SoulardD wrote:^ -- High-rises? Mid-rises? Did I read incorrectly or are we getting no residential and no commercial in phase 1? If that's the case I'd say we're getting No-rises.
Phase 1 includes 100,000 sq. ft. of office space. However, all of the mid-rises shown would seem to take up a lot more than 100,000 sq. ft., unless 3 or 4 of the bottom floors is retail.
My guess is we'll see something similar, but probably half the height.
SoulardD wrote:^ -- High-rises? Mid-rises? Did I read incorrectly or are we getting no residential and no commercial in phase 1? If that's the case I'd say we're getting No-rises.
Phase 1 includes 100,000 sq. ft. of office space. However, all of the mid-rises shown would seem to take up a lot more than 100,000 sq. ft., unless 3 or 4 of the bottom floors is retail.
My guess is we'll see something similar, but probably half the height.
Once again St. Louisans are getting screwed. I say pull public funding for this project! Bill DeWitt can go to Hell.
SoulardD wrote:^ -- High-rises? Mid-rises? Did I read incorrectly or are we getting no residential and no commercial in phase 1? If that's the case I'd say we're getting No-rises.
Yeah, that's why I emphasized the "what we were supposed to get aspect" in my post.
For those of you who maybe haven't seen the "Forum Mission" posted in the "Urban Living" area on this site, here it is:
"forum mission
Members should expect mostly positive news and information to be disseminated here. This board is primarily meant to accentuate the positive regarding St. Louis as well as a place to exchange information. This is not a complaint board and not the place to post your rants. Serious users of this forum are interested in informed discussions. While everyone won't necessarily share the same opinions, we hope members will at least make an attempt to use logic and verifiable information in your posts. Lively, intelligent discussion is what we're about. "
I went to the meeting Cordish put on this past winter in their offices and saw the model of what they have planned for Ballpark Village. The meeting was open to the public and I heard about it through the Downtown Residence Association. My understanding is that Phase I would inlclude all the retail space plus the bases for all the future towers and that one or more tower could be built in Phase I if the demand is there. Cordish is being very mindful of saturation. It doesn't do them or other downtown residential project any good to build towers for the sake of building towers and I believe we have to trust their judgment in this regard.
What I saw looked fantastic and I think we'll be extremely happy with this project in the end. I don't have a problem with Trent showing a rendition of what he'd like to see. That encourages discussion which I think is great. Let's not, however, get bogged down in negative comments that don't seem to be warranted at this point.
Give these guys a chance to do what they do well. Look at other projects they've completed to see what we can expect here. I mentioned earlier that I've seen the harbor in Baltimore which was a Cordish project and it's fantastic. I have no reason to believe they won't do the same here and we should be happy that Cordish is the developer of this project.
That's a good reminder. I'm still very optimistic we will get what we were promised. I think a lot of the frustrations are stemming from the length of time this is taking after it was stated many times BPV would start sooner, and it seems they are pushing off somethings till later phases. I'll say it again- I would really like to see Cordish say exactly what they have planned for the first phase. Then we can debate what is going on with real facts, not just what we are seeing as outsiders.
Thanks, Matt. I also agree that the wait has been longer than expected and I hope Cordish makes an announcement soon as to their final plan. This is a huge project, though, and getting it right up front will be worth the wait if it means a better finished Ballpark Village.
St. Louis has no lack of wealth or lack of a fan base when it comes to the Cardinals. I'm of the belief that if a residential tower is built right across from the stadium in Phase I, it would sell quickly regardless of saturation in the rest of downtown, but that's just me (and I've seen a few others with the same belief on here). I can understand the argument for pushing the towers back to let mid-rise buildings go in front of them, but if towers are going to be built they'll have to have that premiere location directly across from the ballpark and they'll be pricey because of it.
Thanks. I too thought we were getting a little negative lately on this project (although I am not against some negativity, on some projects it is warranted - ahem, TBD). I know Cordish is trying to back off some of the original statements and that is something to debate, but I have not really seen that much indication that we will not get a great final product.
On the towers, obviously, we all want construction on the towers to start yesterday, but they were never part of Phase I and understandably so. What good does a huge residential or office tower do you if Pujols' Pond is still next door? Look at all the infrastructure work that had to be done on Washington Ave. before we started getting new tower construction like Sky House. Also, there is no way they will get a tower built for the All Star Game, so you might as well focus on what can be completed for that big event.
Any project this big will take a lot of time to plan. Cordish was contracted by the Cardinals to put out a stunning display of the possibilities so that the Cardinals could get their new stadium. At that point, there were more drawings than there were plans in place. The goal at that time was to get approval for the stadium, and Ballpark Village was a secondary matter at best. Now that the stadium is complete (granted, it did not take that long to put the finishing touches on it!!), we all expected work to immediately begin on BPV, but the reality was that it was still in the planning phases. And, given the recent downturn in the housing market, it is no surprise if Cordish drags it feet a little to get a better feel for demand.
Like everyone else, I am a little concerned about how the Cardinals spend money, or more appropriately, don't spend money. But, there is simply no disputing the value of that land next to the stadium. It is the best plot in Saint Louis and something good will become of it. Even the Cardinals can't screw this up.
^I think that the original plan did call for one of the towers. But I think you have a good point, Washington Avenue needed to get the infrastructure in order until it was able to build up. Granted there was some different issues. But maybe one of the fact that a tower isn't in plan for the first phase is because it has been pushed back so many times. Maybe they've ran out of time to add a tower for the first phase.
I'm glad for the positive posts there, you guys were starting to get me worried.
I don't think any worries about obstructed views of the Arch from the ballpark are warranted. For one, The set up of the Arch Grounds, the Arch would still be visible from most points in the ballpark. For another thing, I'd rather have crazy density, than a great view from the ballpark. If they can fit 50 high rise buildings on that lot, I say go for it (obvious exaggeration). The most important thing is to get business and residential going in all parts of downtown.
trent wrote:I don't think any worries about obstructed views of the Arch from the ballpark are warranted. For one, The set up of the Arch Grounds, the Arch would still be visible from most points in the ballpark. For another thing, I'd rather have crazy density, than a great view from the ballpark. If they can fit 50 high rise buildings on that lot, I say go for it (obvious exaggeration). The most important thing is to get business and residential going in all parts of downtown.
Here here!! I think people who Beach and Moan about obstructed views are just anti change. So your view changes, and now you see beautiful new highrises and the city improves. Get over it. Things like this happen all the time all over the world.
I personally prefer my view of the arch partially obstructed. For one, it means there is more density downtown, but I also like the views of the arch peaking out in different ways all the time.
Agreed, the view of the arch is from the East, that's why it's called the Gateway to the WEST and not to the EAST. That, I'm happy to say, is likely to never change. Build 30 thousand foot buildings behind the arch, it will still look amazing from the East, likely better with every new tall building that is built.[/u]
^ If you guys want to see a real skyline, check out downtown Chicago. It's beautiful and dense, surrounded by the awesome Millenium Park. And I bet they don't quibble about whether they can see all of the Sears or Hancock Towers.
The arch is a neat relic from the past. Let's get over ourselves. It's time to move forward.
innov8ion wrote:^ If you guys want to see a real skyline, check out downtown Chicago. It's beautiful and dense, surrounded by the awesome Millenium Park. And I bet they don't quibble about whether they can see all of the Sears or Hancock Towers.
The arch is a neat relic from the past. Let's get over ourselves. It's time to move forward.
Headline: Chicago has a more significant skyline than St. Louis
Thanks for the news. I would love to see a couple 800' plus towers north and south of the arch to frame it as Sarinen envisioned. Anyway, the StL skyline is probably more recognizable that city in Illinois.
innov8ion wrote:^ If you guys want to see a real skyline, check out downtown Chicago. It's beautiful and dense, surrounded by the awesome Millenium Park. And I bet they don't quibble about whether they can see all of the Sears or Hancock Towers.
The arch is a neat relic from the past. Let's get over ourselves. It's time to move forward.
I dunno about a relic from the past. It's a national monument, one of the coolest in my opinion, and will be forever emblazoned on the front of our skyline...which is great. How about getting some new developers in here with new ideas that might actually get going as opposed to TBD and MW. These two both seem to not be very interested in actually producing a product. I think it's about time for some out of towners to start investing in the city. Always pullin for the local boys, but the job just isn't getting done.
MattnSTL wrote:...but I also like the views of the arch peaking out in different ways all the time.
Me too, which is why I wouldn't mind seeing construction on the Gateway Mall west of Tucker Boulevard even if I'm pretty sure that will never happen. And even if the proposed towers get built at Ballpark Village, there will still be an unobstructed view of the Gateway Arch for most fans inside Busch Stadium.
Given the uncertainty of Cordish's plans, I think an obstructed view in the area of Ballpark Village would most certainly qualify as a good problem.
innov8ion wrote:^ If you guys want to see a real skyline, check out downtown Chicago. It's beautiful and dense, surrounded by the awesome Millenium Park. And I bet they don't quibble about whether they can see all of the Sears or Hancock Towers.
The arch is a neat relic from the past. Let's get over ourselves. It's time to move forward.
Maybe we should skip the me-too U.S. high-rise look-alike skyline, and go with something bigger and more unique than Chicago's. How about using this as our model.
We have the river, we have the central location, we have the French heritage, we have the tall iconic dominating landmark. We are the Paris of America. Chicago is more the Frankfurt of America.
Time to get this thread back on track with some oldies but goodies... I assume to many of you these may be new. I think they mght be already taking reservation for the tower residential units (for certain VIP's). Keep in mind market conditions could change things...
innov8ion wrote:^ If you guys want to see a real skyline, check out downtown Chicago. It's beautiful and dense, surrounded by the awesome Millenium Park. And I bet they don't quibble about whether they can see all of the Sears or Hancock Towers.
The arch is a neat relic from the past. Let's get over ourselves. It's time to move forward.
Wait!!! Chicago has a downtown?
Yeah, but nobody goes down there anymore. It's too dangerous.
What I would still like clarification on, based on BPE235's post, is are those mid-rises still part of the plan for Phase I? It just seems like too much space for just offices, and some of them look like they have metal decks jetting from them - which seems residential only to me.
Now that Cordish has said no residential in Phase I, how much does the mid-rise area of this change? It really looked fantastic with the mid-rise density alone.
