Was stating this is is literally one of the oldest buildings in the entire region supposed to belittle its importance?shadrach wrote: So we’re letting a county courthouse that started construction in 1816 determine the placement and height of modern skyscrapers?
No, not belittling (though, yeah, it sounds like it) Not sure why there’s some need to preserve its view from all angles. You can only get a good view of Independence Hall in Philadelphia from one vantage point. You can prominently see the Old Court House from Kiener, from the Arch grounds, and from Illinois. That’s plenty. I’m saying build towers where it’s economically best (views into the stadium) and don’t worry about obstructing views from inside the stadium.
- 1,864
Knowing Cordish, their priorities are to maximize the views into the stadium from their properties (and to a lesser extent the views of the Arch from the N and E parts of the property. They are not going to put a strong emphasis on keeping the sight lines of the courthouse from inside the stadium.
The importance of the view into the stadium is overstated as well. One Cardinal Way has a reasonable view, but you would need binoculars to actually watch the game from any 200-300' balcony or terrace in Phase III, not to mention that many of the views from a building on the northeast corner would be blocked by One Cardinal Way.
I do like the contrast between the the glass buildings, the Arch, One Cardinal Way, and the lit-up Old Courthouse at night. It really stands out on TV. Given that it is extremely unlikely that Phase III will have three buildings taller than 300', if I had my druthers I would say why not preserve the corridor and put the taller building(s) on the northwest corner and/or center parcel?
I do like the contrast between the the glass buildings, the Arch, One Cardinal Way, and the lit-up Old Courthouse at night. It really stands out on TV. Given that it is extremely unlikely that Phase III will have three buildings taller than 300', if I had my druthers I would say why not preserve the corridor and put the taller building(s) on the northwest corner and/or center parcel?
- 1,792
^haha i think I would park my car on the other side so it could look at the courthouse.After all, the resident's aren't paying so their cars can watch the game.
- 2,419
Just my 2 cents, but I don't think the Cardinals or Cordish give a flip about the Courthouse view.
They didn't care back in 2004 or whenever renderings were first made public, and they don't care now, 15 years later.
They didn't care back in 2004 or whenever renderings were first made public, and they don't care now, 15 years later.
^ nor should they in my opinion.
When it comes to Courthouse views maybe the better discussion is how do you get Peabody as anchor tenant for a new slender/tall BPV office tower on the northwest corner or or at least over to ATT building and the associated cost of taking down their current HQ.
When it comes to Courthouse views maybe the better discussion is how do you get Peabody as anchor tenant for a new slender/tall BPV office tower on the northwest corner or or at least over to ATT building and the associated cost of taking down their current HQ.
- 596
Why is the courthouse even in the discussion? I feel if people are that concerned about courthouse and Arch views then get off your lazy behinds and go explore downtown go up the Arch go inside the courthouse take pics. I for one don’t care about the views from the stadium they are beautiful however just because people are a bit obsessed with certain view points should never dictate a development. I say to Cordish and Dewitt build something that stands out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 6,123
^Hey now. I have numerous pictures of both courthouse and arch. And many buildings downtown. And even a few from inside the stadium, though not featuring either arch or courthouse, oddly. Did try to get a picture of a plane from in there, there was no way it was going to work with the short ass lens I had at the time.
Of course, I'm also advocating for Cordish to back that big ass tower up right to the stadium.
. . . Also, yes, you will need binoculars to watch the game from the towers. Probably also from the upper deck. That's pretty normal. Take your binoculars. They have uses beyond counting floors on high rise buildings.
Of course, I'm also advocating for Cordish to back that big ass tower up right to the stadium.
. . . Also, yes, you will need binoculars to watch the game from the towers. Probably also from the upper deck. That's pretty normal. Take your binoculars. They have uses beyond counting floors on high rise buildings.
From what perspective?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.
If from the ballpark, then the biggest impact on the skyline for a tower would definitely be somewhere on the northwest corner or center parcels, as it would fill in the gap between Met Square and the ATT towers (and hide the Gateway One debacle).
If from the east or west down Market St., then it really wouldn't make much difference.
Good point. 700' away versus 250' to second base from the upper deck...symphonicpoet wrote:
. . . Also, yes, you will need binoculars to watch the game from the towers. Probably also from the upper deck. That's pretty normal. Take your binoculars. They have uses beyond counting floors on high rise buildings.
I watched the Cards win a World Series from the upper deck, and could see David Eckstein's pearly whites as they handed him the MVP trophy and keys to a yellow Corvette, no visual augmentation required.
- 339
These are some photos of BPV I took earlier today. A lot of work has been done since I last went 2 weeks ago. The glass on OCW and PWC is looking good!
+1
I'm thinking about the classic view from the East Side.urbanitas wrote:From what perspective?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.
- 6,123
The straight line distance from the back of the upper deck to second is every bit of 350', and that's not accounting for elevation. The top row of seats is easily north of a hundred feet above the playing field, and probably a good deal more than that, so the actual distance is probably more like 375' and it could be over 400' in places. Mind you, that plays against the towers too, but let's be honest, lots of people take lots of binoculars to lots of games. I've done it myself. Used to take a radio too, back in the day. It's fun. Makes the experience more interesting if you're sitting way up in the nosebleed section. But if you really want to judge whether people will pay a premium for a view you really don't need to look any further than 360 on a game night or the price list for the apartments in BPV1. On an average weeknight in the summer 360 isn't too crowded, but on a game night it's standing room only. Packed. By all counts Cordish and the Cards are charging a nice premium for apartments with a stadium view. There is your answer.urbanitas wrote:Good point. 700' away versus 250' to second base from the upper deck...symphonicpoet wrote:
. . . Also, yes, you will need binoculars to watch the game from the towers. Probably also from the upper deck. That's pretty normal. Take your binoculars. They have uses beyond counting floors on high rise buildings.
I watched the Cards win a World Series from the upper deck, and could see David Eckstein's pearly whites as they handed him the MVP trophy and keys to a yellow Corvette, no visual augmentation required.
- 1,292
Is it just me, or is the construction just not having as big of an impact on the national broadcasts as I'd hoped? I watched some of last night's debacle of a game on ESPN, and even when they had outward-facing camera shots, it just... didn't do a whole lot, for me. Sure, you could see the cranes and everything, but... I dunno. It all just kind of 'blends in' with the background (the cityscape). Maybe that's a good thing?
Ah, so you were the guy at 360 sitting in a lawnchair next to the railing with the 1980s radio headphones and binoculars...symphonicpoet wrote:
The straight line distance from the back of the upper deck to second is every bit of 350', and that's not accounting for elevation. The top row of seats is easily north of a hundred feet above the playing field, and probably a good deal more than that, so the actual distance is probably more like 375' and it could be over 400' in places. Mind you, that plays against the towers too, but let's be honest, lots of people take lots of binoculars to lots of games. I've done it myself. Used to take a radio too, back in the day. It's fun. Makes the experience more interesting if you're sitting way up in the nosebleed section. But if you really want to judge whether people will pay a premium for a view you really don't need to look any further than 360 on a game night or the price list for the apartments in BPV1. On an average weeknight in the summer 360 isn't too crowded, but on a game night it's standing room only. Packed. By all counts Cordish and the Cards are charging a nice premium for apartments with a stadium view. There is your answer.
I don't think anything in the 400' range is going to look like much from the east side no matter where you put it in Ballpark Village. It would look about the same height as the Eagleton Courthouse on the shot Wolfpaw posted here. That's why that skyline shot always makes me cringe. Sure, the Arch looks supertall, but it makes everything else look short and squat, or disappear altogether. At BPV, you'd have to get close to Met Square's height, or better yet, resurrect the MW Tower, to have much impact from that vantage.framer wrote:I'm thinking about the classic view from the East Side.urbanitas wrote:From what perspective?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.
- 6,123
There is no way you could squeeze a lawnchair anywhere near the railing on the stadium side on a gameday, as it's pretty much wall to wall people. Have you been there on a gameday? It's nuts. Worse than the weekend crowd. You'll be standing in line even to get up there as they consistently hit the fire code capacity.urbanitas wrote:
Ah, so you were the guy at 360 sitting in a lawnchair next to the railing with the 1980s radio headphones and binoculars...
- 6,123
I think from the ballpark perspective it will start to stick out more soon. And it probably depends a bit on what angle they shoot. There are so few shots in the average broadcast up. Mostly just between innings for a second before or after the commercial. (I mostly see them on FSMW, mind. Maybe the ESPN coverage is different.)Trololzilla wrote: Is it just me, or is the construction just not having as big of an impact on the national broadcasts as I'd hoped? I watched some of last night's debacle of a game on ESPN, and even when they had outward-facing camera shots, it just... didn't do a whole lot, for me. Sure, you could see the cranes and everything, but... I dunno. It all just kind of 'blends in' with the background (the cityscape). Maybe that's a good thing?
- 1,292
Yeah, it could have to do with ESPN's trash broadcasts. Everything palette wise is muted and the visuals are rather dull because of it, but God forbid if they don't crank up the onfield mics enough to where everyone can hear individual beads of sweat drip from the players. Okay, that's exaggerating a bit, but not by much.
In any case, most broadcasts I've seen so far don't really point out the development at all, which is a bit odd as FSMW is the equivalent of Pravda for the Cards. You'd think they'd want to drum up interest and excitement for it solely for monetary reasons.
In any case, most broadcasts I've seen so far don't really point out the development at all, which is a bit odd as FSMW is the equivalent of Pravda for the Cards. You'd think they'd want to drum up interest and excitement for it solely for monetary reasons.
The impact from inside the stadium itself is massive. OWC is going to dominate that view in short order. Regarding telecasts I think it just depends on who is doing it. On the big national telecasts most of their "city shots" or whatever you want to call them are the standard St. Louis fare. The Arch as seen from the Illinois waterfront (I did make out the OCW crane on an NHL national broadcast the other day from this view...GO BLUES!), maybe the Art Museum, or some another downtown shot. Much of the national telecast itself is going to be focused on the field or in the stands. You're really only going to get a good look at BPV on a zoomed out shot that likely wouldn't last for more than 2-3 seconds anyway (and would likely have some ads floating by at the same time)...and I wouldn't expect ESPN to know enough about the project to comment on it.Trololzilla wrote: Yeah, it could have to do with ESPN's trash broadcasts. Everything palette wise is muted and the visuals are rather dull because of it, but God forbid if they don't crank up the onfield mics enough to where everyone can hear individual beads of sweat drip from the players. Okay, that's exaggerating a bit, but not by much.
In any case, most broadcasts I've seen so far don't really point out the development at all, which is a bit odd as FSMW is the equivalent of Pravda for the Cards. You'd think they'd want to drum up interest and excitement for it solely for monetary reasons.
Unfortunately I live in KC and am stuck with broadcasts for the garbage fire of a "team" known as the Royals, but on the few FSMW broadcasts I've seen in STL there has been some attention paid to what is coming at BPV. Early on in the season Dan M tied it in with a few other comments about how Downtown is booming right now. But I wouldn't expect even them to talk about it regularly on the local broadcasts either, they're there to talk baseball. It also doesn't help that the hotel and office portion aren't really visible from your standard TV view from inside the park either, those are more impactful when you're there in person. Once OCW picks up and really starts to take off they may get mentioned more. We also don't know what other broadcasters are saying either. A good friend of mine that lives in Denver said whenever the Rockies play in STL the Rockies announcers usually spend a little bit of time raving about BPV and how cool it is. BPV could very well be getting some decent play on TV and we just can't see it.
