St. Louis should take some hints from Cleveland

stlgasm · PostSep 09, 2005#12005-09-09T03:29+00:00

In terms of new construction, Cleveland has it all over St. Louis. While STL is still busily building cheesy historic replicas, Cleveland has figured out that modern, innovative residential design offers a refreshing contrast for an old city. These pictures are courtesy of Lucky 24, Clevelumbus, ColDayMan, The Pope, The Nerd, MayDay and Rob_1412 at www.skyscraperpage.com:

These contemporary buildings are so much cooler than the crap St. Louis is stuck on. How much more interesting would the new Gaslight Square be if the developers looked forward rather than backward? I envision Midtown becoming a showcase of ultramodern urban design that features buildings like these found in Cleveland.

Thoughts?

framer · PostSep 09, 2005#22005-09-09T06:58+00:00

Yes, I agree its time we got some QUALITY modern architecture here. But I think that some of the developments you posted won't survive the test of time. Actually, a couple of them are quite awful. Mixing the new with the old doesn't always work. Its funny how European cities seem to make it look so easy. I really liked your last shot. That's a good combination.

But your point is well taken. We definitely need some new inspiration around here. Gaslight Square is a huge, boring disapointment. But what did we expect from a bunch of suburban developers?

stlgasm · PostSep 09, 2005#32005-09-09T11:41+00:00

I agree with you that some of those Cleveland projects are pretty hideous, but it shows that Cleveland is a lot more adventurous in new architectural design than St. Louis. St. Louis really needs an infusion of modern design. For a city known for its amazing historic architecture, we owe it to ourselves to keep our standards high.

Expat · PostSep 09, 2005#42005-09-09T12:12+00:00

Gasm, I agree. I think some good modern design can complement the historic buildings. I wish I were good with a camera, I would add some pics of modern buildings in the DC area that fit well with traditional buildings. The most important thing you said is that we should keep our standards high. Also, When they do historic replica, they need to pay more attention to the detail. Cheap historic replica is so offensive. For me, it has more to do with keeping standards high than being modern, historic, traditional, or whatever. St. Louis has so many wonderful old buildings and streetscapes that could be highlighted by some good modern design.

tb1000 · PostSep 09, 2005#52005-09-09T12:35+00:00

I think the new Bottle District residences will take care of that. Hopefully the ballpark village condos will as well.

Don't forget about the towers in CWE...4545 (if it ever gets built) and Park East tower.

It will be cool to see something funky downtown but it might be a bit misplaced.

Expat · PostSep 09, 2005#62005-09-09T12:49+00:00

Good point, there are some modern towers going up. But, it would be nice to seem some modern smaller buildings integrated with the existing building stock.

debaliviere · PostSep 09, 2005#72005-09-09T12:50+00:00

I'm interested to see what the addition to Kwame's building at Tucker and Washington and the Days Inn redevelopment will look like. Those are great opportunities for cool, modern architecture.

fountboy · PostSep 09, 2005#82005-09-09T14:48+00:00

But if you think about it, those buildings redone in a modern contemporary style would be just completely out of place on that stretch of Washington. I'd like to see them build with a good mix of contemp. that blends in with the older architecture that somehow does not turn out cheesy looking.

jmedwick · PostSep 09, 2005#92005-09-09T14:51+00:00

Yes St. Louis may be behind, but alot of that is moreso because St. Louis is still busy rehabing its older buildings. I think that once St. Louis runs (esp downtown) of the vacant older buildings, you will see more modern infill designs. And yes some of those a ugly, but the top picture shows how nice it can work together.

stellar · PostSep 13, 2005#102005-09-13T05:26+00:00

I think Old North St. Louis would be an excellent location to experiment with new modern residential architecture. There are so many vacant lots and so many young hip people. It seems like a fantastic opportunity. Unfortunately the Market Place development is going with the bland version of a historic look that "dumbs down" so many STL neighborhoods.

Expat · PostSep 13, 2005#112005-09-13T11:49+00:00

With the Bottle District breaking the mold, we might start seeing more people taking a chance with modern. When you think about it, the current fixation with historic buildings is a good thing - it needed to be done. St. Louis abandoned its historic core and the current generation is working hard to put it back together. Now that most of the old buildings downtown are rehabbed or on the way, we can start thinking about new construction. The Bottle District is will lead the way with new construction in a big modern way.

stellar · PostSep 13, 2005#122005-09-13T14:46+00:00

I still think it will be quite some time before we see anything contemporary in residential neighborhoods. Restaraunts and office buildings are one thing, but so many people are really defensive about their neighborhoods. I don't want to see anything torn down, but where there are vacant lots I'd prefer to see a well built modern home than a vinyl clad suburban or faux Victorian home. Other cities/countries do this really well. It adds interest to a neighborhood.

Expat · PostSep 13, 2005#132005-09-13T15:26+00:00

Some the nations best new modern homes are being sold out of Missouri. See www.rocioromero.com I don't think these homes are designed for city lots. But, wouldn't it be great if we could get a company like this to design a city neighborhood of modern townhouses, 2-3-4 flats, etc. I would love to give them a few tattered blocks with a couple of old homes and have them create a modern neighborhood entertwined with the old homes to show that it can be done. You can't blame the developers for not building homes people don't want. You can't blame homebuyers for being afraid of something untested. I think they tried to build some modern townhouses near City Hospital, but I don't think it worked out. Maybe it was timing, location or whatever. But, if I were the king of the world, I would pull together all the right people to create something that would convince everybody.

xing · PostSep 13, 2005#142005-09-13T21:02+00:00

Cleveland doesnt go back to its history because frankly the historic residential architecture of Cleveland doesn't match up to St Louis's. St. Louis is trying to live up to its historic past, by building replicas. I'm not saying I don't have a problem with it, I'm saying I understand why it's doing it.

stlgasm · PostApr 19, 2006#152006-04-19T13:28+00:00

Here's a pic of DC infill that shows a spectacular contrast of new and old. Will St. Louis ever embrace edgy design like this?

(thanks to Segun at Skyscraperpage.com for the pic)

jeff707 · PostApr 19, 2006#162006-04-19T14:45+00:00

There's a lot of talk about the Bottle district, but I have every expectation that it will be horribly cheesy and cheaply done. I mean, they are planning on putting a Cabo Wabo and a Nascar-theme chain restaurant in it. Not exactly forward thinking. I know the big sweeping roof and the macro design of it will be cool and modern, but not counting on much as far as the details go.

jefferson · PostApr 19, 2006#172006-04-19T14:50+00:00

Jeff707 wrote:I mean, they are planning on putting a Cabo Wabo and a Nascar-theme chain restaurant in it.

"To those who think Nascar isn't a sport, they may be right.

It's a way of life."

latest Busch beer commercial.

debaliviere · PostApr 19, 2006#182006-04-19T15:16+00:00

I cringe every time I hear that spot.

stlgasm · PostApr 23, 2006#192006-04-23T00:36+00:00

Milwaukee seems to have it all over STL in terms of urban infill...

(courtesy of EastSider at SkyscraperCity.com)

These pics make it clear that our local developers have not yet caught on. I can't think of one local development that comes remotely close to these in terms of quality modern design. Gaslight Square could've and shoud've incorporated elements like these instead of (or at least along with) the faux historic crap.

When will St. Louis get a clue and start building stuff that we can actually be proud of?

jmedwick · PostApr 23, 2006#202006-04-23T02:40+00:00

^ Did you ever think that folks in St. Louis might like the "faux historic crap"?

I mean look at those photo's from Milwaukee...

The last one looks great, but the top one? I wouldn't want to live on that street. Thats a harsh looking streetscape if I ever saw one.

There is nothing wrong with the infill STL builds. IF the market is ready and wants the modern stuff, it will happen.

jivecitystl · PostApr 23, 2006#212006-04-23T04:14+00:00

I think some of the neo-historic infill is tasteful and nice. But most of it looks so much cheaper and uglier than the authentic historic buildings which surround it. I, too, would like to see some edgier design in new construction in St. Louis. "Gaslight Square" is a downright embarrassment, and there is simply no excuse for it. They could have just as easily built something that looks good. I do like the infill in Lafayette Square and Soulard though.

urbanstlouis · PostApr 23, 2006#222006-04-23T08:58+00:00

STLgasm wrote:Milwaukee seems to have it all over STL in terms of urban infill...

When will St. Louis get a clue and start building stuff that we can actually be proud of?

Considering the photos you included above, you may be interested in the following thread created by Citylover...

http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=2425

aimster · PostApr 23, 2006#232006-04-23T14:44+00:00

I agree that we could use some more modern ideas, but that first Milwaukee pic is just awful!! It reminds me of the burbs -- every house looks exactly like the last, except that this isn't just the boring stuff you see in the burbs, it's just downright ugly.

zezuz · PostApr 23, 2006#242006-04-23T17:09+00:00

JivecitySTL wrote:"Gaslight Square" is a downright embarrassment, and there is simply no excuse for it.

Wow. That's harsh. I've never felt embarrassed for living here.

I also really like the last two - but the first one seems a little sterile.

matt drops the h · PostApr 23, 2006#252006-04-23T19:28+00:00

While I would have liked to have seen some semblance of a restoration of the historical character of Gaslight Square, the residential development in its place is actually quite nice looking. I think it will age well, especially with the addition of some vegetation. By no means is it an embarassment.