I like the second example. The first one is too "Northwestern/Pine Tree Chic" for downtown St. Louis, IMO.
- 923
I like the last example - more glass, less wood. Washington avenue is going to be a pedestrian friendly avenue, then there needs to be oodles of glass to allow for passive security and people watching opportunities.
- 835
A lot of you guys hate the Days Inn building way more than I do. I like its retro-yuck appeal. It has character. The Plaza Square buildings have a similar appeal to me. I also like the horrific Heritage House tower on Olive & Beaumont. These 60s buildings are so kitschy. Give 'em a chance, they're far out!
I could take-or-leave the Day's Inn, but I've always liked the Plaza Square and Heritage House buildings.
I hesitate just a bit, but this is the type of progressive development that we need in St. Louis.
That and Green Construction.
That and Green Construction.
- 11K
A lot of you guys hate the Days Inn building way more than I do. I like its retro-yuck appeal. It has character. The Plaza Square buildings have a similar appeal to me. I also like the horrific Heritage House tower on Olive & Beaumont. These 60s buildings are so kitschy. Give 'em a chance, they're far out!
Right on Jive. IMO, our built environment must grow over time to feel like a living city - I don't want everything to be <1920>2000. 40 years from now I'll be happy to see a few 1960's buildings standing downtown.
- 479
JivecitySTL wrote:A lot of you guys hate the Days Inn building way more than I do. I like its retro-yuck appeal. It has character. The Plaza Square buildings have a similar appeal to me. I also like the horrific Heritage House tower on Olive & Beaumont. These 60s buildings are so kitschy. Give 'em a chance, they're far out!
Right on.
As with most styles, by the time there are only a handful of remaining examples, *everyone* will automatically claim to admire 1950's -1970's American modern.
If that sounds absurd, consider that over 250 Louis Sullivan designs were built, and only 49 remain today. Now, few urbanists or architecture admirers would profess to dislike Sullivan.
The architectural canon is a fickle and slow thing to change, and it almost always admits new styles long after the moment when preservation was most pressing.
- 6,775
ecoabsence wrote:As with most styles, by the time there are only a handful of remaining examples, *everyone* will automatically claim to admire 1950's -1970's American modern.
Personally, I like a lot of 1950's -1970's American modern. The Day's Inn just happens not to be one of them. It's dreadful. Now to be fair, perhaps it looked a lot better new, before those "peach" panels were bleached by the sun.
- 479
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Personally, I like a lot of 1950's -1970's American modern. The Day's Inn just happens not to be one of them. It's dreadful. Now to be fair, perhaps it looked a lot better new, before those "peach" panels were bleached by the sun.
I agree that the Days Inn is not a high mark for that style.
The panels originally were painted in different bold colors, making a colorful abstract checkerboard.
Do you have an image of the building with that paint sceme? It would be interesting to see how such a change could affect its appearance and acceptance in the DT area.
- 835
I am not one who believes that every building in the city needs to be beautiful to be worthwhile. I am all the more encouraged that an "ugly" building such as the Days Inn is being renovated for housing. I think it speaks volumes about how far we've come in terms of a downtown renaissance. It's not just beautiful historic buildings coming back to life, it's all the buildings!
btw, what I wouldn't give to see the Days Inn with its multi-colored panels! Oh yeah!
also, the Days Inn used to be known as the St. Louisan Hotel.
btw, what I wouldn't give to see the Days Inn with its multi-colored panels! Oh yeah!
also, the Days Inn used to be known as the St. Louisan Hotel.
trent wrote:I hesitate just a bit, but this is the type of progressive development that we need in St. Louis.
That and Green Construction.
Isn't green construction just another thing that makes us feel good about ourselves but doesn't really do anything? Kinda like recycling?
- 6,775
DeBaliviere wrote:Doesn't look too different in this rendering, does it?
It's kind of hard to tell.
- 11K
Sweet*ss! I love the reuse. It would be nice the see the west elevation.
The panels originally were painted in different bold colors, making a colorful abstract checkerboard.
Bwah. That must have been awesome.
Tear out the dull brick panels at ground level, put in a flashy diner with lots of neon and slick signs and mirrored walls, affix a massive, colorful, streamlined neon sign to the corner, repaint the angled panels above, and this place coulda been a sort of gaudy, crazy, fun exclamation point in the middle of all the late 19th century seriousness.
Ah well, too late now...
The building looks pretty bleak given that rendering. What did they use, Microsoft Paint?!? The recent details about this project painted a rosier picture. But this looks closer to a turd than a flower...DeBaliviere wrote:Doesn't look too different in this rendering, does it?
- 11K
Yes, I suppose more excitement would be produced by leveling the building and having a surface lot for years while rendering after rendering of the next 30-story all glass residential tower were thrown about . . . every downtown development doesn't need to be the next great building. This project makes sense. Reusing the buildings we have downtown while filling in the vacant lots IS exciting.
=D>Grover wrote:Reusing the buildings we have downtown while filling in the vacant lots IS exciting.
- 835
I agree. Not every building downtown needs to be a work of art.
- 6,775
Grover wrote:Yes, I suppose more excitement would be produced by leveling the building and having a surface lot for years while rendering after rendering of the next 30-story all glass residential tower were thrown about . . . every downtown development doesn't need to be the next great building. This project makes sense. Reusing the buildings we have downtown while filling in the vacant lots IS exciting.
OK. But then after every surface lot is filled in, this one can be first on the list for replacement. No, make that second, after that dreadful fake tudor building at 11th(?) & Locust(?).