I guess I was being a little harsh (I was drinking when I wrote that last comment), but I do think the design should be improved. Especially when a funky, retrocious building will be sacrificed.
STLgasm wrote:Wow, the most boring design to hit the CWE in decades is a done deal!
Let's hope there are some 11th hour revisions on this one. Not one inkling of imagination, innovation or creativity in this design. Boring, overdone and cheesy. St. Louis desperately lacks modern design!!!
I think you're a little bit harsh on this project too (no offense). While it's not stunning in design, it is at a nice density, nice scale, and should be a reasonable contribution to the streetscape.
I would like to see if somehow, the Doctor's Building could be retained though.
It is a far better looking project than the apartments just east of FPP and Euclid (the Bread Co. bldg.), now those are hideous. This proposed development really doesn't look that bad.
If they can ditch the clock, I'll be okay with it. It will be great to fill up that huge surface lot just east of Euclid, giving the area a much denser feel.
ntbpo wrote:It is a far better looking project than the apartments just east of FPP and Euclid (the Bread Co. bldg.), now those are hideous. This proposed development really doesn't look that bad.
You have me scratching my head with this comment. I think the MetroLofts are some of the best new construction this city has seen in recent decades. I wish there were more developments like that. I'm so sick of faux-historic crap. I am glad the MetroLofts are contemporary, with street-friendly, dense massing and setbacks.
The Mills project: eh. I will miss the Doctors Building. With the imminent destruction of the San Luis Apartments later this year, there won't be much left in the CWE from the 1960s-1970s architectural era, except of course the old American Heart Assn. building at Euclid & Lindell (whoohoo, thank you NIMBYs!). That is a damn shame. Development interests in St. Louis have their priorities all wrong.
I will chime in for distaste for the Metrolofts, as well. It seems so out of the box (and box-ey). I don't like that design in any city -- looks very communist dormitory-esque. Also, I disagree that it is at all street friendly. It somehow is unfriendly from the person walking by on the street (you have to go up stairs and enter doors that don't actually face FPP) and to the person coming from the inside (the first floor balcony/patios seem to be almost underground when you are on them...) Not to mention the units themselves lack light and have low ceilings.
I feel like it was "they buy that this is 'edgy' because they don't know any better"...
JivecitySTL wrote:You have me scratching my head with this comment. I think the MetroLofts are some of the best new construction this city has seen in recent decades. I wish there were more developments like that. I'm so sick of faux-historic crap. I am glad the MetroLofts are contemporary, with street-friendly, dense massing and setbacks.
There are things I like about that building's design and things I don't. I appreciate that it's an attempt at something different, which is hard to come by here. Not a fan of the orangish brick.
TB1000 wrote:The current building is ugly. The new design is fine and dense. It gets rid of a surface parking lot and a blighted building.
The Doctor's Building is "blighted" only because the owners closed the building and let it sit vacant for the past year -- a classic development trick of the developer creating the conditions the developer claims to remedy.
TB1000 wrote:The current building is ugly. The new design is fine and dense. It gets rid of a surface parking lot and a blighted building.
The Doctor's Building is "blighted" only because the owners closed the building and let it sit vacant for the past year -- a classic development trick of the developer creating the conditions the developer claims to remedy.
Is there any effort to close this loophole? I think it is awful that owners/developers can abuse a law that is supposed to be designed to benefit the public.
TB1000-- the Doctors Building was NOT blighted until THE OWNERS KICKED OUT ALL THE TENANTS AND CLOSED THE BUILDING. Until last year, it was occupied and functioning as a medical building and a contributing resource for the neighborhood. Don't be fooled. I lived on the other side of the same block as the Doctors Building for four years prior to this past August and would always see people going in and out of that building.
Unfortunately, the definition of blight is vague and is predicated upon the building being a "social or economic liability" for the area. If the building is vacant and neglected by the owner (therefore becoming a liability for its neighbors) it is easy to meet the definition of blight. Perhaps the loophole could be closed if 1: there were negative consequences (i.e. major fines) for the owners of blighted buildings or for people whose buildings become blighted under their ownership; 2: People who allow their property to become blighted lost the right to re-develop the property for another use (only option is to sell or continue paying fines). Neither of these will happen, but one of the critical components of any good preservation ordinance is consequences for property owners found guilty of "demolition by neglect" so these ideas are not that far-fetched.
Good riddance to a massive surface lot and a really ugly mid-rise. I'm not a huge fan of the clocktower, but everything else about the current proposal sounds good.
^I agree. I apologize for not quite appreciating mid-century architecture as much as many of you do. But, that is one bland, depressed building along with a bland, depressed parking lot.
I'm also not a big fan of the current use for the site. The doctors building seems quite insignificant when considering the end result - more density/fewer surface parking lots.
The Doctor's Building is an example of human-scaled modernism that St. Louis should really not be surrendering. But, seeing the replacement that is planned, there may be more value added to the neighborhood with the new midrise.
I do hope though that there aren't redevelopment plans for this site in 40 years with future UrbanSTLers scratching their heads at the design of this plan.
Demolition has begun... RIP Doctors Building. Too bad they couldn't build on the massive surface lot across the street instead at Lindell/Euclid, but that would be too sensible.
Demolition is indeed underway, and I have a nagging fear that the site will sit dormant once the building is gone due to the ailing economy. I hope I'm wrong, but this city has a tendency to tear things down before solidifying plans to replace them. I await...
