urbanSTL

southslider wrote:Hey, if Kansas City can do it, why not St. Louis on this building?

I'm thinkin this kind of covering for those cinder blocks!

f-yeah!

I don't like the Times Square approach on this corner. Have you ever stayed in a hotel right on Times Square? It is fun for the weekend, but not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. Downtowners should expect bright lights, hustle & bustle. But, there is a limit. You don't see those signs on the Upper West Side, just on Times Square which is not residential.



An elaborate sign of some kind would be great, even brightly lit. But, not something that belongs on Times Square or some amusement strip in Orlando. Just my opinion.

I think of Washington Ave. as somewhat of a mixture between the two. We don't need to recreate or copy Times Square, but I don't think some type of cool media board would hurt. It doesn't have to be as bold as ABC's building in the photo obviously. just a flat wall screen where the cinderblocks are.

Sorry guys doesn’t look like there is going to be any wood, stainless steel or fancy LED’s



About a week ago they started putting up tan polished granite over the cinder block along the Tucker Ave side of the building. My guess is that this would be the finish for the rest of the cinder block as well. Overall I thought it looked nice and gives it a more sophisticated look that will help this more modern looking building blend in the Wash Ave street-scape

Can anyone snap a photo of that this morning? I'm stuck at work and going crazy to see that!

jlblues wrote:^Black. Glossy black.

I also was hoping for glossy black, but the shiny beige might be stunning, and I agree probably ties the building to it's surroundings in a way that black would not.

I saw the panels on the Tucker side today, but they looked too much like those on Met Square IMHO.

Why should a building have to tie in with its surroundings? If you ask me, it is the stark contrast in large cities that make them so interesting vs. monotonus and unstimulating.

Obviously there is no rule that a building has to, or should even tie into what is around it. In this case it looks like they are taking a conservative approach to this building re-use. It is definitely a vast improvement over what it was and will bring a slightly more modern look than the other buildings around, but certainly nothing spectacular or ground breaking. It should be an interesting intersection when all is done, with historic buildings on two of the corners and two more modern buildings on the others (if that new office/retail building ever gets built on SW corner).



On a separate note, does anyone know the name or status of the building on the east side of Tucker between the Old Days Inn and the Post Dispatch (it has a big sign that says Globe). Every time I drive by this one I think that it could make a great building and really help Tucker. I also hope the city will take on some streetscape upgrades along Tucker as well as I think it is desperately needed.

The old Globe-Democrat building. It was StLs other paper for years, I think the PD uses this building for printing. Maybe. I think.

that building was built as a train terminal for the streetcars that used to go into Illinois. Look at the front of the trolley etched into the stone above the main door. Now it's mainly office/warehouse space.



I'm a fan of the new stone they're adding to cover the cinderblocks. I think this building looks 10 times better than what it was before.

crbswiss wrote:Why should a building have to tie in with its surroundings? If you ask me, it is the stark contrast in large cities that make them so interesting vs. monotonus and unstimulating.

No one says a building has to tie in with its neighbors. We have some modern buildings downtown with mirrored exteriors, though, that reflect the architecture of the buildings around them and therefore fit in in spite of their modernism.



The old Day's Inn, though, was like a turd in the punch bowl. It did nothing to add to the neiborhood. I think using stone that will tie it in now is a great idea, but I don't think it's necessary to do that if a building has enough architectural merit to stand on its own. Sky House would be a good example of that.

I like the slabs (I think) and will look nice when complete.

But did they really need them at the corner OVER THE BRICK?

I think I prefer the brick and covering it was a waste of money...

Citywatcher, thanks for the all the pictures you have posted. It is really appreciated.

i really like the stone. Maybe in 20 years they'll pull it all off to expose the "historic" orange brick underneath. I think it looks great now though. A LOT better than I originally thought it would.

I don't know, I don't really like it. I think I need to see it in person.

Ya, thanks for posting the photos. So does anyone know about the windows? It looks like the lower portion of them is the a/c unit on one side and then it looks like it's painted black on the other. Is that right? The upper portion also looks like one part is painted black or shaded. So I guess they're not floor to ceiling windows?

For reference, a pre-remodel picture taken by Cityboy, originally posted on page 5 of this thread:







And a rendering posted by Debaliviere on page 13:







I really like the way this is shaping up. And while I don't generally want to encourage covering up bricks, in this modern application the reskin looks quite nice.



-RBB

I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder with this one. I don't see much promise. (Insert Vomiting Emoticon)

I don't know why people are b*tching about the bricks. Am I the only one who would outlaw orange brick? It is hideous and never looks good.

Well just for you they painted the one side a hideous light tan (at least they prepared and caulked it before they painted)



Masonary is pretty much a non-maintanence material, that lasts centuries.



By painting it you take that away, now it will have to be redone at some point, it will FADE, DISCOLOR, get STAINS and RUST MARKS



Yea real nice

citywatcher wrote:

I don't know why people are b*tching about the bricks. Am I the only one who would outlaw orange brick? It is hideous and never looks good.

Well just for you they painted the one side a hideous light tan (at least they prepared and caulked it before they painted)



Masonary is pretty much a non-maintanence material, that lasts centuries.



By painting it you take that away, now it will have to be redone at some point, it will FADE, DISCOLOR, get STAINS and RUST MARKS



Yea real nice

I like the tan paint and think it looks better than the old brick. It's on the North side of the building along the alley, so makes sense and looks better against the new stone than the brick did.



I lived in a condo building in CWE that was painted brick and if you use commercial grade paint, such as Portland Paint, it comes with a life-time warranty and is guaranteed not to fade, chip or peel. It's expensive, but forms what appears to be a rubber bond and prevents moisture from getting in and causing damage to the mortar.