urbanSTL

May I ask what people are talking about when they say that something is fake? Cause the buildings sure look real to me.

redrey wrote:What may be beneficial (though certainly fake/artificial) for a suburban setting may NOT work downtown.

Duh.

redrey wrote:To emulate the Boulevard's good points, we'd have to agree on what the good points are.

SoulardD summed it up nicely earlier:

SoulardD wrote:The Boulevard has narrow streets with street level retail and apartments above

There are the good points he wants to emulate. Nowhere did anyone say we should transplant the Boulavard in its entirety DT.

So essentially anything suburban is considered fake?

appraisalman wrote:So essentially anything suburban is considered fake?

No and that's not what anyone here is saying. It's hard to put into words because it is just the feel of the area. It doesn't feel suburban, that what many here have been saying, it has some urban characteristics, but the pastel colored newness of the area is over the top.

I guess determining the "fakeness" of something all comes down to personal feel. In my opinion, building materials should have nothing to do with fakeness. Building materials change with the times, and the overall functionality of the building. If that were the case, then "fakeness would wear off over time. Do you think people considered buildings located on Washington Avenue fake around the time that they were built, since the facades of the building were ornamented but the sides and rear were not. I doubt it.

I've visited The Boulevard and was not crazy about it. It had a Hollywood backlot feel to it, but I think that the main reason I did not like it is because it's not integrated with its surroundings. For a suburban development, I guess it's pretty good, but it could be a lot better.



IMO, The Boulevard offers a lesson for the Bottle District developers - I'm hoping that the Bottle District will maintain the street grid to blend in with the rest of downtown instead of turning its back on it.

appraisalman wrote:I guess determining the "fakeness" of something all comes down to personal feel. In my opinion, building materials should have nothing to do with fakeness. Building materials change with the times, and the overall functionality of the building. If that were the case, then "fakeness would wear off over time. Do you think people considered buildings located on Washington Avenue fake around the time that they were built, since the facades of the building were ornamented but the sides and rear were not. I doubt it.

No, fakeness constitutes the same tired old replca gas streetlights, pastel facades, and faux brick panneling.



And now for a little game for use all! Which are pics of Boulavard and which are pics of six flags STL, I warn you though, it wil take a sheer genius to tell them apart because the same architect designed them both!

So then the New Busch Stadium, and dare I say it...the Park East Tower are "Fake"

Not quite.......





I fail to see the resemblance.

They are similar in that they both are constructed of "faux brick panneling"

Look at the pics. The ambiance of Busch III is in no way related to Boulevard or Six Flags.

I've been to quite a few games this year, and there isn't much ambiance associated with Busch III. By the way, all I see is "Faux panneling" which even though it is used extensively in construction of buildings today, it is the Quintessential of fakeness according to the people on this forum.

Don't get me wrong, "Six Flags Clayton" is a nice step in the right direction for a suburb, but I am expecting a lot more from Ghazi in our DT.

Unfortunately I don't think we will get it which will lead to eveyone on this forum b*tching and whining.

Ive got a bad feeling that the Bottle district will turn into a mini mall with na few hot dog venders and maybe a small apartment complex.

St. Louis Texan wrote:Ive got a bad feeling that the Bottle district will turn into a mini mall with na few hot dog venders and maybe a small apartment complex.

I don't have that feeling.



Appraisalman, I think Elitist's pictures speak volumes about the Boulevard's fake feeling. The way it has streets that appear to be connected to a city street grid but aren't is probably the #1 contributor to that fake feeling. I don't know how anyone could walk around it and not feel like you're going to have to take a picture with bugs bunny. I will say, however, that downtown could use it's 'street level retail with residential above' layout, and actually have it connected to the rest of downtown... hopefully the BD addresses this need.

Urban Elitist wrote:Don't get me wrong, "Six Flags Clayton" is a nice step in the right direction for a suburb, but I am expecting a lot more from Ghazi in our DT.

I think you meant "six flags Richmond Heights"

bpe235 wrote:I think you meant "six flags Richmond Heights"

Fair enough.

While I think we're being a little harsh on the Boulevard, I agree with UE's statements. The best thing about the new Busch stadium is how it connects within the existing street grid, and has a very walkable feel to the outside. Park East, while I have issues with so many above ground parking levels, is creating more density in an already dense nabe. And it not disrupting the current street grid.



Boulevard is good for a suburb. It doesn't detract, or add to the neighborhood the way I would expect the BD to. TBD needs to connect downtown to the northside, and every rendering I've shows them getting closer and closer to what is needed for that area. Ghazi has a good reputation, and it should do a lot more for downtown St. Louis than Boulevard does for Richmond Heights. Boulevard is really just another shopping destination in the central core. TBD needs to be a neighborhood.

SoulardD wrote:The way it has streets that appear to be connected to a city street grid but aren't is probably the #1 contributor to that fake feeling. I don't know how anyone could walk around it and not feel like you're going to have to take a picture with bugs bunny. I will say, however, that downtown could use it's 'street level retail with residential above' layout, and actually have it connected to the rest of downtown... hopefully the BD addresses this need.

Re: The Boulevard



I would also rank rather highly the fact that:



a) It is ostensibly a pedestrian-friendly environment, and it is marketed as such, yet it is surrounded by the most inhospitable environment for pedestrians imaginable. So...a pedestrian-friendly environment you have to drive to...hmmm. And as far as I can tell, no attempt whatsoever is being made to make it easier or more enjoyable to walk from the new Metrolink station, or from the Galleria. There is only a thin strip of sidewalk along the north side of Galleria Parkway, and barely any sidewalk at all on the south side. And, I would really hate to have a bum hip or something and try to get across Brentwood at rush hour, crosswalk or no.



b) The entire project is designed to look like something it is not, i.e. a very densely clustered group of narrow, historic buildings around an "historic" Main Street. Thus, it is FAKE. If you dropped this project in the middle of historic downtown Richmond Heights (a joke), or Kirkwood, or some such similar place, MAYBE, it would be acceptable. Why couldn't this entire project have been designed along the same lines as Park East Lofts, or MetroLofts? Modern, yet tasteful, buildings with retail on the ground floor and apartments above, and that look exactly like what they are...

Based on Jim Cloars comments last night at Copia I have serious doubts about this project happening.

^Would you mind expanding on that for those of us that were not at Copia.

At Copia somebody asked the question as to the panelist thoughts on the Bottle Works District. After a long pause Mr. Cloar stated that the McGuiwers have aquired a fair amount of land nearly 16 acres , secondly he explained that they have great ideas and that they have chosen a developer out of Charlotte , & lastly that the project would be great as for the northerend of Downtown.



What gives me a bit of concern is the manner in which he anwsered the question meaning he wasn't very enthusiastic or for that matter certain in his anwswer.



Hopefully I'm reading the tea-leafs wrong ?