urbanSTL

Many of you guys complain about the Plaza in Clayton. I like it. It adds something different to the Clayton skyline.

I LOVE the plaza personally. Not a very seasoned person as of yet when it comes to architecture, but I think it's a pretty sharp building and fits well in it's location. Would fit in perfectly in the CWE as well. I'm a fan of having a clock, but the proportions in the original render just feel off to me for some reason (someone mentioned the over-hang, that could be it). I would be in favor of the building with a redesign of the top (Clock portion).

The quoins don't give this boring, placeless building a St. Louis look -- quoins are found mostly on Georgian Revival and Classical Revival buildings, which aren't exactly prevalent locally.



At least if the architect wants this to look old, s/he could have picked one style and form and did a good job of imitating it. Instead this is the usual collide-o-scope of mismatched styles and formal characteristics, none of which are peculiar to this city.



There <i>is</i> a new St. Louis look, epitomized by the 4545 Lindell and Metro Lofts buildings -- modern, authentic and true to the materials used. It's a good look that will outlast any historicist folly.

ecoabsence wrote:


There <i>is</i> a new St. Louis look, epitomized by the 4545 Lindell and Metro Lofts buildings -- modern, authentic and true to the materials used. It's a good look that will outlast any historicist folly.

The best way to go, in my opinion. I like that sound of that, a new St. Louis look.

Matt Drops The H wrote:The SLU Arena looks like a bloated mega church and the Pinnacle casino accomplishes, somehow, being both hideous and bland.

I'm late and I can't believe so much has been said since I last checked at lunchtime -- but this is the funniest thing I've read all day!

Correction to historic preservation allen,

love the website and your dedication to ONSL and the rehab movement in STL, but



Classical Revival is a style found locally and is very prevalent:

Central West End

Upper West End

Academy

Tower Grove East

Loop

Grand South Grand



Webster Groves, Kirkwood, Clayton, Maplewood, and University City also contain Classical Revival buildings but in fewer numbers as compared with the victorian era for some and the roaring 1920s for others.



This style of architecture is around the years of the 1890s-1910s with many houses, churches (the UMC in Holy Corners), apartment buildings, and even commercial buildings, and even industrial buildings. the style was made famous by the World's Fair in Chicago and continued by the World's Fairs in San Francisco and St. Louis. the style is also closely associated with the City Beautiful Movement as evidenced by civic auditoriums, City Halls, courthouses, post offices, and court buildings built throughout the United States in said time period.

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.

AHHAAHAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA, Do you think the Wainwright Building and the Chemical Building, for example, downtown are LOADBEARING?! Umm, no building over 10 stories ever had "loadbearing" walls. That is the definition of a skyscraper, bricks were essentially "attached" to the frame or skeleton.



I love this "faux historic" idiocy in here. I think this building could use a few improvements, but I think the first few floors are perfect. This building adds spice; not EVERY building needs to be the new Guggenheim in St. Louis. This building adds density and character to the West End. Before everyone runs around here on this forum with their Philip Johnson glasses on, we need to look at the overall picture. I think this actually looks better than the Park East Lofts, if it had a few touch up to the roof. Quality "historic" buildings can be built in St. Louis. Has anyone seen the new building on Westminster just west of Newstead? It looks like it's out of Chicago or New York and GUESS WHAT- NOT MODERN!

As anyone who's read my posts will know, I LOVE modern buildings, 4545 looks excellent and so does Park East, I REALLY hope Opus does their second tower according to the rendering. I think this building could add a ton of character to this corner, in fact I think it complements the Forest Park HOtel/Apartments and St. Regis fairly well.

The clock tower creates a sense of "place" and I like it, WITH the large overhanging roof. The tower reminds me of a few old office buildings that have since been torn down in St. Louis. I'll have to find the photos.

Expat wrote:I agree with everybody.

Spoken like a true moderator.

Dang, I didn't realize I was so funny. Thank you!

Well, of course no brick-cladded high rise downtown built after the 1890s is load bearing. I know they have steel, heavy timber or reinforced concrete frames. So I guess technically, yes, all of those examples using brick as only cladding as opposed to structure are mimicing the earlier style w/o the functionality. However, there are still many differences between these early 20th century brick clad structures and one built today.



Early 20th century brick clad buildings (at least the ones I've seen drawings of) still had a two or more brick thick veneer backed w/ terra cotta masonry units. The brick is held up and tied back to the frame & terra cotta infill, but it still could step out quite a distance for corbelling / ornamentation as the original load bearing walls could. The one brick thick veneer wall in front of a wood or metal stud wall doesn't give you that. 1/2" step out max. That gives a much flatter look. Of course it can be properly "faked" with more elaborate framing & support behind the brick, but that's additional cost many developers don't care to incur.



no one makes ornate stone or terra cotta trim pieces anymore (just styrofoam), at least not in the price range of most builders. That's why you only see cast stone bases, little cast stone medallions out of the Pineapple Grove catalogue, and everything else sculpted out of pink foam before being covered up by Sto (EIFS) on 90% of everything in this vein.



No one is expecting a Guggenheim here... but the rendering has the same aesthetic quality of some mammoth suburban casino or a "lifestyle center" as they are calling them these days. Not really following a particular style, just a lot of pieces of "historical" elements thrown together and the public thinks it's a classy building. So after being corrected, I realize that what is being proposed is a bad knock-off of earlier good knock-offs!



I do have to correct you about this statement:

Umm, no building over 10 stories ever had "loadbearing" walls.

The last load bearing high rise in Chicago, The Monadnock Building (1891), stood at 17 stories (197'). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadnock_Building

That building isn't even the tallest load bearing building, just the most well known to me. Apparently, Philadelphia city hall, at 548', is the world's tallest load bearing building.

JCity wrote:

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.

AHHAAHAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA, Do you think the Wainwright Building and the Chemical Building, for example, downtown are LOADBEARING?! Umm, no building over 10 stories ever had "loadbearing" walls. That is the definition of a skyscraper, bricks were essentially "attached" to the frame or skeleton.

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but the New York Life Building in Kansas City, the Monadnock Building in Chicago, and Philadelphia City Hall are three examples of load-bearing masonry buildings greater than 10 stories. Philadelphia's City Hall is the tallest masonry load-bearing building in the world. The New York Life and Monadnock Buildings are both about the same height as the Chemical Building.



The Mills building's masonry doesn't have to be load-bearing to look good. But, the building won't look good if they use ultra-cheap materials. I have a problem with today's historic look-a-likes when they use crappy materials which don't come anywhere close to replicating a historic look. Making a building look faux-historic by using crappy materials only serves to insult the actual historic buildings around it. That being said, assuming that they do use quality materials, I think the building will look pretty good. I don't think the rendering does it justice. In fact, I think it'll enhance the pedestrian experience along that block.

ecoabsence wrote:The quoins don't give this boring, placeless building a St. Louis look -- quoins are found mostly on Georgian Revival and Classical Revival buildings, which aren't exactly prevalent locally.

ecoabsence, certainly the quoins alone do not give a St. Louis-style or look. The quoins (faux or not), red brick and arched windows are classic St. Louis though.



In fact, the architects of the Plaza in Clayton, according to an article I read when the project was first designed, indicated that their Plaza in Clayton project was inspired by other St. Louis architecture.



Here's a few pictures. There are many other buildings around St. Louis City with this look.



Notice the connected buildings - like the Plaza in Clayton.



















Notice the connected buildings - like the Plaza in Clayton.







New influenced by the old.

Ok, I'm tangenting, but this first house is the epitome of poorly-designed use of historic details: Fake quoins --- on a house with absolutely no other ornamentation! Then, it has vinyl siding above the ceiling line, plain 3-tab asphalt shingles, almost no eve overhang, and an overly simple roofline. It's as if the buyer said, "I want them thar fancy bricks. But no! I ain't payin for nothin else! No hip roof, no front gable or dormers, no big porch!"

Arch City wrote:

Tysalpha wrote:Ok, I'm tangenting, but this first house is the epitome of poorly-designed use of historic details: Fake quoins --- on a house with absolutely no other ornamentation! Then, it has vinyl siding above the ceiling line, plain 3-tab asphalt shingles, almost no eve overhang, and an overly simple roofline. It's as if the buyer said, "I want them thar fancy bricks. But no! I ain't payin for nothin else! No hip roof, no front gable or dormers, no big porch!"

Arch City wrote:

Well that is just a poor example of anything. Those "houses" don't have "buyers". That is a picture of the new Blumeyer Housing neighborhood, i.e. subsidized housing, which has been renamed "Renaissance on Grand". You can blame McCormack Barron Salazar and Kennedy Associates for the design of those buildings, or lack thereof, but I suspect they won't pay much attention to you.

jlblues wrote: Well that is just a poor example of anything. Those "houses" don't have "buyers". That is a picture of the new Blumeyer Housing neighborhood, i.e. subsidized housing, which has been renamed "Renaissance on Grand". You can blame McCormack Barron Salazar and Kennedy Associates for the design of those buildings, or lack thereof, but I suspect they won't pay much attention to you.

Aha! Well that explains the cutting corners in details. "Affordable housing" should be affordable. But this one would still look better without the fake quoins. Then it would look like a purist, somewhat modest, 1980s suburban 2-story. As it is, it looks like someone put gold-plated emblems on a Corolla and is trying to call it a Lexus.

While I think Renaissance Place at Grand leaves a little to be desired in the architectural details, I think it is certainly nothing deserving blame. In fact, I believe that McCormack Baron deserves credit.



It is one of the nation's finest examples of HOPE VI accomplishing what it was meant to: reducing crime and establishing livable communities while affording former high rise public housing residents the opportunity to design their new digs.



That is exactly what happened with Renaissance Place. Residents of old Blumeyer designed the buildings they'd like to live in and the architect/construction crews put them up. The mixed-income community has a large market-rate population and virtually no crime, according to Susan Glassman, who works with Urban Strategies (a not-for-profit closely connected with the development).



To me, credit is due, not blame.



And Renaissance Place is certainly better than old Blumeyer, or even King Louis Square, a HOPE VI project that was happy to boot the old Darst Webbe residents to the curb and not offer them a say at all in the new development.



I give the project a thumbs up, and elitist naysayers a thumbs down.

As far as public housing projects go, this one gets two thumbs up from me. It actually looking better than some new developments in St. Charles County. HOWEVER.. Call me in 10 years, I would be this will be a tear down within ten to twenty. Sorry, but we've been down this little public housing path before. Yes, I know it's SLIGHTLY different but, NO MORE PUBLIC HOUSING IN ST LOUIS..



I really like the first few floors of the Mill's rendering. It has attractive retail windows. Fine, rework the roofline, but the first four floors are great- as long as the brick/masonry is done correctly.



Question to the "modern" aficionado's. Are we never to design new "traditional" buildings again? Can we not look back to the Greek Revival, Italianate, Prarie Style etc. of past eras? So, nothing but straight lines and simplicity forever? Even Sullivan didn't stay true to his concept of "form follows function" wow. sad future.



* Neolithic architecture 10,000 BC-3000 BC

* Ancient Egyptian architecture 3000 BC–373 AD

* Sumerian architecture 5300 BC–2000 BC

* Classical architecture 600 BC-323 AD

o Ancient Greek architecture 776 BC-265 BC

o Roman architecture 753 BC–663 AD

* Byzantine architecture 527 (Sofia)-1520

* Russian architecture 989-1700s

* Romanesque architecture 1050-1100

* Norman architecture 1074-1250

* Gothic architecture

o Early English Period c.1190—c.1250

o Decorated Period c.1290–c.1350

o Perpendicular Period c.1350–c.1550

o Brick Gothic c.1350–c.1400

* Isabelline Gothic 1474-1505 (reign) Spain

* Tudor style architecture 1485–1603

* Manueline 1495-1521 (reign)

* Spanish Colonial style 1520s–c.1550

* Elizabethan architecture (b.1533 – d.1603)

* Dutch Colonial 1615-1674 (Treaty of Westminster) New England

* Palladian architecture 1616–1680 (Jones)

* English Baroque 1666 (Great Fire)–1713 (Treaty of Utrecht)

* Sicilian Baroque 1693 earthquake–c.1745

* Ukrainian Baroque late 1600-1800s

* Georgian architecture 1720-1840s UK & USA

o American colonial architecture 1720-1780s USA

* Gothic Revival architecture 1760s–1840s

o List of Gothic Revival architecture

* Neoclassical architecture

o Adam style 1770 UK

o Federal architecture 1780-1830 USA

o Empire (style) 1804-1814, 1870 revival

* Jeffersonian architecture 1790s-1830s Virginia, USA

* Florida cracker architecture c.1800-present Florida, USA

* Italianate 1802

* Egyptian Revival architecture 1809–1820s, 1840s, 1920s

* American Empire (style) 1810

* Biedermeier 1815–1848

* Russian Revival 1826-1917, 1990s-present

* Tudorbethan architecture 1835–1885

* Victorian architecture 1837 and 1901 UK

* Jacobethan 1838

* Queenslander (architecture) 1840s–1960s

o Australian architectural styles

* Romanesque Revival architecture 1840–1900 USA

* Neo-Grec 1848 and 1865

* Adirondack Architecture 1850s New York, USA

* Bristol Byzantine 1850-1880

* Second Empire 1865 and 1880







* Queen Anne Style architecture 1870–1910s England & USA

o Stick Style 1879-1905 New England

o Eastlake Style 1879-1905 New England

o Shingle Style 1879-1905 New England

* National Park Service Rustic 1872–present USA

* Chicago school (architecture) 1880s and 1890 USA

* Neo-Byzantine architecture 1882–1920s American

* Jugendstil 1888-1911 German Art Nouveau

* Modernisme 1888-1911 Catalonian Art Nouveau

* American Craftsman 1890s–1930 USA, California & east

* Richardsonian Romanesque 1880s USA

* City Beautiful movement 1890–1900s USA

* Colonial Revival architecture 1890s–1915

o Dutch Colonial Revival c.1900 New England

* Mission Revival Style architecture 1894-1936

* American Foursquare mid. 1890s-late 1930s USA

* Functionalism c.1900-1930s Europe & USA

o Danish Functionalism 1960s Denmark

* Pueblo style 1898-1990s

* Prairie Style 1900–1917 USA

* Heliopolis style 1905–c.1935 Egypt

* Futurist architecture 1909 Europe

* Expressionist architecture 1910–c.1924

* Amsterdam School 1912–1924 Netherlands

* Spanish Colonial Revival style 1915–1940 USA

* Bauhaus 1919–1930s

* Mediterranean Revival Style 1920s–1930s USA

* Art Deco 1925–1940s Europe & USA

o List of Art Deco architecture

* Modern movement 1927–1960s

* International style (architecture) 1930–present Europe & USA

* Streamline Moderne 1930–1937

* Nazi architecture 1933-1944 Germany

* Constructivism 1925–1932 USSR

* Postconstructivism 1930–1935 USSR

* Stalinist architecture 1933–1955 USSR

* Bauhaus 1919–1930s

* Usonian 1936–1940s USA

* Ranch-style 1940s-1970s USA

* New towns 1946-1968 United Kingdom

* Mid-century modern 1950s California, etc.

* Florida Modern 1950s or Tropical Modern

* Googie architecture 1950s USA

* Brutalist architecture 1950s–1970s

* Metabolist Movement 1959 Japan

* Arcology 1970s-present

* Postmodern architecture 1980s

* Deconstructivism 1982–present

* Memphis Group 1981-1988

* Blobitecture 2003–present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_style

Are we never to design new "traditional" buildings again? Can we not look back to the Greek Revival, Italianate, Prarie Style etc. of past eras?

Sure, why not? Just look at that list, it happened over and over again.

This is really about cheap materials right? You can like or dislike a particular design, but it fails or succeeds largely on quality.

I really don't understand why so many here are arguing vehemently for this structure. With that amount of space, you could really do something interesting, instead of some huge building mass that is just another building.



I realize that money is the bottom line to most developers, but wouldn't you also want your building to be noticed as a great structure as well as a place to live?



And who says it has to be modern? I don't care if it's modern or not. I just think this design is dull and boring. I realize it's an opinion, but I don't see anyone else here oohing and ahhing at the design. It could be so much more.

JCity wrote:Question to the "modern" aficionado's. Are we never to design new "traditional" buildings again?

There is nothing completely original in architecture. Good contemporary design that I like is essentially based on the International and Art Moderne styles. I have no problem with intelligent quotation and interpretation of older styles.



The problem is that nowadays in St. Louis the only real innovation in design comes from architects interpreting modernist styles. The architects who interpret more traditional styles do a poor job. Rather than carefully study and engage the Classical Revival and Renaissance Revival styles, the architect of the building shown in the rendering here studied and engaged those styles plus others, without attention to composition, form and material.



One of the reason that the new modernism looks good is because it uses a lot of concrete, glass and steel -- the materials of the older styles it interprets. If an architect wants to make a decent looking new Classical Revival building, she needs to turn to the materials traditionally used to give that style full expression: ceramics and stone.

It's strange that that list skips Italian Renaissance architecture. It goes from Gothic to Tudor and never gets back to the innovations (via Classical inspiration) of the Florentines. Brunelleschi was quite important. Although he used classical motifs and designs, the functions were different from the Greeks and Romans and the designs and appropriations were quite new and inventive. Some people think that the only value in the arts is constant and radical invention. This is really a convention that we have inherited from the 19th century romantics and the early 20th century modernists. I would not say that drawing from the past is a hinderance to beauty. Whatever your aim, quality is independent of it.

I've been going back and forth on this one. I wanted to defend this project based on some features that I think have merit. But...I'm convinced those features are for the most part unintentional and residual, which makes me think "CAD factory."

For me to see this as a developed design in any sense, I would expect to see some kink of section of the retail space. That all we've seen is one perspective, makes me believe that this project is a reverse strip mall with condos above, and nothing more.

In turn, that eliminates the possibility of being on jcity's list, and puts it squarely into crappy vernacular.