urbanSTL

Okay, perhaps I was a bit harsh about Gaslight Square, but I do not think it is a first-class infill development. There was an opportunity to design a really great project there, one that would offer something that is not currently available in St. Louis. But what it turned out to be is more of the same conservative-looking semi-suburban new construction that could just as easily fit into a new subdivision in Chesterfield. I am disappointed by the design of Gaslight Square. It is not bold, it is not different, it is uninspiring. There are some excellent projects in Chicago that could be emulated, but I won't even go there. How about some examples that would be VERY attainable in STL...



CINCINNATI:



















I don't mean to sound like an a$$hole, but I do not think the current development of Gaslight Square is top-notch.

I'm a little puzzled by those Cincinnati pix (I mean, puzzled beyond the cheesy doors, missing windows, and odd bays): where's the rest of the neighborhood?

JivecitySTL wrote:conservative-looking semi-suburban new construction that could just as easily fit into a new subdivision in Chesterfield.

I disagree. While some of the designs might not be the most bold or innovative, I don't find them suburban at all. The designs in GS use a variety of materials (brick, stone, concrete, vinyl, stucco), and there aren't two exactly alike right next to one another. The homes don't have street-facing garages, and are somewhat close together. The streetscape is inviting (other than the barriers), and conducive to walking, gathering, etc. Just b/c the designs aren't the most bold doesn't mean the quality of the development isn't top-notch.













I don't find the architecture inspiring for any of the Cincinatti pictures. Specifically, the second picture looks like a large box - there is little variance in the rooflines, and all the windows are uniformly spaced in all of the buildings. The streetscape doesn't look like it will be very inviting. The same is true for the third picture.

I like all the pictures shown here. Cinci & Gaslight Square & the modern ones in Milwaukee/Cleveland. I especially love the GS pic with the Continental Building in the background. The houses in the last pic of GS are rather grand by any standard.



Here is what I would like to see: High rises on Grand, then within a block or two of west of Grand, I would like to see mid-rises, maybe like Park East Lofts. Then in the next block west see tightly built tall townhouses, Georgetown style, like the ones shown in the Cinci pics.

The graduation from highrises, midrises, to Georgetown style townhouses, to the Gaslight Square houses then west towards historic CWE would be very pleasing.



East from Grand, midrises, tall urban Georgetown style townhouses packed tightly, then ultra modern townhouses & midrises to mix with the industrial buildings which are being converted into lofts.



Then I want an extremely tall mixed used spire on Lindell & Grand to overlook all of it. And of course, a new urban style Lindell Marketplace that restores the streetscape of Lindell.



When all that happens, the Central Corridor will be put back together again.

Those are great plans, Expat. Hopefully someday we can have something like that.

Thanks for the pictures of Gaslight Square, Zezuz. To me, they belong in this thread as interesting infill. Don't get me wrong. I don't think St. Louis should not adopt some of these more interesting ultramodern styles. I just think Gaslight Square will age into a very interesting urban environment. The more and more I pass by it, the more impressed I am. I just hope the barriers come down.

I think Gaslight has a lot of potential, but it needs to infuse some ballsy design IMO, in addition to some commercial infrastructure to complete the neighborhood. But aesthetically I much prefer the Cincinnati-style infill to the look of Gaslight Square. It just looks more solid to me. It all comes down to personal preference though.

I think they both look pretty good, but man, check out the doors on the Cincinnati in-fill, very cheap looking and not at all fitting in with the rest of the architecture. Doors make a big difference.

Not too crazy about the first two Milwaukee pics, but the last one looks very nice. I like all of the Cinci ones.



I'm still a bit dissappointed with Gaslight Square, although I'm starting to appreciate it more and more. It really does have some good variety.



Looking down Olive in the posted photo, the barriers look just like when the posts pop up at the end of a coin-op shuffleboard game. And that can't be a good thing!

I believe that the Cincy infill development pictured is a project akin to our King Louis Square - new mixed-income infill replacing public housing. While it's not perfect, it pretty much blows KLS out of the water.

STLgasm wrote:Milwaukee seems to have it all over STL in terms of urban infill...

I believe these photos are all from the same neighborhood in Milwaukee -- Brewer's Hill. More specifically, these are along the riverfront in Brewer's Hill, which is an area that used to be fairly industrial, but due to it's prime location just northwest of downtown (and southwest of the always fashionable East Side), it's become a MAJOR hotspot. These ultra-modern townhouses aren't just plopped into an existing residential context. The whole section here is all new and all very modern. Farther off the river, they're converting some old warehouses into lofts, also. The revitalization of Brewer's Hill is (slowly) helping bring up the near-northside areas of MLK/Bronzeville, Walnut Park and Riverwest, too.



I don't know if you all know this, but in the past 10-15 years Milwaukee's downtown (and Historic Third Ward, just south of downtown) have undergone the same transition that downtown STL is currently experiencing. That's why I think STL's Wash Ave loft district is so exciting. I saw the same thing happen in my hometown and it's really helped make Milwaukee a great city. Having people living and working in the downtown area has improved the image and feeling of the city immeasurably. The growth/revitalization is literally radiating from downtown now into surrounding neighborhoods, like Brewer's Hill.

Zezuz wrote:
I disagree. While some of the designs might not be the most bold or innovative, I don't find them suburban at all. The designs in GS use a variety of materials (brick, stone, concrete, vinyl, stucco), and there aren't two exactly alike right next to one another.

Overall these new Gaslight Square houses look pretty good to me -- a blend of contemporary and historic sensibilities. But perhaps there could be a little criticism in some missing details. For example in this picture:







Notice this is a beautiful house, but the windows look too modern for the semi-historic shape, stone, heavily detailed cornice, etc. The builder should have, at least, put grid in the windows. I know some people don't care for windows with grid, but with such heavy detailing on the cornice, these windows look too plain.



Another thing I noticed in some of the GS photos (but not this one) are the plain, flat 3-tab shingles on some of the roofs. Those belong on a 1960s era ranch house worth about $150K. In this sort of development (and at these prices) roofs should AT LEAST be the nice, multi-tabbed asphalt shingles (which this house has). Even better would be slate, or the new, rubberized faux-slate.

Thank you, Tysalpha, for being specific about the details you don't like. I understand what you mean about the windows being too plain/modern, but I think grids might look strange in the neighborhood context. I'll post some more pictures today.

I toured Gaslight Square when it was still under development, and I think my favorite was the white/grayish building on the south side of Olive, close to Sarah. It has a clean modern look that stood out from the other buildings. If only they were three-bedroom units...



Anyway, I think Tysalpha's criticism is valid, and if I may offer my own, I don't care for the white windows on the building to the right of the home in the picture when the doors are a brownish shade. Other than that, I like Saaman's design - the units were very nice on the inside as well.

I agree about the white windows - we paid extra to have tan windows. Unfortunately, it's an extremely expensive upgrade...

Thanks guys. Glad my critique was taken as constructive. Overall, they are minor details.

Zezuz wrote:I agree about the white windows - we paid extra to have tan windows. Unfortunately, it's an extremely expensive upgrade...

Zezuz, isn't it always so!? The little details are what cost you. I had no idea bout the cost of non-white vinyl windows, but from helping my parents have a new house built about 10 years ago, I can relate! For example: "Oh, you want full brick over the garage door? $1000."



I think it's why you see so many new houses in the suburbs that look cheap or plain... people may want it to be nicer, but when the budget is limited, you have to make sacrifices somewhere. My philosophy would be to splurge on exterior things that can't be changed later, like a full brick facade, stone details, and larger windows. Maybe you have to choose cheaper flooring inside, but that can always be changed later.

Your comments about Unions are reinforced by what Scott Wilson has to say in Martin Van Der Werf's interview in the Post today.

My problem with Gaslight Square, is that it isn't bold enough. Most of the architectural style (while nice looking) is too safe. I would have loved to see something unique built there. Something more like what Millenium is doing in South City. Like This.



It's exciting to see that kind of construction. The semi-historic looking houses has been done before.



I do like the condos, I think those are unique enough, but I would have rather see them take some bold steps to make something truly original.

If I wanted to vomit, I would stick my hand down my throat. I'm all about new architecture, but this 'modern' style is hideous. Why would anyone embrace an achitectural style that says, "We just don't care." I don't know if this is worse, or if the nasty, suburban style homes built in the garden district and gaslight square are worse. OK, I do. It's the suburban homes. But holy sh*t, do we have to pick from the two worst architectural styles in history? Why do 'different' and 'ugly' have to be synonyms? Whoever designed this home should be murdered and so should their offspring. I don't want anyone this idiotic genetically contributing to the future of our species.

Sorry but i hate this new modern crap. The designs are really stupid looking. Sorry Drew Carey but CLEVLAND Sucks

Why does everyone keep calling everything that isn't Victorian, Gothic, or Classical "modern"? This is not modern architecture.

... so what is it?

stlmike wrote:Why does everyone keep calling everything that isn't Victorian, Gothic, or Classical "modern"? This is not modern architecture.

I thought everyone here was interested in the history of architecture?



Modern architecture is Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier and some of the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, the idea that "form follows function" and that "less is more." Modern architecture is usually about as simple and minimal as it gets--a move away from the ornamental and towards the logical and the functional.



Nothing about the above house is "logical." This is post-modern architecture. It is a diverse movement that shares common ground in that it is mostly a reaction the potential in modernist architecture to be uniform, cold, and repetitive. Generally, you see asymmetry, structures that seem to defy logic, and a return to the ornamental in a different sort.



Personally, the above house isn't my cup of tea. But I have seen some in this spirit that are breathtaking. Honestly, I can't see how any person who is a thinking person can dislike AN ENTIRE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE. To me, that shows close-mindededness for the infintessimal differences between everything that is lumped into that school. By the same token if you like EVERYTHING in another school of architecture, I would say that you are equally close-minded and either nostalgic or fearful of change.



No building or house is great by virture of its style, and no style is great by the example of a single building.