^ I do agree, it's a bit underwhelming, but depending on the angle viewed, you can get some good looks. I've always thought looking at it FROM the north and south provided a nice view as the buildings kind of step down as they move west. And I think the St. Louis skyline looks absolutely fantastic when viewed from the west. Take a look at some pictures from the Chase Hotel terraces...all the other mid and high-rises around the Central West End, Midtown, and then morphing into Downtown is a pretty damn good look in my opinion. It has a very dense look that most other Midwestern cities (Chicago excluded) don't really have. Go even further back (you'll need a drone or a chopper) and put the Clayton skyline in the foreground and you really get the big city feel.
- 596
You guys are the best I’ve been trying to find vantage points to take decent shots of the downtown skyline and those are some awesome shots. ![]()
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A 400+ footer would help our skyline out more although Phase 3 of BPV has the most potentialWolfpaw wrote:You guys are the best I’ve been trying to find vantage points to take decent shots of the downtown skyline and those are some awesome shots.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Come on now Framer. A 400' residential or hotel tower has never been built in St. Louis and a 400' commercial office tower hasn't been built in 30 years. The second most recent 400 footer is currently adding 1,400,000 sq.ft. of vacant space to Downtown's inventory.framer wrote: I'd be disappointed with anything less than 400' on the Northeast lot. That's the place to really make a mark on the skyline.
I like the enthusiasm, but there are any number of ways that those 3 remaining blocks can continue to transform add the neighborhood and constitute a great design without going above 20 or 25 stories.
- 2,386
^100 Kingshighway is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 400'.
If the central corridor keeps chugging along. I imagine we will get some skyline changing buildings in our lifetime.
No building was above 375FT.goat314 wrote: St. Louis' skyline is so stubby that a few buildings within the 200-300 ft range will likely still have a noticeable effect on the skyline. I'm guessing the building on the Northeast lot will be around a 400 footer then.
It appears that 2 Cardinal Way was proposed to be a floor or three shorter than 1 CW. However, it appears from the other comments that the plans have changed.Elek.borrelli wrote: Can we remember this old plan for Ball Park Village for a second? The northeast tower would stand approximately 410 feet if built followed by the one west of it standing at 360 feet. Then you would have One Cardinal Way south of both to complete the trio. Next, include a 600-foot office tower with 2000 new employees plus the residents of the other towers and you have yourself a completely new downtown. I remain optimistic with what BPV Phase III has to offer; I think it's going to be good. Maybe no that good, but still enough to change the city.
- 6,123
Not to pick too many nits, but . . .wabash wrote:Come on now Framer. A 400' residential or hotel tower has never been built in St. Louis and a 400' commercial office tower hasn't been built in 30 years. The second most recent 400 footer is currently adding 1,400,000 sq.ft. of vacant space to Downtown's inventory.framer wrote: I'd be disappointed with anything less than 400' on the Northeast lot. That's the place to really make a mark on the skyline.
I like the enthusiasm, but there are any number of ways that those 3 remaining blocks can continue to transform add the neighborhood and constitute a great design without going above 20 or 25 stories.
Carondelet Plaza in Clayton is 409'. And as already mentioned, 100 will come very close to that mark. And there's a passle of residential buildings above 300' in town, including the Roberts Tower, the Park Plaza, and Park East. And a bunch more that come close to 300, both new build and remodel. A 400' residential tower is absolutely not a bridge too far. And hasn't been for fifteen years. Do we absolutely need it? No, probably not. I'd rather have ten or fifteen new 300' buildings than one 600' building, if that was the choice. But it's a false choice. There's enough market to support some daring.
- 596
From my knowledge there’s only 2 buildings that are over 400’ in Downtown that’s the Leclede Gas building and the US Bank Building so we’re long over due either way we’re fortunate for BPV and whatever the phases will consist of specially in height and I don’t think any of us will know until Cordish and Dewitt make final announcements and renderings.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^There are 5, including Met Square, AT&T and Eagleton.
^^ I was referring to the City. And I’m not saying it’s outlandish or out of the realm of possibility for a 400’ to go there. Just a bit extreme to say one would be disappointed with anything short of a boundary breaking building or an office building that joins a collection of 400’+ office towers that have had what can generously be described as mixed success. A dense, thoughtful design at a lower height for the remaining blocks could be wholly undisappointing imo.
^^ I was referring to the City. And I’m not saying it’s outlandish or out of the realm of possibility for a 400’ to go there. Just a bit extreme to say one would be disappointed with anything short of a boundary breaking building or an office building that joins a collection of 400’+ office towers that have had what can generously be described as mixed success. A dense, thoughtful design at a lower height for the remaining blocks could be wholly undisappointing imo.
My hope for a 400 footer in that particular spot is based on the composition of the classic St. Louis Skyline shot. It would really help bring the south side of Downtown into balance with the north.
- 596
I already know we have three 500 footers but what I’m saying is The Leclede Gas Building is 401’ and the US Bank Building is 484’ those are the only 2 buildings that are in the 400s in height downtown. Adding a 3rd or 4th would balance the skyline out some however I’m not picky and am fortunate we live in a area that are seeing some modest construction
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 339
I don't see why not. This is the last of the Cardinal's land so why not build something that will hold more.framer wrote: My hope for a 400 footer in that particular spot is based on the composition of the classic St. Louis Skyline shot. It would really help bring the south side of Downtown into balance with the north.
- 1,792
Honestly i would be kind of surprised if they end up blocking the view of the old courthouse form behind Home plate. If I was going tall I would do it on the Northwest corner and stair step down to the northeast parcel to preserve that sight-line to the courthouse. But hey maybe that's just me.
- 6,123
^I'm not sure they care about sightlines from the stadium to the courthouse quite so much as they care about sightlines from their buildings into the stadium. And anything with enough height to give you any view over the phase one food court is going to start blocking the courthouse. I suspect it's really a question of what they're marketing. Views of the arch are iconic. Nearly everybody in the western world has seen that, even if they don't know where it is. (I took some joy from being able to point to a prominent picture of our fair city on the wall of the consulate in Saigon. There were only three or four other cities pictured, so it's kind of a big deal. New York. Washington DC. Maybe San Francisco. Just possibly maybe Chicago. And that's about it. We have a skyline the nation officially promotes internationally. No joke. The whole country is proud of it and wants a piece of it, even if some folks run it down when they think we're looking.) The courthouse? Outside of St. Louis and some really geeky architecture and history types I doubt it's known at all.
Anyway . . . I too would be more than a little disappointed, and indeed a touch surprised if they don't go tall on that NE lot. That's the money maker. And to make money they need height. They might not go four hundred. Depends on what they think the market will support. But if BPV1 sells well enough they will doubtless enlarge BPV2. Sightline to the dome be damned. I really think that might be the 400' residential tower, even if the renderings don't show it . . . yet.
(And yes, you said the city. But let's be honest here, the apartment market downtown is about as healthy and even larger. Nobody has had to go particularly tall yet because there's so much space to convert. But apartments with a ball park view are special. Limiting it to the city is, frankly, the nit that needed picking. If you can justify it in Clayton or the Central West End you can almost certainly justify it across the street from the baseball temple. We love our baseball gods around here. More even than most.)
Anyway, time and Cordish will tell.
Anyway . . . I too would be more than a little disappointed, and indeed a touch surprised if they don't go tall on that NE lot. That's the money maker. And to make money they need height. They might not go four hundred. Depends on what they think the market will support. But if BPV1 sells well enough they will doubtless enlarge BPV2. Sightline to the dome be damned. I really think that might be the 400' residential tower, even if the renderings don't show it . . . yet.
(And yes, you said the city. But let's be honest here, the apartment market downtown is about as healthy and even larger. Nobody has had to go particularly tall yet because there's so much space to convert. But apartments with a ball park view are special. Limiting it to the city is, frankly, the nit that needed picking. If you can justify it in Clayton or the Central West End you can almost certainly justify it across the street from the baseball temple. We love our baseball gods around here. More even than most.)
Anyway, time and Cordish will tell.
I think Symphonicpoet pretty much nailed it with a pretty convincing argument as far as where the one place you will see a +400' residential tower built. I wouldn't be surprised if 300 N. Broadway doesn't come back alive if Cardinal One leases well but probably in the realm of Cardinal One height. I really like the idea of Drury Landing hotel/residential tower overlooking the Arch grounds but also think Drury might have missed the opportunity to get something going in the current economic cycle. But the reality is that a BPV signature tower on northeast corner looking into the ballpark is as prime as you get in the region and maybe the state. The only other spot in the region comparable IMO is Koplar's Kingshighway & Lindell property next to One Hundred overlooking Forest Park & views that the site offers of the region. Would love to see that as well. So got four spots but as betting man I would put my money on above.symphonicpoet wrote: (And yes, you said the city. But let's be honest here, the apartment market downtown is about as healthy and even larger. Nobody has had to go particularly tall yet because there's so much space to convert. But apartments with a ball park view are special. Limiting it to the city is, frankly, the nit that needed picking. If you can justify it in Clayton or the Central West End you can almost certainly justify it across the street from the baseball temple. We love our baseball gods around here. More even than most.)
Anyway, time and Cordish will tell.
- 1,792
^^maybe...
I am pretty sure they are interested in making money.
It just seems weird to me that if stadium views were such a slam dunk, why did they build a 2 story bar mall instead of a high rise. Up to now they have preserved that sight line to the courthouse and it seems a little odd to me that they would be blocking it now. And citing market conditions at the time seems like a cop-out.
I am pretty sure they are interested in making money.
It just seems weird to me that if stadium views were such a slam dunk, why did they build a 2 story bar mall instead of a high rise. Up to now they have preserved that sight line to the courthouse and it seems a little odd to me that they would be blocking it now. And citing market conditions at the time seems like a cop-out.
- 2,929
We mustn't forget the severity of the 2008 economic collapse and how that led to massive disruption in commercial real estate. They went short perhaps because they didn't have the financial confidence of building a new tower there. Particularly, they were likely hard-pressed on securing funding to build a tower then from any bank. No one at the time wanted to do new luxury residential high rise rentals. Hell, I was reading about 909 Chestnut (formerly One AT&T Center) the other day and noticed that a Bear Stearns affiliate was one of the primary owners of the tower before the collapse, and they were arguably the biggest idiots of the 2008 collapse, going all-in long on all sorts of domestic real estate while simultaneously selling a ton of credit default swaps.STLEnginerd wrote:It just seems weird to me that if stadium views were such a slam dunk, why did they build a 2 story bar mall instead of a high rise. Up to now they have preserved that sight line to the courthouse and it seems a little odd to me that they would be blocking it now. And citing market conditions at the time seems like a cop-out.
Then again, maybe Cordish and the Cardinals just changed their minds on site designs and could now prefer to have an office or residential tower go in along the northern blocks of BPV (i.e. center block in front of the Hilton's western tower) rather than the southern half of it (i.e. the 2-story retail building). I honestly think it'd look more appealing for new BPV towers to have something short in front of them, providing more scale while still able to sell site-lines farther back.
As for the NE corner, I anticipate a large residential tower going in there. I bet they'll try to preserve HIlton 360's views into the stadium while building on the eastern end of that site footprint, maybe have some western porches able to view into Busch III. They'll build it tall; I expect a minimum 350'. Sure, they'd block views of the Old Courthouse, but they'll make money from the apartments that'll be hundreds of feet up with a straight shot down the center-left outfield. Cordish won't make money bypassing prime real estate for every unique view. Meanwhile, I'd also anticipate they'd want to build a tall office on the NW site footprint, something similar or matching what was accidentally leaked when Phase 2 was announced. If they're smart, they'll build that at least 300' up, with rooftop tenant signage visible from inside the stadium. Let's hope they're smart.
- 6,123
Themed upscale entertainment is kind of what Cordish does. Many of their developments seem to feature nothing else. Even their headquarters is right over a "Live!" branded entertainment complex. It doesn't surprise me in the least that after the Centene deal fell through they built the bar-mall first. Previous to Ball Park Village and KC Power and Light I'm not even sure they'd done much that had residential or major office components. (Beyond their own offices, anyway.) So yes, I'd very much say they were feeling out the market. Build safe first. Build what you know. Make some money. Do the more speculative stuff later.STLEnginerd wrote: ^^maybe...
I am pretty sure they are interested in making money.
It just seems weird to me that if stadium views were such a slam dunk, why did they build a 2 story bar mall instead of a high rise. Up to now they have preserved that sight line to the courthouse and it seems a little odd to me that they would be blocking it now. And citing market conditions at the time seems like a cop-out.
I think it's obvious how the sightlines into the stadium make money for Cordish, and by extension DeWitt and the Cardinals. How do views out to the courthouse affect them? Can they sell more seats? Does it raise ticket prices? Do you go to the game to see the courthouse? I've rarely even noticed the thing much after first walking in. Or even the arch. I'm there to look at the ball field, not the buildings downtown. I like the buildings, but about half of them are usually behind you anyway. The short version: it's a great sightline and a neat photo, but I think get it while you can. I just don't see the economics in the thing for any of the major players. And even ten stories would probably block that view, since you're down in a hole anyway, and the courthouse isn't that tall, really. And I'd be utterly stunned if they went ten stories. The only thing I could envision them building there that would leave the view is a parking garage. And I expect they probably will build that . . . as the podium to the tower above it. (After all, the resident's aren't paying so their cars can watch the game.)
Also . . . the three story bar has views into the stadium. Particularly off it's generous rooftop terrace. (Which basically constitutes a modest fourth story.)