University of Health Sciences and Pharmacy (STLCOP)

beer city · PostMar 06, 2015#262015-03-06T04:08+00:00

Looks like the shell is about complete - Its looking really nice... and it appears there will be another expansion 7 stories 200,000 sf dorms and athletic center, replacing a 2 story mid 1980's building on the north end of campus. No renderings yet, probably a few years away from getting underway - This, along with the new BJC/Wash U building is going to make this western part of the campus start to look pretty dense.

https://www.stlcop.edu/about/campusconstruction/phase2/

jambo · PostMar 20, 2015#272015-03-20T18:18+00:00

A few quick snaps this week:

arch city · PostMar 20, 2015#282015-03-20T19:41+00:00

Nice.....St. Louis is glossing it up.

With about 20 more of these, St. Louis should start to feel more modern and undated.

shadrach · PostMar 21, 2015#292015-03-21T14:42+00:00

Hopefully, their proposed (seven story?) dormitory/mixed-use will be equally "glossy."
If so, 19 to go....

MatthewHall · PostMar 21, 2015#302015-03-21T15:40+00:00

arch city wrote:Nice.....St. Louis is glossing it up.

With about 20 more of these, St. Louis should start to feel more modern and undated.

"undated?" Do you mean historic?

m2tbone · PostMar 22, 2015#312015-03-22T16:20+00:00

Perhaps "updated" was what was intended.

MatthewHall · PostMar 22, 2015#322015-03-22T18:09+00:00

m2tbone wrote:Perhaps "updated" was what was intended.

He's saying that St. Louis looks 'old-fashioned' and that this is bad? Wow......

m2tbone · PostMar 22, 2015#332015-03-22T21:56+00:00

I don't know his intent. That's just a guess. I thought it might just be a typo.

wabash · PostMar 22, 2015#342015-03-22T21:58+00:00

Looks great. Thanks for the update Jambo. This will look good alongside the new building next to the Metrolink tracks.

roger wyoming II · PostMar 23, 2015#352015-03-23T02:24+00:00

MatthewHall wrote:
arch city wrote:Nice.....St. Louis is glossing it up.

With about 20 more of these, St. Louis should start to feel more modern and undated.
"undated?" Do you mean historic?

I don't think so. Not tired nor lacking gloss. Freshened up. Conveying optimism and a future. I think rehabs like @4240 are part of our inchoate glamming, but there's no doubt we can use many more nicely designed modern buildings.

moorlander · PostMar 23, 2015#362015-03-23T14:38+00:00

jambo wrote:A few quick snaps this week:

That's a good looking one. More new buildings like this please.

MatthewHall · PostMar 23, 2015#372015-03-23T14:53+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:
MatthewHall wrote:
arch city wrote:Nice.....St. Louis is glossing it up.

With about 20 more of these, St. Louis should start to feel more modern and undated.
"undated?" Do you mean historic?
I don't think so. Not tired nor lacking gloss. Freshened up. Conveying optimism and a future. I think rehabs like @4240 are part of our inchoate glamming, but there's no doubt we can use many more nicely designed modern buildings.

You want St. Louis to look like Phoenix or Dallas? Really?

roger wyoming II · PostMar 23, 2015#382015-03-23T15:25+00:00

^ It's fine if you don't like the design of the STLCOP building. But I think the vast majority of people would love to see quite a few more of these types of buildings constructed along with quality historic rehabs. Sure beats the crap out of the dated design of the Aventura. That hotel going up next to it doesn't look like it will be too great, either.

PostMar 28, 2015#392015-03-28T16:07+00:00

The McKinley research building is starting to get some glass in as well. I think by the end of the of the summer these two buildings along with the new Storz building & environmental building (also along Taylor) will all be done at least with major exterior work, Same with the Hilton hotel down the street and the massive Duncan Ave garage around the corner.

shadrach · PostMar 28, 2015#402015-03-28T17:21+00:00

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but when I drive my kids to school (GCAA) I go up Vandeventer. When I look at the skyline of midtown—Continental, Masonic Temple, St. Xavier, etc.—I keep saying it looks exactly like it did in 1930. Seriously, nothing has visibly changed in 85 years!

So yes, St. Louis looks tired and stagnant, lost in time. A modern "glossy" tower dropped in here or there says we've actually had new construction since 1959. The rest of the nation thinks we're a dying, stagnant, rust-belt, sh*thole. Driving through St. Louis on a cross-country trip, our urban core—Downtown West to Midtown and CWE to some extent, appears exactly that—stagnant.

Thank God for IKEA.

rheights · PostMar 28, 2015#412015-03-28T17:39+00:00

^ and the horse is dead. I don't really get your logic here. Of course a new tower would be nice, but I don't think people looking a midtown's skyline are really thinking, wow this place sucks. But maybe that's me.

roger wyoming II · PostMar 28, 2015#422015-03-28T17:48+00:00

shadrach wrote: Thank God for IKEA.

God Bless the U-S-A and the I-K-E-A!

I'm not counting on it, but I'd also like for 40/64 drivers to have a similar experience of those on 170 by the Boulevard.

urban_dilettante · PostMar 28, 2015#432015-03-28T18:22+00:00

shadrach wrote:Not to keep beating a dead horse, but when I drive my kids to school (GCAA) I go up Vandeventer. When I look at the skyline of midtown—Continental, Masonic Temple, St. Xavier, etc.—I keep saying it looks exactly like it did in 1930. Seriously, nothing has visibly changed in 85 years!

So yes, St. Louis looks tired and stagnant, lost in time. A modern "glossy" tower dropped in here or there says we've actually had new construction since 1959. The rest of the nation thinks we're a dying, stagnant, rust-belt, sh*thole. Driving through St. Louis on a cross-country trip, our urban core—Downtown West to Midtown and CWE to some extent, appears exactly that—stagnant.

Thank God for IKEA.

I gotta agree with rheights; I really doubt that people driving through St. Louis on 64/40 see the midtown and CWE skylines and think "dying, stagnant, rust-belt, sh*thole". If they're unfamiliar with St. Louis, and given our national reputation, they're probably pleasantly surprised with the density and architecture. If anything, the 64/44 interchange downtown leaves a much worse impression. Also, compared to most other cities along 64/40 coming from the east coast, St. Louis is a metropolis. Those of us who dwell on development in St. Louis are far more sensitive about the rate of change than those who don't know what it looked like in 1930. What's more, modern buildings don't necessarily impress; there are tons of sh*tty looking modern buildings. Denver comes to mind in that regard.

goat314 · PostMar 28, 2015#442015-03-28T18:30+00:00

^ I agree, I know plenty of people that have said "wow I didn't know St. Louis was so big and urban". One lady I knew couldn't get over how close the buildings were to the highway, but she was a Floridian so that's expected. I guess a few modern high rise would do us good, but St. Louis doesn't look super dated. We definitively are no Atlanta, Seattle, Denver, Houston, Miami, or Dallas, but those cities have seen most of their density come in the last 10-20 years. We are pretty standard for a city of our age in our mix of modern and historic buildings. Clayton actually looks pretty modern and has a relatively attractive skyline.

framer · PostMar 28, 2015#452015-03-28T20:38+00:00

We've got exceptionally good bones here in STL. The entire central corridor from the Arch to Clayton is already stocked with several generations of mid to high-rise buildings, with more going up as we speak. Demand is rising, and the spaces between the clusters are filling in. No question, in another 10 years or so, we'll have a continuous, densely-built urban spine that will be the envy of many cities.

quincunx · PostMar 28, 2015#462015-03-28T23:24+00:00

shadrach · PostMar 29, 2015#472015-03-29T00:48+00:00

urban_dilettante wrote:I really doubt that people driving through St. Louis on 64/40 see the midtown and CWE skylines and think "dying, stagnant, rust-belt, sh*thole"

Sorry. Yes they do!!!

I was transferred down to Atlanta in 2007. When I told people I was from St. Louis, everyone, I mean EVERYONE, told me "I don't blame you for leaving that armpit of the nation." That's putting it nicely.

Second, people in Atlanta were fast to offer up something like—"We drove through St. Louis last summer, wow, what a depressing, stuck-in-time, shith*le of a city that is." The choice of words in my post was deliberate and from personal experience.

I'm not making this up, these comments were repeatedly, repeatedly, told to my face as if I hated STL and couldn't to get out.

Normally I let you everyone disagree or bash my comments without a response or care. But this time I disagree and have to say. from my experience, you're wrong.

goat314 · PostMar 29, 2015#482015-03-29T00:54+00:00

^ I've found people from St. Louis bash it more than out of towners. Though I'm not surprised someone from Atlanta would say that, there are some real pompous a**holes down there. I will say that growing up in St. Louis you do get numb to the blight and really don't notice it until you live in a newer city for a while. I frequently go back in forth between St. Louis and South Florida, the differences are stark to say the least. Seems like St. Louisans don't have much pride in the aesthetics of the city, which is sad, because it really is a beautiful town.

roger wyoming II · PostMar 29, 2015#492015-03-29T02:12+00:00

^ I agree with shadrach that people who really are just passing through or spending just a bit of time are presented with a terrible first impression. Make no doubt, visitors see the blight. First off, the approach into town on 64/70 from the Metro East presents one of the worst entries to a major US city imaginable. And heading west on 70 out of downtown is pretty much blight for a number of miles once you pass the Dome; the area around the airport isn't too great, either. Things like the new bridge and GRG painting of the Trestle bridge help, but the overall decay is pretty intense and relentless.

64/40 is not as bad, but it has its share of issues, especially in midtown.... fortunately it is improving with all the new construction, and hopefully that poster child of Rust Belt Ruin, the old Federal Mogul plant, will be demolished soon and replaced with a decent Midtown Station. I think most visitors really appreciate Saint Louis once they spend some time and get to know it better, but the significant amount of blight can be an eye-opener for many,

goat314 · PostMar 29, 2015#502015-03-29T02:34+00:00

I know some people are going to be mad at me for saying this, but I think Chouteaus Landing and the immediate southern part of downtown need to be flattened. Its a complete eyesore and gives the city a bad impression and since it severed by the freeways it will never get rehabbed. I would rather them tear those buildings down and build new with a solid plan. Not only is 70 rough until you get past Lucas and Hunt, but 55 from Downtown to Soulard is equally devastating. Our freeway infrastructure looks dated with the double decker viaducts and confusing interchanges, they definitely need rethinking. Also the railyards look unkept and overall horrible. Coming over the new bridge you see a lot of decay. Hopefully the full vision GRG plans come to fruition, because the riverfront looked like a post industrial wasteland before CAR started. The 1960s industrial facilities near the railyards are also major eyesores, I mean GROSS!

University of Health Sciences and Pharmacy (STLCOP)

Choose Display Mode