Voters on Tuesday approved a proposition to authorize a $100 million bond item to build a new St. Louis County family courthouse.

Supporters of the measure, labeled as Prop S, stressed that the measure would not require a tax increase.

Ten percent of the money raised will go for improvements to the existing main courthouse, which many say has become too cramped.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... f6878.html

Read more:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... bd553.html


Not really against it but hard to sympathize with county officials about parks, roads, etc. when we can somehow easily afford a new courthouse and refurbish an old one. Use money more efficiently damn it!

Crane is up

Not impressive at all.

Thanks for the post, Arch; you sure know how to come through with the renderings!

stlhistory wrote:If the city reenters the county and the county seat stays in Clayton, how would that affect judicial circuits? Would the city circuit courts building become an annex facility?

According to a Bryan Cave legal analysis in the 80s the court circuits don't necessarily merge under reentry or other merger schemes. It's a state matter up to the legislature. It might still be a good idea though. I'd imagine there would be satellite operations downtown.

Slight. But this building looks dated already. And not in a "classic" sort of way. It's strange. I don't hate it, but it's odd.

It does look dated. I think it is because of that brownish color of what appear to be bricks.

It actually reminds me of 4100 lindell:

http://www.emporis.com/building/4100-li ... uis-mo-usa

The brick is certainly a factor. But just generally speaking the architecture looks like something out of... the 60s or 70s. I'm not sure those decades are accurate, but it feels near mid-century to me. And I find a lot of that architecture not particularly pleasing despite their being instances of "cool". I wouldn't advocate demo-ing everything that looked that way or anything, it's just a little stale and goofy IMO.

Looks good to me. They've done a nice job integrating the new with the old (and yes, I love Mid Century architecture).

framer wrote:Looks good to me. They've done a nice job integrating the new with the old (and yes, I love Mid Century architecture).

Yeah, I think that's the thing. With additions/new buildings in the same complex, design dictates you either go with contrast (a la the Chipperfield addition to the SLAM) or make it reference the extant buildings. In this case they're going matchy-matchy with the modified-brutalist design of the original courthouse. Actually, the original renderings were more faithful interperetations - note the shape (if not the exact proportion of the windows and the beige contrast echoing the window surrounds of the old building:



The updated renderings are actually more modern in design, alluding to the old building in color and in the verticality of the windows/pattern, but in a more abstract way. While I agree far too much new construction falls into the traditional clay brick color pallete, IMO it's not a bad thing here. The update is an improvement ; there's a better, more distinct design there without unduly distracting from the distinct design of the current structure. The old renders kinda reminded me of the Ed Jones Dome.

-RBB

Oh. Well then I'm the dunce. I have to admit I didn't realize this was an extension and not a new building. In that case I TOTALLY understand the decision to keep things consistent.

There's a vent for air handling right at ear level on Central. Annoying.

quincunx wrote:There's a vent for air handling right at ear level on Central. Annoying.

Why are you posting on threads that are years old?

^With the new Clayton sub-category, everything old is new again.

^ looks like a parking garage.

They don't build 'em like they used to.

Here is the same corner in 1954.




And 1910/present