Two twenties and a ten sounds fine with me.quincunx wrote:I'd rather have 10 5-story buildings. I know, Debbie Downer.
50 stories north riverfront makes me think of this tower north of Orlando.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/still- ... -4-eyesore
50 stories north riverfront makes me think of this tower north of Orlando.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/still- ... -4-eyesore
Can somebody get a screen shot or transcription of the article?
I'd also prefer some lower rise. 50 stories will just look out of place, IMO.
I'd also prefer some lower rise. 50 stories will just look out of place, IMO.
We have a better chance of Kronke apologizing and moving the Rams back to STL before this ever takes place. There are only so many "visions" one can read about (with basically none of them coming to fruition) before becoming cynical with the state of downtown. 50 stories will happen in the west end long before downtown.
- 2,430
dweebe wrote:Two twenties and a ten sounds fine with me.quincunx wrote:I'd rather have 10 5-story buildings. I know, Debbie Downer.
50 stories north riverfront makes me think of this tower north of Orlando.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/still- ... -4-eyesore
Orlando is weird.
Passed by this building more than I can remember. This is way more out of context than 50 story building on the riverfront would be.
- 403
I don't usually call myself the typical St.Louis native pessimist however i do find myself being that very type to a fault.
Reasoning most St.Louis natives don't find courage or sometimes value in where they live that in turns give visitors and even people who have relocated here an all out negative.
Sadly i've come to realize that most St.Louisan's are stuck in the future of the 18s 19s and therefore its kryptonite'd us.
If when we all wake up and live united our leaders promote positive growth then nothing will not likely change its all a mindset.
I for one love the idea of a 50 floor high-rise likely will be mix use I'm not sold on the north river front i would think the north river front is better suited for 10-25 story residential apartments maybe even a 35er
It's nice to know that an out of town developer see's value in our city where most our local developers besides koman don't even express a desire to invest or the lack there of.
I could honesty see a new iconic building going up near met square or the old bottle district site which is prime real estate
If this developer is willing to invest in St.Louis i say let him do it though a bit afraid that the usual pessimist will scare him off.
We'll never know how far St.Louis can grow if we don't allow anyone to do so not every developer has to be from St.Louis and honestly the best developers seem to come from outside of our region as we already know what happened to pyramid and a few others.
Lets welcome him aboard and show him that St.Louis is ready to be a bold progressive beautiful city.
Sorry if i sound too optimistic!
Reasoning most St.Louis natives don't find courage or sometimes value in where they live that in turns give visitors and even people who have relocated here an all out negative.
Sadly i've come to realize that most St.Louisan's are stuck in the future of the 18s 19s and therefore its kryptonite'd us.
If when we all wake up and live united our leaders promote positive growth then nothing will not likely change its all a mindset.
I for one love the idea of a 50 floor high-rise likely will be mix use I'm not sold on the north river front i would think the north river front is better suited for 10-25 story residential apartments maybe even a 35er
It's nice to know that an out of town developer see's value in our city where most our local developers besides koman don't even express a desire to invest or the lack there of.
I could honesty see a new iconic building going up near met square or the old bottle district site which is prime real estate
If this developer is willing to invest in St.Louis i say let him do it though a bit afraid that the usual pessimist will scare him off.
We'll never know how far St.Louis can grow if we don't allow anyone to do so not every developer has to be from St.Louis and honestly the best developers seem to come from outside of our region as we already know what happened to pyramid and a few others.
Lets welcome him aboard and show him that St.Louis is ready to be a bold progressive beautiful city.
Sorry if i sound too optimistic!
Or the Landing garage/residential tower spewed about for the last 5 years. This makes the most sense as it has direct access to potential future retail, new restaurants, etc. And the arch will need that parking and it'll be profitable. Much better than a single surface lot.St.Louis1764 wrote:I don't usually call myself the typical St.Louis native pessimist however i do find myself being that very type to a fault.
Reasoning most St.Louis natives don't find courage or sometimes value in where they live that in turns give visitors and even people who have relocated here an all out negative.
Sadly i've come to realize that most St.Louisan's are stuck in the future of the 18s 19s and therefore its kryptonite'd us.
If when we all wake up and live united our leaders promote positive growth then nothing will not likely change its all a mindset.
I for one love the idea of a 50 floor high-rise likely will be mix use I'm not sold on the north river front i would think the north river front is better suited for 10-25 story residential apartments maybe even a 35er
It's nice to know that an out of town developer see's value in our city where most our local developers besides koman don't even express a desire to invest or the lack there of.
I could honesty see a new iconic building going up near met square or the old bottle district site which is prime real estate
If this developer is willing to invest in St.Louis i say let him do it though a bit afraid that the usual pessimist will scare him off.
We'll never know how far St.Louis can grow if we don't allow anyone to do so not every developer has to be from St.Louis and honestly the best developers seem to come from outside of our region as we already know what happened to pyramid and a few others.
Lets welcome him aboard and show him that St.Louis is ready to be a bold progressive beautiful city.
Sorry if i sound too optimistic!
I'm all for optimism, but I don't go for "tower envy"
Like others have said, I'd rather have multiple buildings and empty downtown lots filled vs. a tower that will stand alone.
Whether this company has the resources to pull it off is one thing, but a separate thought is is a 50 story building the "best" thing for downtown? I'm more interested in the health and density of downtown than what our skyline looks like. I want to walk down a street and see filled storefronts and buildings, not walk down an empty street and stumble upon a new building....that's kind of what we have now.
If they want to buy up the remaining smaller building and fill them up, that's a plan I would get excited about.
Like others have said, I'd rather have multiple buildings and empty downtown lots filled vs. a tower that will stand alone.
Whether this company has the resources to pull it off is one thing, but a separate thought is is a 50 story building the "best" thing for downtown? I'm more interested in the health and density of downtown than what our skyline looks like. I want to walk down a street and see filled storefronts and buildings, not walk down an empty street and stumble upon a new building....that's kind of what we have now.
If they want to buy up the remaining smaller building and fill them up, that's a plan I would get excited about.
Agreed. What can we do to fill up AT&T?olvidarte wrote:I'm all for optimism, but I don't go for "tower envy"
Like others have said, I'd rather have multiple buildings and empty downtown lots filled vs. a tower that will stand alone.
Whether this company has the resources to pull it off is one thing, but a separate thought is is a 50 story building the "best" thing for downtown? I'm more interested in the health and density of downtown than what our skyline looks like. I want to walk down a street and see filled storefronts and buildings, not walk down an empty street and stumble upon a new building....that's kind of what we have now.
If they want to buy up the remaining smaller building and fill them up, that's a plan I would get excited about.
- 8,912
olvidarte wrote:I'm all for optimism, but I don't go for "tower envy"
Like others have said, I'd rather have multiple buildings and empty downtown lots filled vs. a tower that will stand alone.
Whether this company has the resources to pull it off is one thing, but a separate thought is is a 50 story building the "best" thing for downtown? I'm more interested in the health and density of downtown than what our skyline looks like. I want to walk down a street and see filled storefronts and buildings, not walk down an empty street and stumble upon a new building....that's kind of what we have now.
If they want to buy up the remaining smaller building and fill them up, that's a plan I would get excited about.
I agree with you if this building is to be commercial/office but would you agree if it's primarily residential/hotel?
I can see this going both ways. A lot of us on the thread get excited about historic preservation, rehabs and reuse. But that fails to excite the average citizen. Also, a lot of companies aren't interested in rehabs. And there has not been a new office building since 1984. In spite of all the rehabs, downtown's skyline has not changed in 32 years.
A new, shiny tower would go a long way and turn heads, not just in the metro, but around the country. It would be a new source of pride for everyone. And perhaps that would spark interest and draw more interest filling up the vacant buildings and getting new construction on the empty lots. Just riffin' on my daydream.
That said, I doubt this project goes forward and is probably more PR/buzz to garner incentives/interest for JA. And agree with others in that north riverfront is not the ideal location.
A new, shiny tower would go a long way and turn heads, not just in the metro, but around the country. It would be a new source of pride for everyone. And perhaps that would spark interest and draw more interest filling up the vacant buildings and getting new construction on the empty lots. Just riffin' on my daydream.
That said, I doubt this project goes forward and is probably more PR/buzz to garner incentives/interest for JA. And agree with others in that north riverfront is not the ideal location.
- 2,430
^ I'm with you... I think a healthy downtown will have a mix of rehabs and new construction and small-rises and mid-rises and high-rises. Different strokes for different folks as they say. The key is to ensure that whatever the project it is appropriate for the site and with good design. If you can do that, more will follow.
As for a tower in our future, my money is on yes, we will see one or more within the next decade. Will it be this particular one? Probably not, but we need folks like them investing here. Very glad they're showing interest here.
As for a tower in our future, my money is on yes, we will see one or more within the next decade. Will it be this particular one? Probably not, but we need folks like them investing here. Very glad they're showing interest here.
It's not THAT bad Shadrach. Plenty of office buildings - and other types of buildings - have gone up since 1984 that have significantly altered and contributed to the St. Louis skyline.shadrach wrote:There has not been a new office building since 1984. In spite of all the rehabs, downtown's skyline has not changed in 32 years.
Help me. Honestly, I can't think of any. Eagleton Courthouse, Renaissance hotel, Four Seasons and Roberts don't count as I specified new office building. Okay, yes, skyline's changed a little (federal courthouse) but even that was about 23 years ago.wabash wrote:It's not THAT bad Shadrach. Plenty of office buildings - and other types of buildings - have gone up since 1984 that have significantly altered and contributed to the St. Louis skyline.
DT's skyline has definitely changed in the last 32 because of the projects you mentioned. But also since '84 for new construction office space there's been: AT&T Tower, One City Centre, Gateway One, Deloitte Building, Wells Fargo Building, One Met Square, Police Headquarters, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis expansion, Nestle Purina expansion. I'm sure I'm missing a few.
- 2,430
^ I think shadrach may have meant 1989 instead of 1985, '89 was when One Met opened, nudging out in height the city's previous tallest office building, One ATT, which opened in 1986. I don't think anything 10 stories plus has been built for office since then and only a minimal number of modest mid-rises.
My understanding is it will be difficult to convert this to mixed-use and probably doesn't make financial sense to market for multi-tenant until a large anchor commits to a fair chunk of it.... my bet is eventually that will happen (with a lot of subsidies behind it) but it may take some time.bwcrow1s wrote: What can we do to fill up AT&T?
STLrainbow wrote:^ I think shadrach may have meant 1989 instead of 1985, '89 was when One Met opened, nudging out in height the city's previous tallest office building, One ATT, which opened in 1986. I don't think anything 10 stories plus has been built for office since then and only a minimal number of modest mid-rises.
—I did mean '89.- 6,127
Someone asked for an image incorporating a fifty story tower into the skyline at the approximate location depicted?
This is merely a back of the napkin grade sketch, but . . .
![]()
The perspective is a bit of a guesstimate, using Lumiere Place as a reference. The images are respectively STL Skyline 2007 by Buphoff and Galaxy Towers by Alexander Krivenyshev. Both are taken from Wikimedia's commons.
My own takeaway? It's less of an impact than I would have guessed and I don't particularly care for the massing. But if it's something iconic? Who knows.
This is merely a back of the napkin grade sketch, but . . .
The perspective is a bit of a guesstimate, using Lumiere Place as a reference. The images are respectively STL Skyline 2007 by Buphoff and Galaxy Towers by Alexander Krivenyshev. Both are taken from Wikimedia's commons.
My own takeaway? It's less of an impact than I would have guessed and I don't particularly care for the massing. But if it's something iconic? Who knows.
- 3,768
It was me... Thanks for the sketch... From a pure 'improving the skyline' perspective,
that is not a good location for a new tower. That would not do much to fill in the skyline. While it could lead to some towers filling the gap between the Arch and the new tower, that is no guarantee. If we are going to get a new tower, it needs to be close to the CBD IMO.
that is not a good location for a new tower. That would not do much to fill in the skyline. While it could lead to some towers filling the gap between the Arch and the new tower, that is no guarantee. If we are going to get a new tower, it needs to be close to the CBD IMO.
- 2,430
I'm not sure it has been mentioned before, but there is a height limit of what I take is 289' in the Jefferson Memorial District east of Broadway... the zone includes the Four Seasons on the south side of Carr but this proposed site on the north side of Carr appears to be outside the more restrictive zone. This could be why Altera is mentioning this site if it wants to go tall along the riverfront.
(Interesting to note that both the Four Seasons on the north end and the old Stouffer/Millennium on the south end both clock in at 289' as the tallest buildings east of Broadway. A number of others are just below that.)
(Interesting to note that both the Four Seasons on the north end and the old Stouffer/Millennium on the south end both clock in at 289' as the tallest buildings east of Broadway. A number of others are just below that.)
While we are talking height, something I wish we had a couple more examples of in our downtown skyline are 1920's towers like the Southwestern Bell and Union-Pacific office buildings and the Civil Courts building gracing our skyline...
I know we demo'd a lot of gorgeous buildings over the years, but I don't think any were legit towers of their height or period; according to Built St. Louis, the tallest building demolished downtown was the approx. 17 story Third National Bank, which was located on the site of the present day One Metropolitan Square:
http://www.builtstlouis.net/opos/3rdnationalbank.html
Another source I found says that was 228'
Not quite sure what to make of what seems to be a rather quiet period of tower construction compared to a lot other cities. EDIT: looking at population trends, it looks like STL already had begun to lag behind in the twenties and we even declined in the 30s... perhaps the 20's boom wasn't as big here economically, either.
I know we demo'd a lot of gorgeous buildings over the years, but I don't think any were legit towers of their height or period; according to Built St. Louis, the tallest building demolished downtown was the approx. 17 story Third National Bank, which was located on the site of the present day One Metropolitan Square:
http://www.builtstlouis.net/opos/3rdnationalbank.html
Another source I found says that was 228'
Not quite sure what to make of what seems to be a rather quiet period of tower construction compared to a lot other cities. EDIT: looking at population trends, it looks like STL already had begun to lag behind in the twenties and we even declined in the 30s... perhaps the 20's boom wasn't as big here economically, either.