I think you guys are missing something. You are criticizing it by calling it "blah" but missing what that means. This is the kind of building that gets built casually, all the time, in every big city in the US. Why? Because it's always a success. It doesn't call attention to itself, doesn't claim to be the saving grace of the neigbhorhood but is simply a mid-density apartment building that adds a lot of retail space, density, and walkability to the neighborhood-- it adds to a true urban setting. Not every neighborhood building needs to be architectually stunning. I would like to see more infill like this. If it has some higher architectual standards, that would be awesome. But I can't complain with this. I'm not "impressed" with its architecture, but I rarely see this sort of confident urban sensibility in St Louis
- 835
Sorry, I hate to sound like a naysayer, but this project becomes more and more mediocre each time I look at it. Why do developers in this town have so much trouble thinking outside the box? I am very impressed with the projects Conrad has done (4545, MetroLofts) and would love to see them intervene here before a key CWE corner is marred by this conservative looking slab. Look to Philly to see what could be done:
![]()
^Now that is an interesting building! And the materials don't appear to be prohibitively expensive either. Creative design should be embraced in St. Louis, especially in the CWE.
What is with the infatuation of "traditional" looking new construction. It is such a waste of an opportunity. Sorry, but I think St. Louis has come far enough in the last ten years or so that it can now demand better than just anything. This project falls way short. It reeks of suburban-style wannabe urbanism. I'm sick of always seeing "safe" design when there is so much potential to really create something special that contributes to a more creative and innovative atmosphere.
^Now that is an interesting building! And the materials don't appear to be prohibitively expensive either. Creative design should be embraced in St. Louis, especially in the CWE.
What is with the infatuation of "traditional" looking new construction. It is such a waste of an opportunity. Sorry, but I think St. Louis has come far enough in the last ten years or so that it can now demand better than just anything. This project falls way short. It reeks of suburban-style wannabe urbanism. I'm sick of always seeing "safe" design when there is so much potential to really create something special that contributes to a more creative and innovative atmosphere.
- 90
The clock tower must go. It's just too corny. Something about the proportions is off. Maybe the roof hat overhang is too large or something.
Anyway...
The time for emulating historic styles should be OVER. I love historic architecture, but not cheaper modern versions. Even if they use "real" brick, it will still be a non-load bearing veneer, w/ vertical expansion joints you would never see on a historic building. And you can't get the same depth of corbelling w/ a veneer because the bricks are not tied back to a thicker masonry wall. They are only one brick thick, w/ an airspace between it and the stud wall (at best...cheaper buildings use a 1" thin brick slapped onto a stud wall like tile). Newer "fake load-bearing" brick looks more flat compared to the older versions it's trying to emulate, and again that's because the construction methods are different. And no modern project built in the last 15 years uses "real" stone. Too pricey. You are most likely seeing cast stone, which is nice when your other alternatives are a split face cmu block (walmart retaining walls) or EIFS (insulated fake stucco). But compared to the real thing (actual quarried stone or terra cotta) cast stone still looks cheaper. So even if they spend top dollar in todays market, it won't hold a flame to the solidly built with rich materials historic architecture seen elsewhere around the city. The construction methods have changed. The architecture should reflect that.
Anyway...
The time for emulating historic styles should be OVER. I love historic architecture, but not cheaper modern versions. Even if they use "real" brick, it will still be a non-load bearing veneer, w/ vertical expansion joints you would never see on a historic building. And you can't get the same depth of corbelling w/ a veneer because the bricks are not tied back to a thicker masonry wall. They are only one brick thick, w/ an airspace between it and the stud wall (at best...cheaper buildings use a 1" thin brick slapped onto a stud wall like tile). Newer "fake load-bearing" brick looks more flat compared to the older versions it's trying to emulate, and again that's because the construction methods are different. And no modern project built in the last 15 years uses "real" stone. Too pricey. You are most likely seeing cast stone, which is nice when your other alternatives are a split face cmu block (walmart retaining walls) or EIFS (insulated fake stucco). But compared to the real thing (actual quarried stone or terra cotta) cast stone still looks cheaper. So even if they spend top dollar in todays market, it won't hold a flame to the solidly built with rich materials historic architecture seen elsewhere around the city. The construction methods have changed. The architecture should reflect that.
I agree with everybody. It is hard to get excited about this building. The design is too fussy, too make-believe. If they use top materials, they can pull it off. If they don't use good materials and good brickwork, it will end up looking like a bloated version of the big fat greek wedding apt. building that just failed in dogtown. Well, better than that.
On the other hand, it fills up a lot of dead space and will be great for the neighborhood and streetscape. It is exactly the kind of building we need in this area - as well as most areas of STL. This is a better fit than the high-rise they planned earlier. The size, first-floor retail, etc. are good. Better than a huge parking base and tower. StLMike is correct, this building does the job and will function well. And fit the intersection nicely.
In my view, it would be perfect if they cleaned up the design a bit. It doesn't have to be ultra-modern, but avoid the paste-on decorations since we know they are not likely to be top grade - for instance, fancy, fake trim around upper balcony doors/windows. There are a lot of good modern buildings that look good in traditional settings, wish we could see more of it in St. Louis.
No doubt, I am in the minority, but I will miss the the crappy old Doctor's Building.
Oh yeah, the clocktower. I understand why people don't like it. But, I kind of like the idea. It will become a landmark. No matter the name of the building, it will be called the 'clock building' for generations. Even after the clock stops working and the building is leveled.
On the other hand, it fills up a lot of dead space and will be great for the neighborhood and streetscape. It is exactly the kind of building we need in this area - as well as most areas of STL. This is a better fit than the high-rise they planned earlier. The size, first-floor retail, etc. are good. Better than a huge parking base and tower. StLMike is correct, this building does the job and will function well. And fit the intersection nicely.
In my view, it would be perfect if they cleaned up the design a bit. It doesn't have to be ultra-modern, but avoid the paste-on decorations since we know they are not likely to be top grade - for instance, fancy, fake trim around upper balcony doors/windows. There are a lot of good modern buildings that look good in traditional settings, wish we could see more of it in St. Louis.
No doubt, I am in the minority, but I will miss the the crappy old Doctor's Building.
Oh yeah, the clocktower. I understand why people don't like it. But, I kind of like the idea. It will become a landmark. No matter the name of the building, it will be called the 'clock building' for generations. Even after the clock stops working and the building is leveled.
- 90
Totally agree, JivecitySTL.
Why is it Europe has figured this out? Cutting edge architecture happens in the oldest built environments of Western civilization.
Why is it Europe has figured this out? Cutting edge architecture happens in the oldest built environments of Western civilization.
- 835
Expat wrote:No doubt, I am in the minority, but I will miss the the crappy old Doctor's Building.
Oh my god, I LOVE the Doctors Building, and I don't understand why a complete rehab of that structure was not even a thought. It is a testament to that '60s architectural era that seems to be disappearing these days. There is definitely potential for that building, but I wouldn't expect Mills to have the vision to pull it off.
I like the design and think it will be an interesting contrast to the PE tower and lofts. However, because it is Mills, I still have my doubts to whether or not it will actually get built.
- 90
Oh, I forgot to mention:
The one thing they did great is the site / massing of this project. 6 -7 stories filling out the entire block, built up to the street & hiding parking in the back is wonderful and should be required in dense neighborhoods like this. A tower may have looked sexy from a distance, but you would have a parking garage next to it or worse, a gated off dead space / surface lot.
Just lose the inevitable sub-par faux historicness in favor for something contemporary and honest.
The one thing they did great is the site / massing of this project. 6 -7 stories filling out the entire block, built up to the street & hiding parking in the back is wonderful and should be required in dense neighborhoods like this. A tower may have looked sexy from a distance, but you would have a parking garage next to it or worse, a gated off dead space / surface lot.
Just lose the inevitable sub-par faux historicness in favor for something contemporary and honest.
You know, for every awesome building like that in Philly, there are probably 10 that are being built to look as bland as this one. Can't someone build an average, non-descript but functional neighborhood building once in a while as does happen in any major US city? There is still plenty of room for the cutting edge and I can't wait for it either.
- 1,517
I personally don't cringe when I see your standard, but not flashy, urbanism, such as with this project. It's a mid-sized project that seems to have the proportions right and, shockingly, offers tall window retail spaces that contribute to the walkability and vitality of the neighborhood.
Its design isn't breathtaking--sure, and that's regretful.
But I think of the SLU Arena and Pinnacle as two examples of St. Louis mega projects that will be in the media's eye on a regular basis and will thus reflect on outsiders' views of St. Louis.
The SLU Arena looks like a bloated mega church and the Pinnacle casino accomplishes, somehow, being both hideous and bland.
I'm more disturbed by these larger scale projects. It's almost as if development companies know that St. Louis requires very little in the way of innovation and that they can pass off their "Least Common Denominator" designs on us.
Its design isn't breathtaking--sure, and that's regretful.
But I think of the SLU Arena and Pinnacle as two examples of St. Louis mega projects that will be in the media's eye on a regular basis and will thus reflect on outsiders' views of St. Louis.
The SLU Arena looks like a bloated mega church and the Pinnacle casino accomplishes, somehow, being both hideous and bland.
I'm more disturbed by these larger scale projects. It's almost as if development companies know that St. Louis requires very little in the way of innovation and that they can pass off their "Least Common Denominator" designs on us.
^Exactly, I find the bigger problem in contemporary St Louis architecture to be not as much the blandness as the disregard for urban standards. There are too many structures and projects that do not show any interest in respecting the street grid. Many new housing projects look suburban --and not just downtown Kirkwood or U City suburban but Chesterfield in the 1980s suburban! Fast food restaruants with large parkinglots and vinyl siding houses with huge lawns. I find projects like this and SkyHouse to be refreshing simply because they are the kind of buildings that get built in the normal way that city buildings get built and there seems to be an understanding on the part of the builder that they are not building in the suburbs and that they can't just hapharzadly destroy the surrounding area to make way for their savior of a project. In my view, this should be regarded as a common-place, no frills type of city building that should arise neither fanfare nor denouncement.
- 2,386
First of all, let me begin by saying HHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Now that we have that out of the way, I did what might be a monet-esque microsoft paint rendition of this building without the clock tower cupola (type-thing). I apologize in advance, as I know you will all want to grant your eternal servitude to my artistic endeavors, but please, save all kneeling and praising for PM's, I don't want my awe-inspiring artistic glory to side-track this thread.
Edit: You are all free to toss out some Flava-Flav "YEAH BOY"'s if you are so inclined.
Now that we have that out of the way, I did what might be a monet-esque microsoft paint rendition of this building without the clock tower cupola (type-thing). I apologize in advance, as I know you will all want to grant your eternal servitude to my artistic endeavors, but please, save all kneeling and praising for PM's, I don't want my awe-inspiring artistic glory to side-track this thread.
Edit: You are all free to toss out some Flava-Flav "YEAH BOY"'s if you are so inclined.
I agree stlmike. High-growth cities like Atlanta, Houston, Denver, Dallas, etc. build housing projects along this line all of time - and many times as infill. Being familiar with Houston and Dallas, and I don't know what it is, but these projects tend to fill (sell or rent) fast and they are usually in modest-to-high-end neighborhoods.stlmike wrote:I think you guys are missing something. You are criticizing it by calling it "blah" but missing what that means. This is the kind of building that gets built casually, all the time, in every big city in the US. Why? Because it's always a success.
It doesn't call attention to itself, doesn't claim to be the saving grace of the neigbhorhood but is simply a mid-density apartment building that adds a lot of retail space, density, and walkability to the neighborhood-- it adds to a true urban setting. Not every neighborhood building needs to be architectually stunning.
I would like to see more infill like this. If it has some higher architectual standards, that would be awesome. But I can't complain with this. I'm not "impressed" with its architecture, but I rarely see this sort of confident urban sensibility in St Louis
[I know there will be comments coming like...."We don't need to be like those cities."] So before it is said, well, I know that.
As I see it, the CWE has added lots of modern designs - Park East, Park East Lofts, Metro Lofts, 4545 Lindell, The Lofts at the Highlands and when (or if) the Lindell Condominiums cracks ground, we'll see another sleek design. Trust me, I want St. Louis to "sleek it up" all around the city, and it has been doing a better job in recent years.
There have been lots of cool, "untraditional" housing infills developed in the CWE and throughout the city - in addition to commercial development (SLU BioMed, Solae, etc). I personally think there needs to be a balance for potential home owners (or renters). Not everybody wants to live in an ultramodern sleek highrise or low-rise and not everyone wants to live in a "traditional" designed development.
However, like many of the commenters here have noted, I too hope that the materials used aren't cheap. Now that would be a travesty amidst all of the rich architecture of the CWE.
And by the way, the clock doesn't bother me. The clock, to me, as well as the cornered white trimming (which is commonplace on St. Louis buildings) adds more character and keeps it from looking exactly like a copy of an Atlanta or Denver housing development.
^Well, maybe they'll move there once they have graduated. 
Arch City, I know what you mean about the white corner stones. That does give it the St. Louis look. And I also know what you mean about these buildings in fast growing cities. There are plenty in Baltimore & DC, too. And I don't mind the corner tower, either. In fact, it looks worse without the tower - sorry, Newstl2020. I appreciate your effort, but don't like the outcome.
It comes down to one thing, quality of materials. Better, cleaner design would allow for cheaper materials. They are setting themselves up with this ornate design.
It comes down to one thing, quality of materials. Better, cleaner design would allow for cheaper materials. They are setting themselves up with this ornate design.
I agree. It really looks "common" without it. With the Euclid Corridor being the busiest pedestrian artery in the CWE, a clock (clock tower) could be useful, I think.Expat wrote:And I don't mind the corner tower, either. In fact, it looks worse without the tower - sorry, Newstl2020.
- 90
yes, those white corner stones are called quoins. quoins originally had a function beyond ornamentation. when brick wall construction was load-bearing, these quoins strengthened the corners.
These quoins obviously will not serve this purpose since these bricks will not be load-bearing. i.e. they are FAKE frou-frou tacked on ornamentation to make this building look like it was built 100 years ago.
![]()
edit-- maybe I'm being harsh... I just wouldn't like to see crap infill happen on such a massive scale on a prominent corner in the CWE. You can't build history overnight. Save the historical built environment you have and build new for today.
These quoins obviously will not serve this purpose since these bricks will not be load-bearing. i.e. they are FAKE frou-frou tacked on ornamentation to make this building look like it was built 100 years ago.
edit-- maybe I'm being harsh... I just wouldn't like to see crap infill happen on such a massive scale on a prominent corner in the CWE. You can't build history overnight. Save the historical built environment you have and build new for today.
- 11K
kc_visiter wrote:yes, those white corner stones are called quoins. quoins originally had a function beyond ornamentation. when brick wall construction was load-bearing, these quoins strengthened the corners.
These quoins obviously will not serve this purpose since these bricks will not be load-bearing. i.e. they are FAKE frou-frou tacked on ornamentation to make this building look like it was built 100 years ago.
edit-- maybe I'm being harsh... I just wouldn't like to see crap infill happen on such a massive scale on a prominent corner in the CWE. You can't build history overnight. Save the historical built environment you have and build new for today.
It's been recommended to the builder that the quoins be removed from the design.
- 90
Grover wrote:
It's been recommended to the builder that the quoins be removed from the design.
It's recommended that the developer be removed from the design.
- 11K
^ I understand the frustration with the design. Some of it looks like the failed condos in Dogtown - whatever the name was. I really like the far east end of the development on West Pine. I love that this corner will have additional retail. This project will fill one of the gaps one feels walking from FPP to Maryland along Euclid. I hope the clocktower changes and some details are refined - and of course quality materials will make all the difference.
Good information, however, what is essential for some developers and neighborhoods is the need to have (or maintain) a sense of St. Louis character and continuity (Soulard, Lafayette Square) reflected.kc_visiter wrote:These quoins obviously will not serve this purpose since these bricks will not be load-bearing. i.e. they are FAKE frou-frou tacked on ornamentation to make this building look like it was built 100 years ago.
edit-- maybe I'm being harsh... I just wouldn't like to see crap infill happen on such a massive scale on a prominent corner in the CWE. You can't build history overnight. Save the historical built environment you have and build new for today.
Red brick buildings - old and new - trimmed in quoins are commonplace in St. Louis - as demonstrated by the Plaza in Clayton (below, completed in 2002).
Sometimes it can get old because it can make the city (and region) look dated even when projects are built new, but I like St. Louis-style architectural characteristics (which includes arched windows, columns, and quoins), but I also like a variety of designs. If St. Louis was not building new modern buildings and kept building "traditional" St. Louis-style designs, then I think I would be complaining too.
I like the Plaza in Clayton. Below are photos I've taken.
- 90
I agree with all those points, Grover.
Question: who are these units intended to be marketed to? I know CWE is high end... so would they market this to middle aged folks or empty nesters?
Arch City -- I can accept neighborhoods like Soulard & Lafayette Sq. having strict guidelines for new construction. However, those are usually limited to single family homes and they are fairly historically accurate.
Applying that same building vocabulary on completely different buildings, like the Plaza in Clayton produces odd results, usually half faux-historic half modern. Do you think if the Plaza in Clayton was built in 1920 it would have those cantilevered balconies?
You can't design a building in floor plan in this century, then turn around and slap on aesthetics from last century and expect it to look authentic.
Question: who are these units intended to be marketed to? I know CWE is high end... so would they market this to middle aged folks or empty nesters?
Arch City -- I can accept neighborhoods like Soulard & Lafayette Sq. having strict guidelines for new construction. However, those are usually limited to single family homes and they are fairly historically accurate.
Applying that same building vocabulary on completely different buildings, like the Plaza in Clayton produces odd results, usually half faux-historic half modern. Do you think if the Plaza in Clayton was built in 1920 it would have those cantilevered balconies?
You can't design a building in floor plan in this century, then turn around and slap on aesthetics from last century and expect it to look authentic.