urbanSTL

Personally, I still can't come around to liking this building. There are a few similar designs in Chicago that I detest. I realize this is a personal opinion, so nothing against those on the board or the Roberts Bros. I guess the concrete-finish to me just looks "unfinished". I feel like it's a building that was built, and then the builders decided to save money by not putting a facade on it. Again, personal opinion. Below is a pic of a building in Chicago with similar design, so you can see how it fits into an urban landscape. BTW, I think the Chicago building looks MUCH better than the Robert Bros, but it was the closest building I could find to compare.

SMSPlanstu wrote:I really do not see why you guys like it. Please, give me details because I do not see anything.

Reasons I like this building:

Wide open - not insular. Nothing to hide. Respresents a new open city. St. Louis is back and not afraid to show it.



Confident, not timid. Proud, not smug. Respectful, but not too proper. Respectful of its elders by sitting side by side with the old Mayfair and not soaring. Not the Ren Cen syndrome. But, confident enough to forego a proper brick facade and modest windows.



This will sound CORNY, but I see this as three lovely ladies:



In the middle, The Mayfair Hotel, is a proper, stately, refined elderly lady. She exudes wealth & good taste. Next door is the Grand Hotel. Young, attractive, very ladylike and carefully follows the Mayfair's example of good taste. She looks great, but afraid to show her youth. She is a lovely lady that wants to know where you went to high school.



The latest arrival, the Roberts tower, is also a lady, though some of you think she is a tramp. She isn't afraid to sport a short skirt and go-go boots (the 1960s were fun). With her wide open appearance, she is showing a bit more leg and cleavage than her proper companions, even surprising a few people. She doesn't care where you went to high school. But, she is still ladylike & respectful by not soaring above or setting herself apart from the Mayfair & the Grand.



The plaza? I am not going there. That is part of another painful discussion in our past. The milk is spilled, my membership in the National Trust has been canceled. We might as well move on.

Not corny at all, Expat...rather poetic, and I love it.

It doesn't look like they will offer retail space.

That's a minus for me.



I think I like everything but the very base of it.

stlmike wrote:It doesn't look like they will offer retail space.

That's a minus for me.



I think I like everything but the very base of it.

How in the world can you surmise from the rendering whether there will or will not be street-level retail? I don't know if it is proposed or not but I do know they are proposing a restaurant with a terrace that opens onto the plaza.



While an abundance of street-level retail is necessary for a vital streetscape not every single building must have it. More important is whether it relates well with the street and activities within are visible from the sidewalk creating a lively dialogue that makes people feel comfortable inhabiting the street.

Expat is speaking my language.

Sorry, but I'm still confused by that park. I thought that this new tower was going to front Locust, directly facing the Old Post Office, and that the pocket-park thing was going to be to the west of the tower. But this rendering clearly shows a fairly large park to the south of the tower. Is this maybe just some illustration trickery so they can show the facade without the OPO blocking the view?

Not sure which metaphor is better. They're both great descriptions of the situation.

I nominate Expat to be Honorary Poet Laureate of Urban St. Louis.

I don't know what all the acrimony is about. I think it looks pretty decent, considering where it is. Downtown St. Louis always seems to get the worst design in it's new buildings. If they use good building materials (no pebbled concrete) it should be fine. BTW, anyone ever notice how much pebbled concrete there is downtown? Ugliest, cheapest looking material ever! It ought to be outlawed.

This is the forgettable modernist highrise St. Louis should have built dt back when it was still in style. At least that way we could chalk it up to past short sighted attempts at keeping up with the times.



How to personify this design? hmmmm, Soviet beach resort circa 1960's/70's? East Germany Drab? International Style BORG redux?



All the flowery language does not negate what this rendering shows, which is a large lifeless hunk of concrete with a tacky sign placed on top. The sign, as superflous and unnecessary as the plaza the building fronts.



Come on people, it's alright to cheer on development and growth downtown, but no need to turn a blind eye to what is a shockingly mediocre design. If the aim of the architect was to create a building that tricked people into thinking it was a remodeled hanger on from the modernist twilight years, I think they've done a great job. Perhaps it's supposed to be a POMO joke, mimicking the International Style as just one more set of patterns and references. Intellectual rib nudging do not make good buildings (one of the reasons many architecture theorists and avant garde practitioners are in disarray at present).



Here are two questions (of several that come to mind) that provide a useful way to think of buildings when you aren't quite sure what to think: Would you like to see a whole street lined with similar buildings? (i.e does it make for a good context building, that might build into something beautiful and aesthetically pleasing if not atleast acceptable when repeated?)



Would you like to see this building at a prominent location in the city, as a stand-out building/monument? (i.e does it make for a signature building that represents some value or ideal?)







This building is not a complete design abortion, it seems to address the streetlevel and the gratuitous plaza, it respects the scale of the adjacent buildings, and is by no means shockingly ugly (like brutalist buildings, although it does share their penchant for heavy handed use of concrete).



However, this does not negate the fact that it has all the grace and delicacy of a lead turd, or that overwhelming concrete gray is an ugly ass color, or that it isn't the kind of building you want to show people as an example of how downtown is coming back. There is nothing daring or forward looking about this design (look to Libeskind or Calatrava for an idea of where architecture has been for the past couple of years), instead it looks back to the safety of an old way of doing things.



Too bad it picked one of the least vital, soul deadening and anonymous periods of architecture's history.



The project in general is good for the city, bringing investment, people, and activities into the area. The building just looks like crap is all. I'm going to predict it gets radically remodeled or modified within the next 30 years. If it doesn't I'll eat my hat.

I love the diversity of opinion. One person loves it, the other hates it, all have an opinion one way or another. Take a deep breath and consider that we're debating one of the first new residential towers downtown in many years. This could be the start of a really good thing ...

This could be the start of a really good thing ...

Start?



Downtown Highrise Living Proposed/under construction/planned:



-The Bottle District condos #1 (35-50 stories), Downtown STL.

-Pinnacle Four Seasons Hotel & Condos (25-stories), downtown STL

-The Bottle District condos #2 (20 to 30-stories*), Downtown St. Louis

-Roberts Mayfair (addition) (20 to 30-stories), downtown STL

-Ballpark Village Tower I, downtown St. Louis, Cordish (15-30-stories*)

-Ballpark Village Tower II, downtown St. Louis, Cordish (15-30-stories*)

-Ballpark Village Tower III, downtown St. Louis, Cordish (15-30-stories*)

-Ballpark Village Tower IV, downtown St. Louis, Cordish (15-30-stories*)

-Mansion House (14-stories), Downtown St. Louis

-Opera House condominiums (12-stories, est.), downtown STL

-The Bottle District condos #3 (20-30 stories), Downtown St. Louis

-Port St. Louis (10-stories), Downtown St. Louis (LaClede's Landing)





It's NOT a "start" .... Downtown in on a roll. But yes, we shouldn't be too critical over a design...

I think architectural diversity makes a city --- and St. Louis is no stranger for that in the last 100 years.

I'm really digging the design on this tower. It has the International Style thing going on, which St. Louis is really lacking. The only complaint I have is that it will not be noticed on the skyline because it will be too short. I think it should be upped to around 30 floors, but even if it is kept at this height it will still be a nice tower.

My opinion...



It's okay. I wish it were wider. But overall I like the design, and it does remind me of something more foreign. Which is good.



One thing I think the building has going against it, it's backdrop is rather drab, making the building look more drab. Once STL gets built up, it will look stately along with the rest of the buildings around it.

Please, add pictures or links of/to examples of other notable buildings that this one compares to especially foreign like the South American that was said in order to understand why it is significant architecturally.



Currently, I am opposed to this design on the basis that gray concrete is ugly, boring, and creates deadness. Concrete road, concrete parking garage, concrete plaza, concrete flower containers, and a concrete building fascade do not equal aesthetically pleasing. Modernism promoted openness, airyness, function as form, and simple as beautiful which this building conveys. However, only the glass is appealing with some portions that are European. Add more distinctive features like art deco designs with the concrete.

SMSPlanstu wrote:Currently, I am opposed to this design on the basis that gray concrete is ugly, boring, and creates deadness.

Of course I am about to be sarcastic, but I think the problem is not with the design, but with the fact they didn't give us one of those surreal, colorful, thumbnail renderings we are used to seeing. Here is my best shot...

Nice start, but you all new buildings are supposed to look like watercolors.



Sarcasm aside, I've decided I like that odd south-facing base. It looks "cut off" in a way that mocks the plaza and highlights it as a hole in the urban fabric.



<offTopic>

We need smaller, more noteworthy spaces like Seattle's Waterfall Gardens, or anything else on this list.

</offTopic>

So far, about the only thing I object to about this building (if it is actiually included) is the Roberts' tacky self-promoting signeage on the top. Come on -- when have you ever seen this type of crap on a condo building?

In addition to not liking the tacky signage, I'm also not liking the "urban plaza." The rendering shows an awful lot of trees planted very close together - doesn't look terribly welcoming.

The good thing about the "urban plaza" is that it will be a great spot to view the bums from the building.

I think the most telling thing is that when the image was first posted some people thought it was of a half-finished building, that was my first impression too. Until I can experience it up close though, I'm not going to get too worked up about it. I'm sure we've all had the experience of ordering something off the internet based on a picture, but when you see it first hand it looks different.



I need to experience this sexy, exotic lady up close.

Maybe it's the "brick thing"...I love brick--for our other neighborhoods, but downtown should be much more versatile (as all really great cities are), so at least it isn't a multi level Second Empire phoney. Like I said earlier, every time I look at it I like it more. But, I've decided I don't like the urban plaza since it cuts off a street.

For those who don't like this building because of it's International style, this style is back. I'm not dissing anyone for disliking it, just stating a fact. I really like what loftlover said.

I think they should put some money first into their Orpheum. The place is absolutely a dump. It needs a tremendous amount of work. I don't know where on earth the "restoration" occured.