data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1548f/1548fb7c70ba21c79ede32d25c07c575ac35c4ac" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8cef7/8cef744d679e37fb8f90260c6798bb5eacaa00e7" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a99d9/a99d9ed2b9af22611e1f3c35355996545726ab10" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee5e6/ee5e6bf0395e7150e8fae63aeda1068ac711d657" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/13b68/13b6876ccd74b6d878664c80ba56f6663254274d" alt=""
The Shoenberg building a few weeks ago as it was being prepared for destruction.
The wasted opportunities of this building and other recent demolitions such as the San Luis make me think of one of my favorite books: How Buildings Learn by Stewart Brand. One of the main premises of the book is that buildings built with a simple straight forward structure (such as that of a concrete frame) are inherently adaptable to meet the needs of the ever changing world around them. This book should be required reading for all institutional boards of directors and all others that are in the position of decision making regarding construction, renovation, replacement or demolition of their buildings.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/56671/5667175e7098159002e6eadc26102e2b47aa6441" alt=""
5 comments:
UGH. UGH.
I don't know what else to say.
There is such a vacuum in St. Louis in the arena of planning.
It's so hard to celebrate a development like Nine North because, at the same time, a couple block over, we're losing a valuable building to nothingness.
Why the Cultural Resources Office didn't STRONGLY discourage such a demolition is beyond me. That the Preservation Board lacked a nuanced solution is less surprising but no less disappointing in the end.
Sigh.
It's astounding to me that city leaders don't yet seem to know what has contributed to urban revitalization across the nation, but especially right at home. Neighborhoods like Tower Grove South made such an astounding turnaround because these were livable, walkable, human scale (and yes, historic) places.
Ugh. I sound like a broken record. It just sucks to see more CWE character lost for no good reason.
Just, ugh.
This building doesn't fit the Barnes Brand, so it had to come down. Pretty simple, really. Look at most of the recent structures built for the Barnes Brand: nominally modern glass and steel edifices which reference one another. The Shoenberg, even though we all realise its' utility, did not fit into the Brand which Barnes, et al, have so carefully cultivated in the past 10 years. What eventually gets built will look almost like the other recently-built structures. Yeah, and a pocket park is a bit nutty. Is Barnes a not-for-profit? Because if they aren't, they'd have to keep paying taxes on this building, no? Sooo...Just a little ruminatin'.
Shame that all that awesome brick is getting torn down
I love this book. It changed a lot of my thinking about buildings and their adaptability when I first read it years ago. Sadly, I loaned it out to someone who obviously also loved it.
Good work as always.
i noticed that had started while waiting on the yellow bus the other day. UGH.
Matt, the CRO doesn't waste its political capital on useless causes, & fighting BJC is always a such a case. i am not looking forward to having one of their corporate buildings on my side of Forest Park Parkway.
samizdat, BJC is non-profit but their end of year filings usually show an astonishing amount of excess income after paying for charity care, etc.
Post a Comment