conscious decision to live in urban parts of the city for my entire adult life -- but I will say all of that to prevent the sort of stupid accusations directed at Agent.



My comment: Self-proclaimed "urbanists," or at least those who consider themselves experts because they once read a book or a blog on the subject, are perhaps the most annoying addition to the civic discourse in many years. So many of you hold opinions that are tyrannical in their total disregard for disagreement (see this thread), exceptionally hostile to any criticism (ibid), remarkably over-eager to lambast what businesses and individual entrepeneurs do with their own money (for example, just about any discussion of a bar, shop or restaurant), and amazingly naive in your understanding of the purpose and role of government in a civil society (ie shipping homeless to some kind of concentration camp outside of the city).

Well, I would argue that a healthy city is more than one street. I just think that more has to happen to these parking lots before I'm entirely satisfied. I'm not deluding myself, but I just don't like it when I see people driving in, parking, wandering into the pretty part, and going back to their cars. There are too many psychological barriers and not enough signs of enouragement to roam. I would argue that there is something in this situation that does not fulfill a satisfactory urban experience. Does this mean I would rather have it how it was before, that we have not made progress? Absolutely not. Does this mean that we have more to do? Of course. I think that, while I wouldn't go so far as to call it "fake,"I think that such a criticism would be a valid one simply because there is so much more to do in connecting all the dots.

stlmike wrote:Well, I would argue that a healthy city is more than one street. I just think that more has to happen to these parking lots before I'm entirely satisfied. I'm not deluding myself, but I just don't like it when I see people driving in, parking, wandering into the pretty part, and going back to their cars. There are too many psychological barriers and not enough signs of enouragement to roam. I would argue that there is something in this situation that does not fulfill a satisfactory urban experience. Does this mean I would rather have it how it was before, that we have not made progress? Absolutely not. Does this mean that we have more to do? Of course. I think that, while I wouldn't go so far as to call it "fake,"I think that such a criticism would be a valid one simply because there is so much more to do in connecting all the dots.

I don't think a single person on this forum would disagree with you on these points. We live in a city that lost over 60% of its population in 50 years-- of course there's a lot of work to do. But things are a LOT better today than they were. The gaps are slowly but surely being filled.

I recommend this thread for most worthless of 2007.

^ I second that nomination...and keep in mind that it's only March.

I think that the most important factor in making Washington Ave and downtown "authentic" is people living there. When all the lofts are filled, the streets will be crowded and the small shops market will thrive, the empty spaces will be filled. BTW, "authenticity" is a concept that is very hot within the anthropological/sociological world right now. Part of this is being driven by reactions to phenomena as diverse as cultural tourism and suburbia. It is a concept that seems so obvious on the surface, but proves evanescent when you really start trying to pick it apart. My take is that "authenticity" is inseparable from the individual. Individuals judge "authenticity" based upon a fixed reference point or set of reference points. These fixed points are used to compare and contrast what an individual is experiencing with what they have internalized as "authentic." Many people have attempted to take some of the subjectivity out of the mix by pairing "Authentic" in built environment or say neighborhood contexts, with the idea of bottom-up, non-corporate, stable (though high energy) mixed use landscapes which came to be gradually and through diverse means. By this definition, Washington Avenue [TODAY] is marginally "authentic" though growing increasingly "authentic" as more people take over vacant spaces and open businesses. The built environment of Washington Avenue, however is highly "authentic" as it was built over time to suit the needs and aesthetics of many businesses, architects,materials, styles, etc. NewTown is currently not "authentic," though if its inhabitants begin to depart from the highly regimented plan and start changing the "town" to suit there wishes and needs, its "authenticity" [by this definition] could increase.