I am facinated by buildings that were the victim of well-intentioned, but poorly executed "remuddling" jobs back in the 50's thru 70's. I absolutely love to see them brought back to life and restored to their original condition, like the old Post-Dispatch Building at Tucker and Olive was a few years ago.



The Locust Building at 1015 Locust was given a re-cladding similar to the one that the Post-Dispatch Building once had. Is there any way it could be restored?



The building's current appearance:





The building's former appearance:

The cornice would appear long gone, but I think the brick is still under the metal cladding. If anyone watched the building now housing the Board of Elections (Olive/Tucker) undergo its transformation, lost details can be replaced with cheaper look-alikes. The City Hospital on the near southside has new dormers already and will soon have a new dome, restoring its appearance.



It is a little ironic that the City development agencies (CDA, PDA, SLDC) are tenants of the Locust Building. That ironically includes the City's Cultural Resource Office (fka Heritage). But the building is also where parking-garage-loving City development czarina, Barb Geisman, works, at least when not deal-making elsewhere.

Living nearby, I would love to see the original brick instead of the ugly "modern" shell. When they were dealing with the Merchandise Mart on whether or not to tear down the bridge, they decided against it because it was too expensive or impossible to reproduce the clad. That would have been a good time to just decide to tear off the cladding. But, I have no idea if they even discussed this option.

For one, I am gonna say something positive about modern design. I like the reclad on that building and really don't think it needs to be changed. Besides, from the older picture, I am not sure how much was really lost. The other building was solid, but not spectacular. Keep the nice modern design we already have.

While taste is certainly subjective, the current condition of the Locust Building is hardly an improvement over its original appearance, especially at street level. I'll take a solid, but unspectacular, building like the one pictured any day.



I'm not against modern design by any means - for instance, I really like the Millenium Building on Olive which received a very tasteful renovation in the 90's that really improved its appearance. However, the Millenium Building was actually built in the 60's, unlike the Locust Building.

Not that anyone cares, but if that were my building I'd want to just restore to the third floor, exposing a classy streetfront yet acknowledging the building's entire history.

Only remove the cladding if you can find that awesome 'RICESTIX' sign to put it back up on the corner of the building.

I'll assume that everyone that has replied to this thread has seen this building in person. If not, please go see it because that image above makes it look a lot better than it really is.



mmmm ricestix

Yep, used to work in the building for the City and waited for many a bus outside of it (my long missed Southampton Express). But going through its doors every day and waiting outside it, I can tell you that the Locust's Modernist remake does look pretty shabby.



Now the Alverne across the street, has ugly brick and small windows, but considering what the Locust Building used to look like (more like the beautifully renovated Louderman catty-corner to it), I personally think they recladded the wrong building at this intersection.

Here are pics of both:

Plain, yes, but better than that crime they did on it.



(edit for crappy spelling)

Plain, but dignified, Citylover.



Now, just plain.



EDIT: see post below...

Citylover's pic is the Alverne, not the Locust Building.

Just to clear up any confusion, I was talking about the Alverne.

I walk past it nearly daily, so I know how ugly the current cladding is. Revamping that cladding is probably more realistic than a complete restoration, hence my thought to restore only the first few floors.



Really, though, the best way to improve the aesthetics of the view DeBaliviere posted is to build on the northwest lot so we don't have to see it.

I will second what phoida said. I was sad to see that the few small buildings on the lot northwest of the 1015 Locust site were being development. With no development, it they could have been plowed under for a great modern office building to really enhance the Tucker coridor.



Yes the Alverne is ugly. I wonder how many people would be oposed to seeing it torn down if a nice new building was proposed for the site.

The Alverne is odd looking because it has been stripped of its detail. If they replaced the cornice, put railings back on the balcony, & restored other little details, it would look fine. It wouldn't take much to turn the Alverne from ugly to ok. Also, the Locust building could use a touch up and most importantly, build next to it. These buildings look out of place with out their neighbors and finishing details.



How is the Alverne being used now?

The Alverne is complely vacant above the mezzanine level.



I would strongly object to its demolition. While somewhat ungainly, the Alverne (originally the City Club, then the Hotel DeSoto) is a unique example of hotel architecture by the noted St. Louis firm on Barnett, Hayes and Barnett. The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; Landmarks Association prepared the nomination at the request of the current owner.



There is a lot of leeway with rebuilding the secondary elevations to accomodate larger windows. I also think that the small window sizes would not be inappropriate to office uses.

The Alverne is probably one of the few buildings downtown without Any redeeming architectual qualities. The windows are out of proportion to the size of the building, giving it a Blind look, and even the brick is unnatractive. Any one finding this buidling worthy of saving would probably object to ridding us of rats and pigeons as well.

I agree, the Alverne is pretty darned ugly, but that's no reason to tear it down, for god's sake! Well, OK, maybe after EVERY available lot downtown has been built on...

There are arguments for preservation that have nothing to do with design.



Quality of older construction is most often superior to new construction, and a good reason for preservation. The materials used in construction of the Alverne are infinitely better than the materials used in Clayton's new condo towers.



Demolition creates waste on a planet that has overflowing landfills. Preservation of even the ugliest old building is ecologically sound practice.

I worked in the Locust Building. I didnt have a clue about its historic past until I went down one of the back stairwells one day. I saw these great older windows and thought "waaaaaaiiiit a minute!" That skin is not a good thing no matter how you slice it. The argument I hear all the time is that these moder slip-covers are part of the development of the building. These "modernizations" were done primarily to halt the cost of repairing the old facades and little to do with aesthetics.



As for the Alverne...Great building and should be rehabbed if possible. It has obviously faced the same issues where owners didnt want to pay for up-keep and removed as much of the historic detailing as possible in order to save a few bucks. Same for reducing window sizes(top floor of the Alverne). I see in my work all the time where people get a "good deal" on some new windows. Even though they are smaller than the original openings they still plop them in destroying the integrity of some really great buidlings. The Alverne is a good example of this.



lets fix it up!