urbanSTL

well, again, it all comes down to the materials. If we're talking brick and stone - which I doubt - then fine. If not, let's see the next rendering. That fake stucco crap should be BANNED in the city, especially the CWE. I still think the first few floors would look pretty good, if they used quality construction. It's the top floor that reminds me of that god-awful dogtown condo project. I bet if it had a quality cornice, people would be all over this. I personally think the clock tower is somewhat unique.

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.

I agree!

Materials are definitely important. No one denies that.



But more important than anything is a building's scale, proportions, and orientation to the street.

But more important than anything is a building's scale, proportions, and orientation to the street

this rendering accomplishes that.

everything you love about o'fallon, but now closer to where you work! call now and we'll include this kia sh**bucket, absolutely FREE.



to expect this building to use high-quality materials (i.e. not stucco, monotone brick, etc.) is foolishness. its a cheap building that will be marketed toward cheap people with no taste. taste is relative; some people out there are ready to move forward with architecture, others see only the po-mo crap around the city and country and want what was good about st. louis circa 1900.



while the u.s. has more or less been behind in design philosophy and practice for the last six decades, other stragglers in europe and elsewhere have all seemed to move on in the last five years. blobist architecture is decades away from popular acceptance, po-mo is still really only desired in an office setting or a yuppie sanctuary (outside of ny, chicago, miami, sf, etc.), but this is just another bead on the string of "a-typical conservative choices made in st. louis", very closely preceded by the slam expansion (fine, but boring), the plaza, and so on. the pritzker is another category.



crap. i can't articulate my thoughts right now. bottom line: building is a disappointment.

Swuss wrote:everything you love about o'fallon, but now closer to where you work! call now and we'll include this kia sh**bucket, absolutely FREE.



to expect this building to use high-quality materials (i.e. not stucco, monotone brick, etc.) is foolishness. its a cheap building that will be marketed toward cheap people with no taste. taste is relative; some people out there are ready to move forward with architecture, others see only the po-mo crap around the city and country and want what was good about st. louis circa 1900.



while the u.s. has more or less been behind in design philosophy and practice for the last six decades, other stragglers in europe and elsewhere have all seemed to move on in the last five years. blobist architecture is decades away from popular acceptance, po-mo is still really only desired in an office setting or a yuppie sanctuary (outside of ny, chicago, miami, sf, etc.), but this is just another bead on the string of "a-typical conservative choices made in st. louis", very closely preceded by the slam expansion (fine, but boring), the plaza, and so on. the pritzker is another category.



crap. i can't articulate my thoughts right now. bottom line: building is a disappointment.

Wow, I can't believe how much people are complaining about this. Yeah, it's not glass and ultra-modern. Fact is, this is a safe development that a caters to a lot of people's tastes and IMO looks pretty good.



For those that feel cities like Chicago would never build crap like this, this was just announced in my northside Chicago neighborhood today. So far, no one has complained about it on the Chicago blog. This development looks MUCH WORSE than the development here in STL and a bunch of this crap is going up right now in Chicago.



Click for image

^ Yeah, you echo my feelings from earlier and it's not surprise that we both live in Chicago. I guess in bigger cities, not every little apartment building is a big event. Sometimes, there's just a new building for people to live and shop in that doesn't need to be held to cutting edge standards.



In St Louis I think there is just a kind of anxiousness amongst urbanites and architectural fanatics because it seems like we haven't gotten ANYTHING "cutting edge" since the arch. Suddenly everytime something new comes up, which isn't as often as it should be, we all get our hopes up even when it's just something like this.

metzgda wrote:For those that feel cities like Chicago would never build crap like this, this was just announced in my northside Chicago neighborhood today. So far, no one has complained about it on the Chicago blog. This development looks MUCH WORSE than the development here in STL and a bunch of this crap is going up right now in Chicago.



Click for image

Wow.. that building looks VERY "institutional".

metzgda wrote:

Swuss wrote:everything you love about o'fallon, but now closer to where you work! call now and we'll include this kia sh**bucket, absolutely FREE.



to expect this building to use high-quality materials (i.e. not stucco, monotone brick, etc.) is foolishness. its a cheap building that will be marketed toward cheap people with no taste. taste is relative; some people out there are ready to move forward with architecture, others see only the po-mo crap around the city and country and want what was good about st. louis circa 1900.



while the u.s. has more or less been behind in design philosophy and practice for the last six decades, other stragglers in europe and elsewhere have all seemed to move on in the last five years. blobist architecture is decades away from popular acceptance, po-mo is still really only desired in an office setting or a yuppie sanctuary (outside of ny, chicago, miami, sf, etc.), but this is just another bead on the string of "a-typical conservative choices made in st. louis", very closely preceded by the slam expansion (fine, but boring), the plaza, and so on. the pritzker is another category.



crap. i can't articulate my thoughts right now. bottom line: building is a disappointment.

Wow, I can't believe how much people are complaining about this. Yeah, it's not glass and ultra-modern. Fact is, this is a safe development that a caters to a lot of people's tastes and IMO looks pretty good.



For those that feel cities like Chicago would never build crap like this, this was just announced in my northside Chicago neighborhood today. So far, no one has complained about it on the Chicago blog. This development looks MUCH WORSE than the development here in STL and a bunch of this crap is going up right now in Chicago.



Click for image

I know there is a TON of ugly ass crap being built in Chicago. But there is also a lot of very attractive new construction going up there too. I think there are excellent examples there that St. Louis should strive to emulate. We have enough of the crappy stuff.

metzgda wrote:

Swuss wrote:everything you love about o'fallon, but now closer to where you work! call now and we'll include this kia sh**bucket, absolutely FREE.



to expect this building to use high-quality materials (i.e. not stucco, monotone brick, etc.) is foolishness. its a cheap building that will be marketed toward cheap people with no taste. taste is relative; some people out there are ready to move forward with architecture, others see only the po-mo crap around the city and country and want what was good about st. louis circa 1900.



while the u.s. has more or less been behind in design philosophy and practice for the last six decades, other stragglers in europe and elsewhere have all seemed to move on in the last five years. blobist architecture is decades away from popular acceptance, po-mo is still really only desired in an office setting or a yuppie sanctuary (outside of ny, chicago, miami, sf, etc.), but this is just another bead on the string of "a-typical conservative choices made in st. louis", very closely preceded by the slam expansion (fine, but boring), the plaza, and so on. the pritzker is another category.



crap. i can't articulate my thoughts right now. bottom line: building is a disappointment.

Wow, I can't believe how much people are complaining about this. Yeah, it's not glass and ultra-modern. Fact is, this is a safe development that a caters to a lot of people's tastes and IMO looks pretty good.



For those that feel cities like Chicago would never build crap like this, this was just announced in my northside Chicago neighborhood today. So far, no one has complained about it on the Chicago blog. This development looks MUCH WORSE than the development here in STL and a bunch of this crap is going up right now in Chicago.



Click for image

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that there's anything other than an architectural gem being built in Chicago! :smt015

At least they don't use vinyl siding anymore in Chicago. Even the cheapest buildings have, at least, cinderblock sides and backs. And never do you see a new, suburban style house with a pointy roof and big driveway coming out the front, with a 40 foot setback.

^ You should really indicate that you're using sarcasm - not everyone will get it!

ToastedRavioli wrote:At least they don't use vinyl siding anymore in Chicago. Even the cheapest buildings have, at least, cinderblock sides and backs. And never do you see a new, suburban style house with a pointy roof and big driveway coming out the front, with a 40 foot setback.

That's for the most part true. I completely agree that vinyl siding in the city and large setbacks negate the urban density and quality that STL should strive for.



That's why I don't understand people's rash negativity with this project. It's setback is such that the project is dense and urban, and it's materials (while not groundbreaking) seem to be of masonry. I'd much rather see this negativity toward more suburban-style developments such as much of the infill going in in North STL, or strip mall designs throughout the city.

it's ok. not great, but at least it will blend with a few of its neighbors and it is better than what is there now.



While we are on the topic, does anyone know why all the lights in the Doctors Building are on all night?

The lights seem to be on all day as well. It started out a couple weeks ago as just the top floor, but them more floors were lit up as the days went by. Now most days the top 6 floors are all lit up in every window. For a few days earlier in the week one of the floors was out, but now it is back on again.

I don't know, perhaps with a few modifications this could look pretty cool. No one complained about the Clayton on the Park in ...clayton. It's "modern" but it looks pretty forgetful and bland to me. I'd rather see this red building with its density than that building.

not to change the thread here, but I don't think SLAM's addition is bland either.

I also heard a rumor they're tearing down the senior home on Taylor at Lindell. Is this true? I kind of like this building. It's unique and looks so South beach. It could be stripped clean and completely remodeled into high end apartments imo. The archdiocese owns it, so don't expect the right decision to be made.

JCity wrote:I also heard a rumor they're tearing down the senior home on Taylor at Lindell. Is this true? I kind of like this building. It's unique and looks so South beach. It could be stripped clean and completely remodeled into high end apartments imo. The archdiocese owns it, so don't expect the right decision to be made.

Sadly, yes. It looks like it's gonna become a parking lot. There's a thread about it in the "Central Corridor Projects and Construction" section.

how is this allowed? A PARKING LOT is a better use for that site? what is wrong with this city? I would either like to 1.) see this building completely gut rehabbed or 2.) torn down for something better in its place. A SURFACE LOT at Lindell and Taylor, W,TF!? I guess you can't expect too much from this Archbishop... Add it to the list of mistakes in St. Louis City.. within the last 5 years! I'm not talking about decades past.

The new West End Word has an update on the Miills project in the "News briefs" section on page 4. I can't find it on their website, so I'll summarize the main points:



Bruce Mills hopes demolition of the Doctor's Building will take place by the end of this year (if so, they'll have to get a move on!). He says construction of the new building on the site is likely to commence in June 2008 and will take about 22 months to complete.



The new building will be called "Citywalk on Euclid" and will contain 188 apartments. All will be rental units, but with potential to be sold as condos "as time goes by". The development will technically comprise two buildings: an eastern one facing West Pine that will have 6 stories and a western one facing Euclid with 7 stories. There will be approximately 13,000 sq. ft. of retail space on the ground floor.

This project goes before the Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee on January 30.

Although I don't think this development is the end of the world, it does seem much more appropriate for Clayton, or maybe even the fringes of downtown St. Charles.