If we had decent codes in St. Louis the owner of this 1923 building wouldn’t have been permitted to make all the window openings into big yellow rectangles.
ABOVE: 3001 Washington Ave used to be a nice building. Click to view map
Yes, the owner invested in the building. Let’s just hope they don’t invest in others.
 – Steve Patterson
Currently there are "14 comments" on this Article:
A bigger offender / more egregious example is the former Magic Chef / current U-Haul Storage building on the northwest corner of I-44 & Kingshighway.
The real question is how far should owners be allowed to modify building shells as their uses change? Both examples are now self-storage facilities, something where windows are a negative, not a positive, And to quote from your 10/11/11 post, “I care very little about the use of a building – I know use changes with time, The form, however, doesn’t. The form must be correct from the beginning, or at least be easily modified down the road.” Well, both these examples were modified to eliminate glazing and both can be modified again, in the future, to restore the glazing. The alternative is demolition and replacement with new, one-story, suburban-style drive-in units that suck a lot more (and given local land values, entirely possible: http://www.ezmini.com/self-storage-st-louis-st-louis-missouri.aspx).
I guess in an urban planning nirvana, government would be able to dictate that windows need to be kept or windows would need to be added, and that they would have to remain transparent, not become opaque (no heavy tinting, no curtains or blinds, no glass block, no super graphics, no painted infill) AND that intersting stuff be put on display behind each of the windows. Guess what? Not every use creates happy diners or creative retail displays or even bored office workers. Many uses either demand to be hidden from public view or secured with something more substantial than glass, so you’re going to find little public support for this level of governmental intrusion into our lives.
Would I have preferred continued human occupancy at both locations? Absolutely – they could be cool lofts or interesting office space. But at least they’re being put to productive, hopefully interim, uses. That means their roofs are being maintained and their structural integrity is being preserved. The other alternatives are a lot less attractive and a whole lot more fatal – vacant and boarded up or demolished and replaced with the single-story, autocentric stuff that typifies most new commercial construction, here and elsewhere. Hopefully, our land values will increase, some day, and both structures can be returned to more attractive uses . . . . .
A bigger offender / more egregious example is the former Magic Chef / current U-Haul Storage building on the northwest corner of I-44 & Kingshighway.
The real question is how far should owners be allowed to modify building shells as their uses change? Both examples are now self-storage facilities, something where windows are a negative, not a positive, And to quote from your 10/11/11 post, “I care very little about the use of a building – I know use changes with time, The form, however, doesn’t. The form must be correct from the beginning, or at least be easily modified down the road.” Well, both these examples were modified to eliminate glazing and both can be modified again, in the future, to restore the glazing. The alternative is demolition and replacement with new, one-story, suburban-style drive-in units that suck a lot more (and given local land values, entirely possible: http://www.ezmini.com/self-storage-st-louis-st-louis-missouri.aspx).
I guess in an urban planning nirvana, government would be able to dictate that windows need to be kept or windows would need to be added, and that they would have to remain transparent, not become opaque (no heavy tinting, no curtains or blinds, no glass block, no super graphics, no painted infill) AND that intersting stuff be put on display behind each of the windows. Guess what? Not every use creates happy diners or creative retail displays or even bored office workers. Many uses either demand to be hidden from public view or secured with something more substantial than glass, so you’re going to find little public support for this level of governmental intrusion into our lives.
Would I have preferred continued human occupancy at both locations? Absolutely – they could be cool lofts or interesting office space. But at least they’re being put to productive, hopefully interim, uses. That means their roofs are being maintained and their structural integrity is being preserved. The other alternatives are a lot less attractive and a whole lot more fatal – vacant and boarded up or demolished and replaced with the single-story, autocentric stuff that typifies most new commercial construction, here and elsewhere. Hopefully, our land values will increase, some day, and both structures can be returned to more attractive uses . . . . .
I realize that the above building isn’t perfect, but I don’t accept the idea that the building should be universally panned. Quite frankly, as far as storage facilities go, I think it looks rather nice. Â IMO, the yellow rectangles add a bit of quirky color to an otherwise drab building. Â I would much rather have it in an urban neighborhood than the ugly building that is standing on the other side of Garrison from the above building.
I realize that the above building isn’t perfect, but I don’t accept the idea that the building should be universally panned. Quite frankly, as far as storage facilities go, I think it looks rather nice. IMO, the yellow rectangles add a bit of quirky color to an otherwise drab building. I would much rather have it in an urban neighborhood than the ugly building that is standing on the other side of Garrison from the above building.
This building is rough, but it could be awesome if they’d allow murals on those windows. Or over the entire thing. A weekend with a cherry picker + and the ArtDimensions crew and this building could be the highlight of the neighborhood 🙂
Re: the Uhaul building – such a sad story there. I can only hope this gets rehabbed to its original splendor someday, then we will know that St. Louis’ is back :-/
This building is rough, but it could be awesome if they’d allow murals on those windows. Or over the entire thing. A weekend with a cherry picker + and the ArtDimensions crew and this building could be the highlight of the neighborhood 🙂
Re: the Uhaul building – such a sad story there. I can only hope this gets rehabbed to its original splendor someday, then we will know that St. Louis’ is back :-/
could they have done better? Probably. But it is being put to use. There is an excellent example of re-use at the storage space on Holt and Chippewa. 24 hour storage.  They did an excellent job of rehabbing the building.
could they have done better? Probably. But it is being put to use. There is an excellent example of re-use at the storage space on Holt and Chippewa. 24 hour storage. They did an excellent job of rehabbing the building.
While the yellow window infills are lacking, consider other locations in town where equally flacid attempts were made to adapt space: 1) Loft buiding at 2323 Locus (corner of Jefferson/Locust): white painted plywood that conceals parking is set 3′ back from storefront. Cheap/cheap/cheap! Wonder why they didn’t just etch the glass appropriately and be done with it? Would have saved money, too!
2) Loft building at 21st and Washington (directly across from Sporting News Building): Clear glass was used at the Washington elevation grade level parking garage, which exposes unattractive parked cars, stored materials, lots of dirt resulting from poor housekeeping, etc. 3) Majestic Stove Loft Building at 20th & Delmar: How long is the City going to allow them to display that canvas sign on the south elevation? 4) Multi-colored loft building at around 22nd & Locust (Packard Lofts): Plaster is falling from the building at dramatic rates.Wasn’t this building “restored” just a few years ago?
While the yellow window infills are lacking, consider other locations in town where equally flacid attempts were made to adapt space: 1) Loft buiding at 2323 Locus (corner of Jefferson/Locust): white painted plywood that conceals parking is set 3′ back from storefront. Cheap/cheap/cheap! Wonder why they didn’t just etch the glass appropriately and be done with it? Would have saved money, too!
2) Loft building at 21st and Washington (directly across from Sporting News Building): Clear glass was used at the Washington elevation grade level parking garage, which exposes unattractive parked cars, stored materials, lots of dirt resulting from poor housekeeping, etc. 3) Majestic Stove Loft Building at 20th & Delmar: How long is the City going to allow them to display that canvas sign on the south elevation? 4) Multi-colored loft building at around 22nd & Locust (Packard Lofts): Plaster is falling from the building at dramatic rates.Wasn’t this building “restored” just a few years ago?
It looks office-like. That is, for obvious reasons, the impression the owners want to give. Why should they want it to look like old housing stock or like a hangout for hipsters, as Steve and Luqman respectively suggest?
It looks office-like. That is, for obvious reasons, the impression the owners want to give. Why should they want it to look like old housing stock or like a hangout for hipsters, as Steve and Luqman respectively suggest?
It’s amazing to see how much most people are willing to accept mediocrity into their lives. Even more peculiar is how far they will go to justify and expose their own poor taste and lack of education in the arts and architecture. Pity.
It’s amazing to see how much most people are willing to accept mediocrity into their lives. Even more peculiar is how far they will go to justify and expose their own poor taste and lack of education in the arts and architecture. Pity.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
A bigger offender / more egregious example is the former Magic Chef / current U-Haul Storage building on the northwest corner of I-44 & Kingshighway.
The real question is how far should owners be allowed to modify building shells as their uses change? Both examples are now self-storage facilities, something where windows are a negative, not a positive, And to quote from your 10/11/11 post, “I care very little about the use of a building – I know use changes with time, The form, however, doesn’t. The form must be correct from the beginning, or at least be easily modified down the road.” Well, both these examples were modified to eliminate glazing and both can be modified again, in the future, to restore the glazing. The alternative is demolition and replacement with new, one-story, suburban-style drive-in units that suck a lot more (and given local land values, entirely possible: http://www.ezmini.com/self-storage-st-louis-st-louis-missouri.aspx).
I guess in an urban planning nirvana, government would be able to dictate that windows need to be kept or windows would need to be added, and that they would have to remain transparent, not become opaque (no heavy tinting, no curtains or blinds, no glass block, no super graphics, no painted infill) AND that intersting stuff be put on display behind each of the windows. Guess what? Not every use creates happy diners or creative retail displays or even bored office workers. Many uses either demand to be hidden from public view or secured with something more substantial than glass, so you’re going to find little public support for this level of governmental intrusion into our lives.
Would I have preferred continued human occupancy at both locations? Absolutely – they could be cool lofts or interesting office space. But at least they’re being put to productive, hopefully interim, uses. That means their roofs are being maintained and their structural integrity is being preserved. The other alternatives are a lot less attractive and a whole lot more fatal – vacant and boarded up or demolished and replaced with the single-story, autocentric stuff that typifies most new commercial construction, here and elsewhere. Hopefully, our land values will increase, some day, and both structures can be returned to more attractive uses . . . . .
A bigger offender / more egregious example is the former Magic Chef / current U-Haul Storage building on the northwest corner of I-44 & Kingshighway.
The real question is how far should owners be allowed to modify building shells as their uses change? Both examples are now self-storage facilities, something where windows are a negative, not a positive, And to quote from your 10/11/11 post, “I care very little about the use of a building – I know use changes with time, The form, however, doesn’t. The form must be correct from the beginning, or at least be easily modified down the road.” Well, both these examples were modified to eliminate glazing and both can be modified again, in the future, to restore the glazing. The alternative is demolition and replacement with new, one-story, suburban-style drive-in units that suck a lot more (and given local land values, entirely possible: http://www.ezmini.com/self-storage-st-louis-st-louis-missouri.aspx).
I guess in an urban planning nirvana, government would be able to dictate that windows need to be kept or windows would need to be added, and that they would have to remain transparent, not become opaque (no heavy tinting, no curtains or blinds, no glass block, no super graphics, no painted infill) AND that intersting stuff be put on display behind each of the windows. Guess what? Not every use creates happy diners or creative retail displays or even bored office workers. Many uses either demand to be hidden from public view or secured with something more substantial than glass, so you’re going to find little public support for this level of governmental intrusion into our lives.
Would I have preferred continued human occupancy at both locations? Absolutely – they could be cool lofts or interesting office space. But at least they’re being put to productive, hopefully interim, uses. That means their roofs are being maintained and their structural integrity is being preserved. The other alternatives are a lot less attractive and a whole lot more fatal – vacant and boarded up or demolished and replaced with the single-story, autocentric stuff that typifies most new commercial construction, here and elsewhere. Hopefully, our land values will increase, some day, and both structures can be returned to more attractive uses . . . . .
I realize that the above building isn’t perfect, but I don’t accept the idea that the building should be universally panned. Quite frankly, as far as storage facilities go, I think it looks rather nice. Â IMO, the yellow rectangles add a bit of quirky color to an otherwise drab building. Â I would much rather have it in an urban neighborhood than the ugly building that is standing on the other side of Garrison from the above building.
I realize that the above building isn’t perfect, but I don’t accept the idea that the building should be universally panned. Quite frankly, as far as storage facilities go, I think it looks rather nice. IMO, the yellow rectangles add a bit of quirky color to an otherwise drab building. I would much rather have it in an urban neighborhood than the ugly building that is standing on the other side of Garrison from the above building.
This building is rough, but it could be awesome if they’d allow murals on those windows. Or over the entire thing. A weekend with a cherry picker + and the ArtDimensions crew and this building could be the highlight of the neighborhood 🙂
Re: the Uhaul building – such a sad story there. I can only hope this gets rehabbed to its original splendor someday, then we will know that St. Louis’ is back :-/
This building is rough, but it could be awesome if they’d allow murals on those windows. Or over the entire thing. A weekend with a cherry picker + and the ArtDimensions crew and this building could be the highlight of the neighborhood 🙂
Re: the Uhaul building – such a sad story there. I can only hope this gets rehabbed to its original splendor someday, then we will know that St. Louis’ is back :-/
could they have done better? Probably. But it is being put to use. There is an excellent example of re-use at the storage space on Holt and Chippewa. 24 hour storage.  They did an excellent job of rehabbing the building.
could they have done better? Probably. But it is being put to use. There is an excellent example of re-use at the storage space on Holt and Chippewa. 24 hour storage. They did an excellent job of rehabbing the building.
While the yellow window infills are lacking, consider other locations in town where equally flacid attempts were made to adapt space: 1) Loft buiding at 2323 Locus (corner of Jefferson/Locust): white painted plywood that conceals parking is set 3′ back from storefront. Cheap/cheap/cheap! Wonder why they didn’t just etch the glass appropriately and be done with it? Would have saved money, too!
2) Loft building at 21st and Washington (directly across from Sporting News Building): Clear glass was used at the Washington elevation grade level parking garage, which exposes unattractive parked cars, stored materials, lots of dirt resulting from poor housekeeping, etc. 3) Majestic Stove Loft Building at 20th & Delmar: How long is the City going to allow them to display that canvas sign on the south elevation? 4) Multi-colored loft building at around 22nd & Locust (Packard Lofts): Plaster is falling from the building at dramatic rates.Wasn’t this building “restored” just a few years ago?
While the yellow window infills are lacking, consider other locations in town where equally flacid attempts were made to adapt space: 1) Loft buiding at 2323 Locus (corner of Jefferson/Locust): white painted plywood that conceals parking is set 3′ back from storefront. Cheap/cheap/cheap! Wonder why they didn’t just etch the glass appropriately and be done with it? Would have saved money, too!
2) Loft building at 21st and Washington (directly across from Sporting News Building): Clear glass was used at the Washington elevation grade level parking garage, which exposes unattractive parked cars, stored materials, lots of dirt resulting from poor housekeeping, etc. 3) Majestic Stove Loft Building at 20th & Delmar: How long is the City going to allow them to display that canvas sign on the south elevation? 4) Multi-colored loft building at around 22nd & Locust (Packard Lofts): Plaster is falling from the building at dramatic rates.Wasn’t this building “restored” just a few years ago?
It looks office-like. That is, for obvious reasons, the impression the owners want to give. Why should they want it to look like old housing stock or like a hangout for hipsters, as Steve and Luqman respectively suggest?
It looks office-like. That is, for obvious reasons, the impression the owners want to give. Why should they want it to look like old housing stock or like a hangout for hipsters, as Steve and Luqman respectively suggest?
It’s amazing to see how much most people are willing to accept mediocrity into their lives. Even more peculiar is how far they will go to justify and expose their own poor taste and lack of education in the arts and architecture. Pity.
It’s amazing to see how much most people are willing to accept mediocrity into their lives. Even more peculiar is how far they will go to justify and expose their own poor taste and lack of education in the arts and architecture. Pity.