I don't see why people are so against this design. It has proper massing for the neighborhood, street-level retail, hides parking from the street, and comes up to the sidewalk. Asthetically I think it looks good - has a bit of a Euro-feel with the top floor balconies.
- 8,912
^ We just want to see more modern designs. It's hard to get excited about new brick infill.
- 339
I would love to see that as well...Moorlander wrote:^ We just want to see more modern designs. It's hard to get excited about new brick infill.
To go off topic, I know Gehry is lusted after by most cities (and really the Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain is worth lusting over many times over), but come on St. Louis...you have The Pulitzer Museum designed by Tadao Ando and the St. Louis Art Museum expansion done by David Chipperfield. These aren't small potatoes in the architectural world. I would love to see that modern influence (even with regional/local architects) pushed more in the city.
Its going to be diagonally across from the historic Forest Park Hotel building. I worry it might look like a cheap imitation in comparison
Its all in the details though. What materials they use, how good the workmanship is etc
A more modern design could easily complement the historic architecture and add to the eclectic feel of euclid ave,( again, if it is done right).
I guess Parkeast tower, BJC construction and nine north have raised my standards/expectations for Euclid avenue.
Its all in the details though. What materials they use, how good the workmanship is etc
A more modern design could easily complement the historic architecture and add to the eclectic feel of euclid ave,( again, if it is done right).
I guess Parkeast tower, BJC construction and nine north have raised my standards/expectations for Euclid avenue.
It's just the clock tower. Everything else with the building is fine. Could be more exciting, but the building as currently planned will work out nicely.metzgda wrote:I don't see why people are so against this design. It has proper massing for the neighborhood, street-level retail, hides parking from the street, and comes up to the sidewalk. Asthetically I think it looks good - has a bit of a Euro-feel with the top floor balconies.
- 11K
fwiw: that rendering makes the clock tower much more prominent than it will look once it's built.
You are joking, right?Alex Ihnen wrote:fwiw: that rendering makes the clock tower much more prominent than it will look once it's built.
The saddest part of this story is that a handsome mid-century modern building was demolished for this proposed Disney-style Haunted Mansion:
![]()
Eliminate the recessed-top-floor effect, and add a heavy cornice and it's not a bad looking building.
- 10K
My problem with it is that it shows a complete lack of imagination/creativity. It would be fine for, say, Clayton, but that site and that neighborhood deserve better.
- 339
My thoughts exactlyFramer wrote:Eliminate the recessed-top-floor effect, and add a heavy cornice and it's not a bad looking building.
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it's not like we're completely devoid of modern architecture and I certainly wouldn't want every proposal coming across to be modern. Additionally, St. Louis is a very conservative midwestern town, so more often than not that's what is going to get built b/c that is what the majority of buyers want.debaliviere wrote:My problem with it is that it shows a complete lack of imagination/creativity. It would be fine for, say, Clayton, but that site and that neighborhood deserve better.
I guess IMO, function is so much more important than just the visual aspect of the project. They've included most if not all of the urban elements to make this development fit well into an urban area.
Something is wrong with it. Its got a CVS-on-steroids feel to it. Maybe there are too many elements forced into the design. I appreciate that it works with the pedestrian environment and I want to like it. I am trying really hard to like it.
Others here may be right. All that fuss at the top few floors is probably not necessary. Sometimes less is more.
Others here may be right. All that fuss at the top few floors is probably not necessary. Sometimes less is more.
- 2,386
^In reference to the Count's post, I really have no problem with the isolated demolition of this building as long as what it was demolished for comes to fruition. The proposed building is much larger, and is a more effective use of the land. Additionally, I won't speak for anyone else here, but I would never have wanted to live in the doctor's building. It is a reality that the modern expectations for residential units have changed in a way that simply does not make certain buildings reusable. I think this is one that falls into that category.
Now build the damn thing.
Now build the damn thing.
It would be interesting to sit on Bruce Mills meeting with his bankers.
On one hand he secures a lot of downtown units under one complex and committs 4 to 5 million immediately to upgrade even though the rate on each unit won't be that great and a downtown that fits for every job it can bring in. Not to mention the competition when a lot of condo develpment reverted to rental units.
On the other hand, he has prime CWE real estate on a well established and safe street/corridor with an ever expanding hospital complex at its doorstep and a new Shriners hospital on the way. Plenty of well paid professionals. Yet, someone won't pull the trigger.
I could only assume that he is self financing most of his work downtown while still trying to convince a banker of his ideal CWE location.
On one hand he secures a lot of downtown units under one complex and committs 4 to 5 million immediately to upgrade even though the rate on each unit won't be that great and a downtown that fits for every job it can bring in. Not to mention the competition when a lot of condo develpment reverted to rental units.
On the other hand, he has prime CWE real estate on a well established and safe street/corridor with an ever expanding hospital complex at its doorstep and a new Shriners hospital on the way. Plenty of well paid professionals. Yet, someone won't pull the trigger.
I could only assume that he is self financing most of his work downtown while still trying to convince a banker of his ideal CWE location.
- 11K
^ He's pursuing HUD financing for the West Pine/Euclid property. I don't know what effect that has other than it can take longer and be a fairly complicated process.
We'll probably never see the building in reality the way we see it in the rendering. Most of it will be masked by other structures and once you're walking near it you'll have to look up and down to take all that crap in.
IOW, it may not be that bad.
IOW, it may not be that bad.
- 11K
There you go. Good explanation.shadrach wrote:We'll probably never see the building in reality the way we see it in the rendering. Most of it will be masked by other structures and once you're walking near it you'll have to look up and down to take all that crap in.
IOW, it may not be that bad.
Typical St. Louis attitude.We'll probably never see the building in reality the way we see it in the rendering. Most of it will be masked by other structures and once you're walking near it you'll have to look up and down to take all that crap in.
IOW, it may not be that bad.
^ouch!
I just moved back from ATL—a 'hot' dynamic city with tons of young people moving in—and there are scores of buildings like this and worse—some gaudier, some plainer. Yet we wish we were 'hot' like ATL. Because it's the people in them that bring about energy and culture.
Like the Dome or a downtown aquarium, we're all looking for this building to be another magic bullet for the West End. Let's build it so it can get filled. Then—as more young people move in the demand for cooler, hipper buildings will rise. 90% of the people will not be deterred because of its faux historic architecture. They will be deterred because of other issues (amenities and neighborhood.)
I'd be more worried about this building if it didn't have a fitness center, pool, and lounge.
And if it didn't that would be a typical St. Louis attitude!
I just moved back from ATL—a 'hot' dynamic city with tons of young people moving in—and there are scores of buildings like this and worse—some gaudier, some plainer. Yet we wish we were 'hot' like ATL. Because it's the people in them that bring about energy and culture.
Like the Dome or a downtown aquarium, we're all looking for this building to be another magic bullet for the West End. Let's build it so it can get filled. Then—as more young people move in the demand for cooler, hipper buildings will rise. 90% of the people will not be deterred because of its faux historic architecture. They will be deterred because of other issues (amenities and neighborhood.)
I'd be more worried about this building if it didn't have a fitness center, pool, and lounge.
And if it didn't that would be a typical St. Louis attitude!
You're making some good points. However, I don't think most people consider this building to be a "magic bullet" for CWE. Further, CWE already IS one of the neighborhoods in STL with young and hip residents. (Some hipper than others.)
My point is: why are we destroying a perfectly sound, architecturally interesting and occupied building to replace it with something inferior. Besides, all there is now is a swamp.
A renovated Doctors building could still be there, surrounded by interesting residential a la Nine North Euclid or Park East Tower.
Is it that difficult to come up with an interesting, contemporary design that fits the neighborhood well?
And I truly didn't get your statement "that it won't be that bad because we have to look up to see that crap."
My point is: why are we destroying a perfectly sound, architecturally interesting and occupied building to replace it with something inferior. Besides, all there is now is a swamp.
A renovated Doctors building could still be there, surrounded by interesting residential a la Nine North Euclid or Park East Tower.
Is it that difficult to come up with an interesting, contemporary design that fits the neighborhood well?
And I truly didn't get your statement "that it won't be that bad because we have to look up to see that crap."
yeah, that was a janky thought.
What i meant by that was I work downtown and walk the streets all the time. I mainly notice what's at street level and broken sidewalks in need of repair. The architectural gems and frieze's of most buildings I don't even notice. I have to intentionally stop and study the detail.
A lot of the crazy insanity of City Walk (mixed use of materials as you get on the upper floors) won't be noticeable as you're walking down the sidewalk or driving by. It'll be there, but not a obvious as in the rendering.
Some people are better looking further away, some buildings appear better looking when you can't take it in all a once.
What i meant by that was I work downtown and walk the streets all the time. I mainly notice what's at street level and broken sidewalks in need of repair. The architectural gems and frieze's of most buildings I don't even notice. I have to intentionally stop and study the detail.
A lot of the crazy insanity of City Walk (mixed use of materials as you get on the upper floors) won't be noticeable as you're walking down the sidewalk or driving by. It'll be there, but not a obvious as in the rendering.
Some people are better looking further away, some buildings appear better looking when you can't take it in all a once.
Personally I'm more bummed about the San Luis and that round building (Rodeway?) torn down about ten years ago.
And the CWE still has a lot of vacant lots and underutilized buildings. And it's kind of disappointing that this is considered our hippest neighborhood as it still has a lot of capacity.
And the CWE still has a lot of vacant lots and underutilized buildings. And it's kind of disappointing that this is considered our hippest neighborhood as it still has a lot of capacity.
When I was walking down the streets in the CWE the other day I had the exact same thought. I saw this neighborhood for the first time about ten years ago and I remember thinking about the potential and how in ten years this place would be booming and unaffordable.shadrach wrote:And the CWE still has a lot of vacant lots and underutilized buildings. And it's kind of disappointing that this is considered our hippest neighborhood as it still has a lot of capacity.
Not to say that no progression has been made but I expected it (then) to go much faster.
- 623
It is a long and frustrating process. I am sure Mills would have avoided it if there were other financing options in the current lending environment.He's pursuing HUD financing for the West Pine/Euclid property. I don't know what effect that has other than it can take longer and be a fairly complicated process.