urbanSTL

^ Can't help but think and should expect a hotel for BPV. Definitely think it would be worth the wait if done right, high rise with some cool features such as rooftop pool or maybe a mid deck with rooftop seating overlooking the stadium... At same time think the downtown market/demand for more hotels is in this zone where it just right for a couple of the proposed boutique hotels going forward and some added rooms like LHM has down for Union Station but building at BPV will take some business from someone else in the short term.

At same time, frustrated to think that BPV site hands down has to be the best site in the region for both a new residential and a new hotel tower. Might be take away some demand but at least you got 3 million strong attraction next door, with many die hard our of region fans not too mention great access to everything else the region has to offer from walking to the Arch to jumping on metrolink or simply getting back on I64. Heck a business man who likes baseball, why not stay there if you can sneak in a game even if your going to be at Bunge NA new HQ the next morning or the hotel actively markets to corporation discount rooms to entertain clients.

Kick myself to say, but change my position from years past and would agree that St. Louis is in a better position to back bonds especially with some job generation by CORTEX and NGIA director wants to stay in the city. Maybe the city should be floating the idea if that is what its going to take to break ground on a meaningful phase II or maybe DeWitt/Cordish is already making that play. that is my question, should city take next step as KC did and back or make up the revenue difference on BPV bonds for phase II?

urban_dilettante wrote:^ c'mon, arch. you can't accuse someone of being a mole for disagreeing with you and then be like "no response necessary." it was a little over-the-top.

Just caught this.......

First, it was a joke to refer to him as a "mole". Second, I don't care if people disagree with me. This is a forum.

I also put a nice little on my, "There was no need to respond" comment to indicate my assertions were playfully sarcastic.

Chill out.

^ I'm still of the notion that stand alone aquarium should be on the Laclede's Landing and some how some way it has to become part of St. Louis Zoo for it be worth it or even sustainable. Maybe Drury family can be corporate sponsor, drive behind it when and if they decide to develop their own property on the landing. My second choice would to favor aquarium under the shed as part of LHM Union Station entertain plan before BPV. I also think that a kick ass indoor water park either under the Shed or on the Landing would do well also

I just think in the long run you want to see BPV come together as per some of the earlier renderings. Parking garages with cheesy rooftop seating and secondary attractions just seems like adding failure onto to more failure Instead, I think your right on about having a really nice "W" as part of or all of the tower anchoring a corner of BPV. Get that with a high rise residential tower and you got at least half of the site looking respectable.

There will be two mixed use projects announced this year that are contiguous to BPV and Busch Stadium that I think you guys will like. These will be buildings, not towers to keep expectations at a reasonable level.

Not my position to disclose where and by whom but they're coming.

arch city wrote:

urban_dilettante wrote:^ c'mon, arch. you can't accuse someone of being a mole for disagreeing with you and then be like "no response necessary." it was a little over-the-top.

Just caught this.......

First, it was a joke to refer to him as a "mole". Second, I don't care if people disagree with me. This is a forum.

I also put a nice little on my, "There was no need to respond" comment to indicate my assertions were playfully sarcastic.

Chill out.

okay. when you called your joke an "observation" after being confronted about the "mole" accusation it didn't really come across as a joke to me.

@kshapiro, thanks for the heads up! Baby steps usually lead to bigger steps.

kbshapiro wrote:There will be two mixed use projects announced this year that are contiguous to BPV and Busch Stadium that I think you guys will like. These will be buildings, not towers to keep expectations at a reasonable level.

Not my position to disclose where and by whom but they're coming.

Can you say if building vs tower is defined at 20, 15, 10 stories?

I think I'd be happy to hear of any of the above, I'm surprised by how little class A space is available downtown.

deformative wrote:

kbshapiro wrote:There will be two mixed use projects announced this year that are contiguous to BPV and Busch Stadium that I think you guys will like. These will be buildings, not towers to keep expectations at a reasonable level.

Not my position to disclose where and by whom but they're coming.

Can you say if building vs tower is defined at 20, 15, 10 stories?

I think I'd be happy to hear of any of the above, I'm surprised by how little class A space is available downtown.

Paragraph 3.3.36.7 of NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code, 2012 edition, defines a high-rise building as a building more than 75 feet (23 meters) in height, measured from the lowest level of fire department vehicle access to the floor of the highest occupiable story. A height of 75 feet translates into roughly seven stories.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ as we approach a mini-boom, you know what this means. don't you?


the r-word

Whats the r-word?

Rain?!

Recession...

All I'm sayin is I hope we get most of these projects done before that r-thing comes back again.

^BPV pulls more than just suburbanites. There are lots of rural/farmer types there too.

^I disagree. I think they know that obstructionism would just draw attention to their unfulfilled promises and failure to launch Phase II. After-all, Missouri is the Show-Me state and a real developer, with a real plan, and a genuine intention to execute it will beat out Cordish's phony half-assed carper-baggerism any day.