urbanSTL

Saw a rendering on a banner around the site yesterday as I drove by so couldn’t get a pic. It looked like the facade of the cantilevered building that had the tilting issue.

Don’t we just love the obligatory dead wall section along the sidewalk?

Sc4mayor,  the old ‘better than what’s there now’ rationalization needs to be retired. Hope we can strive for more…
Db, maybe we should be building a city for those who notice. The indifferent would not care either way….

like I’ve said before if you don’t get it you don’t get it.  To you the difference may be insignificant.
(And yes the rest of the groundfloor seems to be transparent which also begs the question why not do it right all the way?)

Windowless spans impact pedestrian safety, security as well as traffic speeds along traffic sewers.
We should be building sticky edges. Everywhere

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Aug 22, 2021

imran wrote: ↑

Aug 22, 2021

Sc4mayor,  the old ‘better than what’s there now’ rationalization needs to be retired. Hope we can strive for more…
Db, maybe we should be building a city for those who notice. The indifferent would not care either way….

like I’ve said before if you don’t get it you don’t get it.  To you the difference may be insignificant.
(And yes the rest of the groundfloor seems to be transparent which also begs the question why not do it right all the way?)

Windowless spans impact pedestrian safety, security as well as traffic speeds along traffic sewers.
We should be building sticky edges. Everywhere

Agree with you wholeheartedly.  But thanks for telling me I “don’t get it” anyway.  I just give hospitals a little more leeway since they’re designing these buildings and spaces around patients with specific needs over an occasional pedestrian walking by.

Personally I find the 8 lane expanse of Kingshighway far more hostile to pedestrians than the hospital buildings along said street, but that’s just me.

Not meant to be an insult. There are many things I did not ‘get’ say 10 years ago that I now understand more fully.

Ive worked in enough hospitals to know that insulating from surrounding neighborhoods and the shunning of the pedestrian ROW are not an operational requirement.

Absolutely agree on kingshighway. And one of the ways we tame the speed beast is to build compelling interest at the edges (and blank walls are exactly what we don’t need)

Doubt I will be changing your mind but will continue to advocate to hold institutions accountable for any negative impacts on the urban realm….

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Aug 22, 2021

Until we know the layout of that first floor, I’m not going to nitpick on that span not having windows. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that it could be a wall next to the ambulance bay or some back of house operations like giant oxygen tanks / back up generators or something. There’s most likely some functional reason they need it to be a solid wall.

No problem with that. I’m happy to carry the knit pick burden by myself

Of course there will be a stated design reason for the dead space but I’ve found that when if you probe further there is always another (better) way - if there is a will. They are designing from scratch after all.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Aug 22, 2021

imran wrote: ↑

Aug 22, 2021

Not meant to be an insult. There are many things I did not ‘get’ say 10 years ago that I now understand more fully.

Doubt I will be changing your mind but will continue to advocate to hold institutions accountable for any negative impacts on the urban realm….

it is insulting, though. and doubling down on the "i get it but you don't" is pretty pretentious and kind-of comically arrogant. we get it, actually. it's really not that hard to get. and i don't think many people here disagree with your sentiment. but endlessly preaching to the choir on a blog isn't really "advocating to hold institutions accountable," and it certainly isn't doing anything to actually hold those institutions accountable. what would that look like, in this case? how do you suggest we hold WUSTL/BJC accountable for these design choices, specifically? how do you suggest we hold the 4545 developers accountable, specifically?

Here’s the nuanced difference though. If, like you say, all are in agreement, why not say something like yes these choices are regrettable but we don’t have much choice bc BJC gets to do whatever the heck they want or there’s no alley access to the site etc. Instead I get dismissive responses like ‘I don’t think it would matter’ or ‘I don’t think anyone would notice’. I could consider these insulting as well but I chalk it up to people not yet ready to hear something.

Holding developers and institutions accountable begins with awareness and articulation of shortcomings. If you indeed get it then speak up at preservation board meetings, write to aldermen, get involved in form based code processes. I should be careful though since me telling you what to do might also land as ‘comically’ arrogant.

^ While I understand the sentiment, I don't think that architectural design choices for hospitals contribute much to healthcare pricing in this country - it's all about the healthcare/insurance lobbyists in Congress' ear combined with the fact that this country is so far right-wing that anything even approaching center is seem as "muh socialism".

pop_scientist wrote: ↑

Aug 23, 2021

imran wrote: ↑

Aug 22, 2021

Don’t we just love the obligatory dead wall section along the sidewalk?

Are you mainly talking about BJC's hospital architecture or architecture in general?  If it's the latter, the Contemporary Art Museum & Pulitzer Museum must constantly irritate you.

As if my level of irritation is of any consequence. What the Pulitzer and contemporary do in the name of grandeur and novelty is relinquish responsibility to their impact on the adjacent pedestrian environment. Walk around their fortified walls and the sense of exclusion is palpable.

There is a science behind city architecture shaping human behavior that has been honed over centuries. Fortunately that science does not care if you or I are irritated.

To answer your question, public facing architectural form ( not just BJC) and its general impact on everyday life is what I speak about.

Imran: I think I have a dissenting point of view, not on the science behind hundreds of years of city architecture shaping human behavior, but upon this specific piece of wall. Perhaps it's intentionally trying to be disinviting to dissuade people from congregating there. This piece of the building is just south of the primary emergency room entrance. It would not be in the interests of the hospital or the sick to have ambulances having to negotiate pedestrian traffic when pulling up with emergency trauma cases, especially any large congregations of pedestrians. There's a reasonable need for this area to be somewhat isolating. 

Thoughts? I'd agree that a non-blank wall could certainly be better. Personally, I'd prefer a mural there than a gathering spot. 

As Laife Fulk noted, this could all be a functional, operational need furthering certain emergency medical equipment. And, no doubt that it sure looks better than the former parking garage. I'm just ready for the new section to finish demo and get on with the new construction. 

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Aug 23, 2021

Imran: I think I have a dissenting point of view, not on the science behind hundreds of years of city architecture shaping human behavior, but upon this specific piece of wall. Perhaps it's intentionally trying to be disinviting to dissuade people from congregating there. This piece of the building is just south of the primary emergency room entrance. It would not be in the interests of the hospital or the sick to have ambulances having to negotiate pedestrian traffic when pulling up with emergency trauma cases, especially any large congregations of pedestrians. There's a reasonable need for this area to be somewhat isolating. 

Thoughts? I'd agree that a non-blank wall could certainly be better. Personally, I'd prefer a mural there than a gathering spot. 

As Laife Fulk noted, this could all be a functional, operational need furthering certain emergency medical equipment. And, no doubt that it sure looks better than the former parking garage. I'm just ready for the new section to finish demo and get on with the new construction. 

Did I read you correctly? You are saying that the hospital is justified in creating an environment so unwelcoming that no pedestrian would want to linger and get in the way.
For once I’m speechless

^More like: I wouldn't want crowds gathering in a way that could potentially block the ambulance entrance into the emergency room. Perhaps BJC sees the same and therefore is acting to dissuade such crowds from coming together in the first place; hence, that wall's design. 

Crowd management design elements similar to how large concert venues and movie theaters design themselves so crowds don't innately gather outside in front of their emergency exits. Also, how bus stops are installed after an intersection but not before them. Certain places should be designed so crowds don't gather in front of them, like highway traffic exchanges. Maybe, just maybe, this is their intent with that wall. If so, I get it. 

Just a thought, from someone who is admittedly not an urban planner or architect. 

^ okay,…
Think about the size of a person and the size/weight of an ambulance. How likely is it that a pedestrian would block an ambulance from turning?
Apart from the protests that intentionally blocked the highways or roads, no reasonable person gets in the way of a first responder.

Speculative concerns know no bounds. Trees can fall over in storms and block ambulance access. By that logic no trees should be planted along ambulance routes.

Many things are possible but improbable. Our cities should be designed first for people and walkability. Ambulances will be just fine