^Ah, yes. "The Marshmallow". I miss it too. And also it's near-twin at Jefferson and Market.
What's good for the history of our culture is subjective and in this case is decided by governance structures and the almighty dollar. So yes, it is pertinent whether we think it convenient or not.MattnSTL wrote: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.
That's why we have preservation laws and historic tax credits. You're current home wouldn't exist without those.
The point is, you don't have to own, or have the means to own something, to want to see something preserved.
The point is, you don't have to own, or have the means to own something, to want to see something preserved.
Of course. Preservation laws and historic tax credits are part of the aforementioned governance structures. Preservation laws help preserve buildings and tax credits provide incentives to potential investors. After that, the dollar determines whether a given building may stay or go. And yes, anyone can want to see something preserved. But there are millions of opinions and in the end we must be realistic. That's what the dollar helps to accomplish; furthering an efficient, realistic market.MattnSTL wrote:That's why we have preservation laws and historic tax credits. You're current home wouldn't exist without those.
The point is, you don't have to own, or have the means to own something, to want to see something preserved.
- 1,517
Gone Corporate wrote:I have no love lost for the Doctor’s Building.
It was no longer current to medical industry trends. Both patient and neighborhood demographics have changed, and the pertinent clientele is sharply decreasing in contrast to an increasing residential base.
The Doctor’s Building underutilized their total property and did little to contribute to the long-term objectives of the neighborhood regarding the needs of an active urban population. Any adaptive construction plans for residential use would have been prohibitively expensive, especially as the CWE is still competing for street level traffic with Clayton’s new construction retail.
With another really big surface parking lot of its own and only a Subway for street level retail; that corner needs constructive reuse.
Plus, it was as ugly as could be. It looks like the type of place rich women take their poodles to die. Then have them turned into a scarf on site.
Good riddance.
If it really was that architecturally significant, then where did the rich preservationists go with a counter offer for the property?
Exactly.
What an inane comment.
If there were such a stock of "rich" preservationists lying around, and if all developers could be convinced to sell, preservation as a profession would not need to exist. Whatever building was threatened would simply be rescued by these wealthy philanthropists if there were agreement as to the worthiness of the structure.
In the real world, and especially in St. Louis, the reality is that developers, institutions, and government of the city collectively have a rather nonchalant attitude about demolition. Standing up to that culture takes a lot more time and money than you think.
A better comment to have made would be, "then why didn't preservationists work to nominate this as a local landmark/district?" thereby sending demolition decision to Landmarks. Of course, that takes time as well.
Plus, many, like yourself in this particular instance, do not realize that mid-century modern structures have architectural worth and are soundly constructed. In order to demolish, developers should find themselves pressured by local officials, neighbors, and preservationists to ensure that what will replace the building will be better and will last longer.
The jury is out on that one. It certainly doesn't seem so by the renderings.
- 2,929
MattnSTL wrote: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.
Matt Drops The H wrote:
What an inane comment.
My apologies if my commentary isn’t necessarily thought to convey the purpose of the thread or is hindering in the continuation of discussion.
Further, I do not intend for my statements to either belittle the commentary of others or seek to condemn said appreciation for our community’s collection of buildings of differing architectural classifications. Should that have been inferred, please reconsider in light of my statements above.
However, where are the developers looking to save this structure? They are the rich preservationists who have saved countless other buildings and communities beforehand, including the Gills, Koplars, McGowans, Steffen, and Baron. What about HRI?
Where are the other plans for constructive use of the building?
What was the market demand for the old structure, and how does it compare to what’s going to be built?
Why was this building not preserved? Was it not considered worth putting on the protected list by the Landmarks group or the National Registrar?
What’s the shelf life on the new offering?
If this is such a tragic loss, then why is the new project supported by the neighborhood association (residential & commercial) as well as by the elected aldermen?
In my opinion, it was not a relatively important building from an architectural standpoint, nor was it distinctive for broad historical worth. While it is an example of modernist architecture specific to the medical field of the mid-20th Century, and while it was still structurally sound, the demand for it by tenants was apparently not strong enough to promote its continued existence amidst the funded plans for its raising and the reconstruction of the block it held, as well as the vacant lots adjacent, to new purposes based on market demand and the long-term plans by the neighborhood association, on whose authority this redevelopment was ultimately authorized.
The building, I feel, served its intended purpose, which has gone away. As in all things, if the CWE wants to continue growing, it must adapt.
In the lack of Landmarks’ condemnation, and with the support of the local residential & business community, alongside constructive reuse to meet market demands, I support it.
- 835
If the CWE is ever to fully achieve its real potential, the huge surface parking lots that mar its central landscape must disappear: Lindell & Euclid, Lindell & Kingshighway.
While I was partial to the Doctors Building due to its uncommon design, it is a goner. I only wish that its replacement offered more than the mediocre faux-historic shlock we see in suburban lifestyle centers all over the country. Oh well.
While I was partial to the Doctors Building due to its uncommon design, it is a goner. I only wish that its replacement offered more than the mediocre faux-historic shlock we see in suburban lifestyle centers all over the country. Oh well.
- 2,929
JivecitySTL wrote:If the CWE is ever to fully achieve its real potential, the huge surface parking lots that mar its central landscape must disappear: Lindell & Euclid, Lindell & Kingshighway.
While I was partial to the Doctors Building due to its uncommon design, it is a goner. I only wish that its replacement offered more than the mediocre faux-historic shlock we see in suburban lifestyle centers all over the country. Oh well.
Agreed, and agreed.
Q: Speaking of the lot on Lindell & Kingshighway, I had heard speculation before about preliminary planning for a residential tower and ancillary retail going up there, with interest expressed by the Koplars. This was a while back, but noting the success of their work on Maryland (and assumed return on capital), I was wondering if this was still a feasibility. Or am I just whistling Dixie?
- 1,517
Gone Corporate wrote:MattnSTL wrote: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.
Matt Drops The H wrote:
What an inane comment.
My apologies if my commentary isn’t necessarily thought to convey the purpose of the thread or is hindering in the continuation of discussion.
Further, I do not intend for my statements to either belittle the commentary of others or seek to condemn said appreciation for our community’s collection of buildings of differing architectural classifications. Should that have been inferred, please reconsider in light of my statements above.
However, where are the developers looking to save this structure? They are the rich preservationists who have saved countless other buildings and communities beforehand, including the Gills, Koplars, McGowans, Steffen, and Baron. What about HRI?
Where are the other plans for constructive use of the building?
What was the market demand for the old structure, and how does it compare to what’s going to be built?
Why was this building not preserved? Was it not considered worth putting on the protected list by the Landmarks group or the National Registrar?
What’s the shelf life on the new offering?
If this is such a tragic loss, then why is the new project supported by the neighborhood association (residential & commercial) as well as by the elected aldermen?
In my opinion, it was not a relatively important building from an architectural standpoint, nor was it distinctive for broad historical worth. While it is an example of modernist architecture specific to the medical field of the mid-20th Century, and while it was still structurally sound, the demand for it by tenants was apparently not strong enough to promote its continued existence amidst the funded plans for its raising and the reconstruction of the block it held, as well as the vacant lots adjacent, to new purposes based on market demand and the long-term plans by the neighborhood association, on whose authority this redevelopment was ultimately authorized.
The building, I feel, served its intended purpose, which has gone away. As in all things, if the CWE wants to continue growing, it must adapt.
In the lack of Landmarks’ condemnation, and with the support of the local residential & business community, alongside constructive reuse to meet market demands, I support it.
Thanks for the balanced reply. The "inane" thing was a bit harsh. Please accept my apologies.
That said, I still disagree for the most part. The argument against the building sounds like it's out of the same playbook that took down Mill Creek Valley in the 1950s. It is not appreciated now, by tenants or by neighbors, simply because it's "historicity" is not evident to the masses yet.
The justification for tearing down 1890s and early 20th century architecture was the same. The market couldn't justify saving a bunch of row houses or densely splayed Second Empires when the suburban ranch was in demand. Besides, they were ugly and decaying; residents of surrounding neighborhoods and especially business and political leaders deemed "newness" better and more appealing with little reflection on what the long-term effects would be.
The differences between Mill Creek and the Doctor's are many, of course, one being a neighborhood and the other a single structure. Even so, and I will often say this, St. Louis loses its built environment in a piecemeal fashion. Things "slip away" or appear too small scale for preservationists to put up a fight. We are still an overwhelming historic city, but our greatest asset, our superior buildings are crumbling and are not being replaced by anything that speaks to a better future in huge swaths of the city. You need only look at one of Jive's "We can do better" threads to see how contemporary infill could truly do this city much more service than neotraditional schlock. It is even more surprising that higher quality materials are not demanded in a neighborhood that could certainly call for them (the Central West End).
I do hope I'm wrong and that the new building turns out well.
Gone Corporate wrote:The building, I feel, served its intended purpose, which has gone away.
The same can be said about all the old textile-manufacturing buildings along Washington Ave. Should they have been torn down too?
- 466
this weeks AIA newsletter is all about preservation. this thread seems appropriate to post it in.
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
i didn't know that the TWA headquarters building in KC used state historic funds to renovate it. that should open the doors to all other sorts of buildings that can be saved. such as the one on lindel that the catholics want to turn into a parking lot.
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
i didn't know that the TWA headquarters building in KC used state historic funds to renovate it. that should open the doors to all other sorts of buildings that can be saved. such as the one on lindel that the catholics want to turn into a parking lot.
I'm usually all about preservation, but I don't think the loss of this building is the end of the world. I certainly appreciate modern architecture from the 50's, but I think the site could call for a denser building with a better relation to the street grid/corner. Also, the new building will, as far as I can tell, take up a good portion of the former parking lot.
Some buildings are more suited to adaptable reuse than others.Framer wrote:Gone Corporate wrote:The building, I feel, served its intended purpose, which has gone away.
The same can be said about all the old textile-manufacturing buildings along Washington Ave. Should they have been torn down too?
- 1,610
I didn't think St. Louis Hills Office Center on Chippewa at Bancroft could be reused, but it waits to be seen.
And for all those who say surface parking lots should go first, the Doctor's Building site was mostly a surface parking lot in land area.
And for all those who say surface parking lots should go first, the Doctor's Building site was mostly a surface parking lot in land area.
- 1,768
bikin'_man wrote:
i didn't know that the TWA headquarters building in KC used state historic funds to renovate it. that should open the doors to all other sorts of buildings that can be saved. such as the one on lindel that the catholics want to turn into a parking lot.
There has to be a will to preserve before that avenue can be taken, and "the Catholics" have no will to save the San Luis.
Demolition is fast and furious now, and with the gorgeous weather today, it's taking on the feel of a parade. Some people actually brought lawn chairs, and are sitting in the front yard of the boy scout building watching the wrecking ball swing. the last section of roof came down as I stood chatting with them. There's something primal about demolition.
I took some pics last night, I'll try to post them later today.
I took some pics last night, I'll try to post them later today.
It shoul dpretty much be gone by the end of the day. Every day for the past week, I've told myself, as I walk by it on my way to the Metro, "I should bring my camera tomorrow so I can take a picture when I walk by", but I failed to do so. Has anybody taken any pictures?
Eidt: Maybe I should read the entire post before me before I hit submit...
Eidt: Maybe I should read the entire post before me before I hit submit...
- 1,610
DrDrew wrote:
They really went to town with Rebar on this building. It is Solid.
It was solid.
I see they didn't bother to salvage the black granite or marble on the first floor, or the artwork. Odd. That also looks like a pretty precarious situation Spirtas created with 10 stories of only half of a bay of the building left swaying in the breeze. They are going to kill someone one of these days.
They did cut the central relief sculpture out of some of the artwork on the South side.
I thought they'd finish today, but they stopped with about 5 1/2 stories still left. Looks like anyone who wants to see some serious headache ball action has at least one more day.
I thought they'd finish today, but they stopped with about 5 1/2 stories still left. Looks like anyone who wants to see some serious headache ball action has at least one more day.
The portion of Euclid to the West of the bldg is closed today. Looks like the rest of it will be coming down.
P.S. The skyline looks really different when heading East on Lindell.
P.S. The skyline looks really different when heading East on Lindell.
completely gone now with the exception of rubble.