urbanSTL

Demolition is coming along, though all of the main tower is still intact. I'm curious as to how they're planning on bringing it down. There's only a short fence separating the sidewalk from the building, I'd think they'd have to close the sidewalk eventually to prevent crushing pedestrians.



While I'm not sorry to see this unattractive POS go, the Doctor's Building does have a rich history. In particular, it was the home in the 1980's of Reproductive Health Services, one of the (losing) plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services. This 5-4 ruling was the first post-Roe case that allowed states to restrict abortion rights.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v. ... h_Services

JivecitySTL wrote:I hope I'm wrong, but this city has a tendency to tear things down before solidifying plans to replace them.

It's a very unfortunate and very unnecessary pattern. Too bad that so many citizens and the officials they elect seem like they couldn't care less.

ThreeOneFour wrote:

JivecitySTL wrote:I hope I'm wrong, but this city has a tendency to tear things down before solidifying plans to replace them.

It's a very unfortunate and very unnecessary pattern. Too bad that so many citizens and the officials they elect seem like they couldn't care less.

Maybe they seem like they couldn't care less because they couldn't care less.

jlblues wrote:Maybe they seem like they couldn't care less because they couldn't care less.

Yep. In another city, the inclusion of 'seem' might, uh, 'seem' appropriate.



Around St. Louis, I should've known it was superfluous, because most people (at least outside of this forum) really couldn't care less. And it's our (major) loss, especially since we have one of the more interesting and beautiful built environments of any significant American city IMHO.

Michael Allen's eulogy of the Doctor's Building really makes me want to retract my previous comments.



I'm doing my master's thesis on the preservation movement and its newfound focus on "cultural preservation". A huge chunk of this is the idea that modernist features of our landscape are important road signs in the tortuous path that American architecture has traveled. To erase them from that thoroughfare is to thumb our collective nose at the cultural events that precipitated them. Plus, aesthetically, many Mid-Century Moderns are very unique and will likely never again be constructed.



The more and more I immerse myself in these mid-century preservation groups and their pictures of America's space age freaks, the more and more I think St. Louis is absurd to lose such structures as the Doctor's Building, the Taylor/Lindell bldg., and the Mansion House complex (through recladding, should it ever happen).



Ah well. On to the next fight, I suppose.

Does the Doctor's Building really have architectural merit? I'm all for preservation, and I like mid-century modern, but this building doesn't look like anything to me. I believe that St. Louis has preserved more of its architectural heritage than most other cities in the US, which is fantastic. The mid-century modern buildings near the Arch and Busch Stadium have some style and appeal, but the Doctor's Building didn't do anything for me. Great achitecture is supposed to inspire.

Does it have merit? I don't know...maybe this is just the money shot right here, but I think it's an elegant example of modernism.



From Ecology of Absence:

Matt Drops The H wrote:Does it have merit? I don't know...maybe this is just the money shot right here, but I think it's an elegant example of modernism.

I think it looks more like a tenement than anything else, much like my own building a few blocks SW at Kingshighway & Laclede.

If you're going to base your opinion of any building's merits on a gut reaction to it's exterior aesthetics, man, the new Citywalk will beat out any Doctor's Building, everyday of the week.

You'll be doing yourself a disservice, though. You haven't considered what it's like to be in the building, how people operate going in and out of it. How does it relate to the street? Not just a spatial examination, but really consider how it relates: where do people enter, versus how they'll circulate through the floor plan, versus how they'll occupy the private spaces?

This was something I always liked about the Doctor's building. There's a lot of subtlety to its layout, behind the facade. Of course it's a sterile box. But it's a nice kind of sterility: it was actually planned.

If you're going to discredit a building, back that criticism up. I know we thrive on gut reactions, but go beyond "branding" a building just so you can pass it off. Likewise, if you're coming to the building's defense, bolster your argument of "midcentury moderns" by extolling it's adaptability, for lack of a better term.

Hm, that last sentence didn't really come out the way I thought it would.

The more I've come to appreciate mid-century modernism, the more I wonder, "Aren't there lots of surface lots Citywalk can be built on?" For a city with so many vacant lots and so much surface parking, it would be hard for me to think that anything would need to be demolished to make way for new development.

There will be wrap-around ground floor retail at this project. Does anyone know if they are planning to do anything with the surface parking at Lindell and Euclid, or elsewhere nearby?

captainjackass wrote:If you're going to base your opinion of any building's merits on a gut reaction to it's exterior aesthetics, man, the new Citywalk will beat out any Doctor's Building, everyday of the week.

You'll be doing yourself a disservice, though. You haven't considered what it's like to be in the building, how people operate going in and out of it. How does it relate to the street? Not just a spatial examination, but really consider how it relates: where do people enter, versus how they'll circulate through the floor plan, versus how they'll occupy the private spaces?

This was something I always liked about the Doctor's building. There's a lot of subtlety to its layout, behind the facade. Of course it's a sterile box. But it's a nice kind of sterility: it was actually planned.

If you're going to discredit a building, back that criticism up. I know we thrive on gut reactions, but go beyond "branding" a building just so you can pass it off. Likewise, if you're coming to the building's defense, bolster your argument of "midcentury moderns" by extolling it's adaptability, for lack of a better term.

Hm, that last sentence didn't really come out the way I thought it would.

I disagree with a lot of your above statements.



If the plan were to save and redevelop the Doctor's Building, the interior may or may not remain. I am not saying that this is necessarily good or bad. In fact, among historic properties with detailed fixtures, I think interior demo should be highly discouraged of course (in the gut rehab). But my chief concern for this building is that it remain in its current capacity a part of the built environment. The interior, though important, will not affect as many people. After all, if you didn't have business in the Doctor's, you probably have not been inside of it. That is, its impact on the public is its public facade.



Secondly, I do not find the building sterile. I suggest you read Michael Allen's write up at Ecology of Absence, but I will loosely borrow from it here. The north and east side of the Doctor's is ornamented differently. From the above posted view, it's almost reminiscent of a large quoin. The windows are decorated with those aqua colored aluminum panels so championed by the MCM movement.



It's not breathtaking, but it's not sterile. Imagine the mindset that once demolished Victorians and Beaux-Arts buildings: they looked worn and reeked of a time too far separated from the present (and yet, too recent to be considered a part of history). To many, no matter how ornamented, the Second Empire rowhouses that were demolished in Mill Creek were simply expendable; their worth was conflated with the social and physical ills that surrounded them.



I do think the Doctor's is adaptable. There are few buildings that absolutely aren't. My chief concern is preservation of the building's street presence--unless something better will replace it and unless that something better will last longer than 60 years.



The proposed building looks awkward in the renderings, but does have some notable positives: its density and its addition of (more) street level retail. Still, admitting that I have changed my mind rather abruptly, I believe that the Doctor's will prove the superior structure upon the construction of the new building.

Matt drops the H, if I knew how to put text into that quote box, that's what I'd do here with your last statement. Needless to say, that's what I'm responding to.

First, I hope you don't think I was advocating the Doctors building's demo. I'm certainly not. When I spoke of the interior, I was referring to the doctor's building. For one thing, my pediatrician was there in the 80's, so I'm quite familiar with the layout, and for the record, it was quite nice.

Also, when I used to work at Duff's, on my way home I would cut through Subway on Euclid, buy a sandwich, and exit on the West Pine side. So that's what I was referring to; the Doctor's Building had a nice relation to the street. You can't discern that by looking at it from a distance. But it's actually an extremely pedestrian friendly building. That's the subtlety I was talking about.

As far as sterile...that's my take. It's a matter of opinion, and I don't consider sterile to be negative. When I use sterile, I mean without ridiculous embellishment. Like, I don't know, a clocktower.

captainjackass wrote:Matt drops the H, if I knew how to put text into that quote box, that's what I'd do here with your last statement. Needless to say, that's what I'm responding to.

First, I hope you don't think I was advocating the Doctors building's demo. I'm certainly not. When I spoke of the interior, I was referring to the doctor's building. For one thing, my pediatrician was there in the 80's, so I'm quite familiar with the layout, and for the record, it was quite nice.

Also, when I used to work at Duff's, on my way home I would cut through Subway on Euclid, buy a sandwich, and exit on the West Pine side. So that's what I was referring to; the Doctor's Building had a nice relation to the street. You can't discern that by looking at it from a distance. But it's actually an extremely pedestrian friendly building. That's the subtlety I was talking about.

As far as sterile...that's my take. It's a matter of opinion, and I don't consider sterile to be negative. When I use sterile, I mean without ridiculous embellishment. Like, I don't know, a clocktower.

To quote, just click quote on the bar above the text in the post. Once your reply box pulls up, the person's entire post will be there. You can then change it to suit your needs.



Anyhow...then I would say we're in agreement. If the interior is more inviting and the pedestrian level successful, I'd say it's even more worth saving.



at the clocktower comment.

I'm not a big fan of the building as is, personally. And the windows, as they are, would make adaptive reuse difficult. That being said, I think this building could certainly have been reused with a bit of imagination and selective exterior demo. It would be quite simple to expand those windows vertically, floor to ceiling, for example. Then you could add balconies. That would make for a very nice residential layout and a much better looking building, in my opinion. It could have even been done in a way to accentuate and complement the modernist features of the building. I don't understand why we don't see more of this around here. Seems a waste of a perfectly viable structure - at least it appears to be in good condition from the exterior. All water under the bridge though I suppose, since it is coming down.



I'm sure it is on here somewhere, but when was this building built? If it is more than 50 years old, which I suspect it is, it would have qualified for historic tax credits. Of course then you wouldn't be able to modify the exterior...

Demo on the tower is coming along slowly but surely. They are slowly ripping it apart from the east side of it. Will be interesting to see how they handle it when it starts to thin out.



also, what are they going to do with that nice granite on the exterior? can i go take it and install it in my place?

^I'm sure if you slip the demo guy a coupla 20s you can have whatever you want, assuming he or someone else on his crew doesn't already have his eye on it. Granite? What granite?

Well to each there own. I don't find the building horribly unattractive. Then again mid-20th century architecture interests me. I think you'll find many on here aren't die hard 'preserve everything'. We want to see development too. It's just what is replacing the Doctor's Building is just some schlocky faux-historic crap replete with clocktower. I just would like to see something more attractive replace the Doctor's Building.

The building is almost demolished this morning

There aren't any rich preservationists.

Gone Corporate wrote:If it really was that architecturally significant, then where did the rich preservationists go with a counter offer for the property?

I really do get tired of that line. It's not pertinent to the discussion. Ever.



I don't even care if this building comes down, but I don't want to be told I need to buy every building that I think should be preserved. The point isn't whether I can buy it or not, it's about what is good for the history of our culture.