90-foot cell tower approved for South Grand Boulevard

suburban lou · PostMar 22, 2006#12006-03-22T19:30+00:00

90-foot cell tower approved for South Grand Boulevard

Jim Merkel

Of the Suburban Journals

South Side Journal

03/22/2006

A 90-foot cell phone tower will loom over cars driving along South Grand Boulevard just north of Gravois Avenue.

The Board of Adjustment voted March 15 to give St. Charles Tower a building permit for a tower to be erected on property of All Rental, 3454 S. Grand, just south of the parking lot of the Schnucks market on Grand.

The building commissioner had denied the permit because the tower is in a Neighborhood Commercial District zone, where structures cannot be taller than three stories or 50 feet. The placement also violated a zoning provision that a structure be at least four feet from the property line.

City Zoning Specialist Paul Girouard said the company did not want to put the antenna on the roof of the nearby South Side National Bank building because the building is too high.

Mary Krepf, speaking on behalf of St. Charles Tower, said the mono-pole tower would be built for three carriers.

All antennas and cabling would be self-contained in the tower, Krepf said.

Read More

markofucity · PostMar 22, 2006#22006-03-22T20:41+00:00

huh? Does nayone else find this odd? Aren't there any other places nearby that can suport a tower (lord knows there's enough vacant space around thqat area) ....

or should I be happy about this because they will chip in for improvements to the exterior of the building ..

debaliviere · PostMar 22, 2006#32006-03-22T21:42+00:00

I'm probably exposing my minimal knowledge of how cell phone towers work, but wouldn't the Dickman or SSNB buildings be better (and less noticeable) places for these towers?

BTW, I'm sure that Ald. Florida will use the fact that she convinced the rental place to participate in the facade improvement program as a means of deflecting anti-tower arguments.

threeonefour · PostMar 22, 2006#42006-03-22T22:25+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:I'm probably exposing my minimal knowledge of how cell phone towers work, but wouldn't the Dickman or SSNB buildings be better (and less noticeable) places for these towers?

And I'll join you. Is it me, or is it a bit odd, that the SSNB tower would be "too high" for a cell tower? And if so, it seems like the Dickman Building would be an acceptable option!

Given Ald. Florida's handling of the controversial McDonalds proposal on South Grand Blvd., I'm sure she has some sort of stock rationalization about the facade improvements to mollify concerned citizens.

Next thing you know, she'll praise the cell tower as "new investment in the city".

doug · PostMar 23, 2006#52006-03-23T02:34+00:00

Cell Towers are one thing: ugly.

If you can get cell phone signals in planes, I am sure you could put the antenna on top of a building.

urban elitist · PostMar 23, 2006#62006-03-23T13:55+00:00

I don't think you can get cell phone signals in planes. Above a certain altitude, they don't work unless the plane relays a singal from the ground to your cell phone (a few planes can do this).

When you are placing a cell phone tower there is an ideal height that will maximize the coverage raduis based on things like height of the tower itself, topography, altitude, etc. And to stay competitive cell providers want to maximize their coverage area with the minimum number of towers. This is likely the reason for not wanting to put it on a builing in that particulat area.

doug · PostMar 23, 2006#72006-03-23T14:04+00:00

Interesting, I learn new things every day.

MattnSTL · PostMar 23, 2006#82006-03-23T16:16+00:00

Cell phones are also illegal to have even turned on in a plane. It was on MythBusters last week. The signal will most likely not cause a problem in a plane, because the wiring is shielded, but if something were to be wrog with the shielding, it could take the plane down. Off topic I know, but sort of had to do with it.

markofucity · PostMar 23, 2006#92006-03-23T16:50+00:00

you know - the tower could be a really nice addition if they lit it up and designed it properly (eiffel tower is - after all - nothing more than a radio tower). They won't do this of course - but its possible.

urban elitist · PostMar 23, 2006#102006-03-23T16:55+00:00

It all comes down to dollars my friend. Would you pay $5 more a month on a cell phone bill so the company could gussy up their towers? Nope, you'd switch right to Sprint as soon as your contract was up.

MattnSTL · PostMar 23, 2006#112006-03-23T17:29+00:00

Cell phone tower have never really bothered me. As long as there are not five towers on one lot that is.

jeff · PostMar 23, 2006#122006-03-23T18:09+00:00

I find it unbelievable that in this urban part of the city, no new buildings are allowed to be taller than three stories, but cell phone towers are allowed? St. Louis never ceases to amaze me.

btw, I'm not advocating for a 30 story skyscraper, but it's odd that the city won't allow midrise apartment buildings. Meanwhile, suburban style McDonalds and cell phone towers are okay. very odd mentality.

doug · PostMar 23, 2006#132006-03-23T19:32+00:00

Jeff wrote:I find it unbelievable that in this urban part of the city, no new buildings are allowed to be taller than three stories, but cell phone towers are allowed? St. Louis never ceases to amaze me.

btw, I'm not advocating for a 30 story skyscraper, but it's odd that the city won't allow midrise apartment buildings. Meanwhile, suburban style McDonalds and cell phone towers are okay. very odd mentality.

I am advocating a 30 story skyscraper. We need drastic changes.

threeonefour · PostMar 23, 2006#142006-03-23T19:38+00:00

Jeff wrote:I find it unbelievable that in this urban part of the city, no new buildings are allowed to be taller than three stories, but cell phone towers are allowed? St. Louis never ceases to amaze me.

btw, I'm not advocating for a 30 story skyscraper, but it's odd that the city won't allow midrise apartment buildings. Meanwhile, suburban style McDonalds and cell phone towers are okay. very odd mentality.

I agree with you on all the above, and that's why I sincerely hope that we'll see a comprehensive plan for development on Grand between Utah Place and Alberta Street (2 blocks south of Chippewa Street).

Grand Boulevard should live up to its name. And the Grand/Gravois intersection is truly the crossroads, the center, for south Saint Louis. As someone else said on another UrbanSTL forum, the SSNB Tower and Grandview Arcade (Melba/Pizza A-Go Go) are great developments, but they cannot be truly successful if they're surrounded by suburban crap.

The mobile phone tower isn't the biggest of my worries, but you are right about the need to revisit ordinances. Why allow the tower but restrict building height? There are several places in south Saint Louis where building heights beyond three stories wouldn't be a problem. No one will likely build a highrise south of the SSNB building, but what's wrong with a midrise condo or apartment building, one that serves as an anchor for a given area with a retail component on the main level? Something like that would sure be preferable to the suburban-style crap like Gravois Plaza or Southtown Center.

doug · PostMar 23, 2006#152006-03-23T19:52+00:00

ThreeOneFour wrote:
Jeff wrote:I find it unbelievable that in this urban part of the city, no new buildings are allowed to be taller than three stories, but cell phone towers are allowed? St. Louis never ceases to amaze me.

btw, I'm not advocating for a 30 story skyscraper, but it's odd that the city won't allow midrise apartment buildings. Meanwhile, suburban style McDonalds and cell phone towers are okay. very odd mentality.

I agree with you on all the above, and that's why I sincerely hope that we'll see a comprehensive plan for development on Grand between Utah Place and Alberta Street (2 blocks south of Chippewa Street).

Grand Boulevard should live up to its name. And the Grand/Gravois intersection is truly the crossroads, the center, for south Saint Louis. As someone else said on another UrbanSTL forum, the SSNB Tower and Grandview Arcade (Melba/Pizza A-Go Go) are great developments, but they cannot be truly successful if they're surrounded by suburban crap.

The mobile phone tower isn't the biggest of my worries, but you are right about the need to revisit ordinances. Why allow the tower but restrict building height? There are several places in south Saint Louis where building heights beyond three stories wouldn't be a problem. No one will likely build a highrise south of the SSNB building, but what's wrong with a midrise condo or apartment building, one that serves as an anchor for a given area with a retail component on the main level? Something like that would sure be preferable to the suburban-style crap like Gravois Plaza or Southtown Center.

Indeed, Southtown Center is really ugly. I am guessing wonderful zoning codes restrict the height?

shinpickle · PostMar 23, 2006#162006-03-23T21:31+00:00

that's why I sincerely hope that we'll see a comprehensive plan for development on Grand between Utah Place and Alberta Street

Grand Boulevard should live up to its name. And the Grand/Gravois intersection is truly the crossroads, the center, for south Saint Louis.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Also, this zone falls entirely in Ms. Floridia's jurisdiction, as does my house.

she went to the same college as me! http://stlcin.missouri.org/alderman/bio.cfm?Ward=15

trent · PostMar 24, 2006#172006-03-24T00:09+00:00

For those that like a good conspiracy, and want to learn a few things about cell phones in planes...check this out: http://www.loosechange911.com/

shadrach · PostMar 29, 2006#182006-03-29T19:03+00:00

Hopefully the tower will alleviate some problems. There's a dead spot at Morganford between Loughborough and Bates, guaranteed to drop a call.

And yes, light up the tower and build 30 story skyscapers.