You brought up the question about breaking the pre-established height limit of the arch...What about building the next tallest building in midtown, similar to the placement of the ESB in New York? I would obviously prefer it to be in the CBD, but having it in midtown might be a pretty cool view, and could spur new development in midtown, hopefully creating a connector between downtown and CWE. Any thoughts?
You know what drives me crazy. Talk about comparing the St. Louis slowness of development. Just a little other slap on the face to St. Louis again to wake up and smell the coffee, and to show again the greatness of Chicago who "gets it", look at this thread:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/chicago/ ... -boom.html
It is UNBELIEVABLE all the things that are going up in Chicago. And it's funny because it seems so easy for things to be built here. In stl, they're squabbling over some 27 story proposed building for Centene downtown, and Chicago is building X amount of buildings over 500 ft. Most of the buildings are above 700 ft, and puts the 500 ft to shame....and we can't even hope for a 500 ft tower! SO SAD....IMO.
No wonder so many people view st. louis as pathetic old has beens.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/chicago/ ... -boom.html
It is UNBELIEVABLE all the things that are going up in Chicago. And it's funny because it seems so easy for things to be built here. In stl, they're squabbling over some 27 story proposed building for Centene downtown, and Chicago is building X amount of buildings over 500 ft. Most of the buildings are above 700 ft, and puts the 500 ft to shame....and we can't even hope for a 500 ft tower! SO SAD....IMO.
No wonder so many people view st. louis as pathetic old has beens.
Right, those are awesome. But Chicago has a little bit of a head start. For one, overwhelming demand for downtown office real-estate. Second, a major public transportation system already in place. Third, vibrant and dense neighborhoods that immediately surround and smoothly connect to downtown rather than the deserted ring of highways, parking lots and vacant buildings that seems to seperate downtown St Louis from its neighborhoods.
It's easy to say they built this building because they wanted to, but the truth is that someone approached Chicago and wanted to build. In St Louis, we have an uphill battle to stir demand. It's not that easy. You don't just decide to be Chicago. You need lots and lots of money. Haven't you plaid Sim City?
I agree with your optimism though. I don't want to resign my hopes.
It's easy to say they built this building because they wanted to, but the truth is that someone approached Chicago and wanted to build. In St Louis, we have an uphill battle to stir demand. It's not that easy. You don't just decide to be Chicago. You need lots and lots of money. Haven't you plaid Sim City?
I agree with your optimism though. I don't want to resign my hopes.
How to Make StL Greater? Hmmm...
I think they should (build/create) (more/taller/larger/better/nicer) _____________!
I think they should (build/create) (more/taller/larger/better/nicer) _____________!
- 2,386
stlmike wrote:Right, those are awesome. But Chicago has a little bit of a head start. For one, overwhelming demand for downtown office real-estate. Second, a major public transportation system already in place. Third, vibrant and dense neighborhoods that immediately surround and smoothly connect to downtown rather than the deserted ring of highways, parking lots and vacant buildings that seems to seperate downtown St Louis from its neighborhoods.
It's easy to say they built this building because they wanted to, but the truth is that someone approached Chicago and wanted to build. In St Louis, we have an uphill battle to stir demand. It's not that easy. You don't just decide to be Chicago. You need lots and lots of money. Haven't you plaid Sim City?
I agree with your optimism though. I don't want to resign my hopes.
Actually, this statement is almost entirely inaccurate. Almost all of the skyscrapers going up right now in Chicago are residential/hotel based. There is an addition to Blue Cross, and 300 N. Lasalle, but other than that almost all of the current construction is a mix of residential and hotel, including all of their 8 tallest currently proposed or under construction. (fairly sure on the accuracy of that, might be more than the top 8.)
- 101
My 2 favorite quotes...
The only constant is change. Heraclitus
Be They. Me
The only constant is change. Heraclitus
Be They. Me
- 2,386
Our favorite little neighbors to the North
After viewing that, how can one possibly resist the urge to break that 630 barrier?[/list]
After viewing that, how can one possibly resist the urge to break that 630 barrier?[/list]
phoaddict wrote:I f'ing love chicago, that picture is amazing.
haha 2012. by 2012, the city of st. louis will MAYBE have a new building taller than 400 ft. so sad.
So are you going to help grow the economy so those tall buildings can be built? The beatings shall continue until morale improves.
and this is probably more the truth than any of the "hopeful" renderings that i made.i put up pictures, try to have a bit of passion for what st. louis could like if we make good decisions, and people just laugh. they are the plague of st. louis -- the pessimists...
- 214
Somewhere I have a postcard of downtown STL that I bought in the late '80s showing a very similar view to the Chicago 2012 picture, with One Bell Center and the top of the Arch poking through a low cloud layer at dawn. I can't say I care for the the "drill" building in the Chicago pic - it looks like some subterranean monster is burrowing up from beneath!
Like Innov8tion and Stlmike say, there's no point building a skyscraper if there are no businesses actually clamoring for space in one, and no corporation is going to relocate to St. Louis just so it can have its offices in a new high-rise, no matter how eye-catching it may be. First find a way to attract the companies, etc., and then build the skyscrapers to house them.
I yield to no one in my respect for skyscrapers, though I must say I far prefer the '20s style to the glass-sided edifices of recent decades. As my screen-name might indicate, I'd love to see the city dominated by giant art deco towers, but as the real Hugh Ferriss knew all too well, it's the economy that ultimately dictates what actually gets built, not the dreams of the architect (or the marketing department).
Like Innov8tion and Stlmike say, there's no point building a skyscraper if there are no businesses actually clamoring for space in one, and no corporation is going to relocate to St. Louis just so it can have its offices in a new high-rise, no matter how eye-catching it may be. First find a way to attract the companies, etc., and then build the skyscrapers to house them.
I yield to no one in my respect for skyscrapers, though I must say I far prefer the '20s style to the glass-sided edifices of recent decades. As my screen-name might indicate, I'd love to see the city dominated by giant art deco towers, but as the real Hugh Ferriss knew all too well, it's the economy that ultimately dictates what actually gets built, not the dreams of the architect (or the marketing department).
True, but business grows by marketing. And economies are based on business. The city needs to learn how to market itself, economically or socially etc, in order to attract those businesses.
- 1,517
Tall buildings should not be a priority. New Orleans has plenty of pretty tall structures in its downtown, but it's the off-the-skyline-radar French Quarter that is the town's heavyweight.
I would argue that a better built-environment argument for saving St. Louis is preservation. No more tearing structures down for strip malls. The only demolition must involve construction of something widely deemed superior to what it replaced, with appropriate historic review.
By trumpeting how awesome St. Louis's architectural vernacular is, and by restoring some of the streetscapes and investing in the built environment, we would attract just as much if not more attention than if we built a skyscraper that will empty out and become Class B in 20 years or less.
I would also argue that one of the greatest issues facing St. Louis is its inability to support local retail. Whether a function of the need to increase density on St. Louis's major streets or of chain-brand loyalty or, more likely, a combo of both, the lack of a vibrant shopping district in the city is striking. And I don't mean something super upscale. I just mean a whole row of commercial/mixed use buildings, several miles long even, of pleasant mixes of shops and restaurants--where visitors feel safe and excited all at once.
These are larger built-environment level problems for St. Louis.
And, of course, social issues abound. These are HUGE drains on city image that, of course, trump any idea that skyscrapers would make St. Louis appear to be a world class city.
I feel that attempt is misguided. Let's focus on making St. Louis an awesome mid-sized city, with steady population growth and densification.
I would argue that a better built-environment argument for saving St. Louis is preservation. No more tearing structures down for strip malls. The only demolition must involve construction of something widely deemed superior to what it replaced, with appropriate historic review.
By trumpeting how awesome St. Louis's architectural vernacular is, and by restoring some of the streetscapes and investing in the built environment, we would attract just as much if not more attention than if we built a skyscraper that will empty out and become Class B in 20 years or less.
I would also argue that one of the greatest issues facing St. Louis is its inability to support local retail. Whether a function of the need to increase density on St. Louis's major streets or of chain-brand loyalty or, more likely, a combo of both, the lack of a vibrant shopping district in the city is striking. And I don't mean something super upscale. I just mean a whole row of commercial/mixed use buildings, several miles long even, of pleasant mixes of shops and restaurants--where visitors feel safe and excited all at once.
These are larger built-environment level problems for St. Louis.
And, of course, social issues abound. These are HUGE drains on city image that, of course, trump any idea that skyscrapers would make St. Louis appear to be a world class city.
I feel that attempt is misguided. Let's focus on making St. Louis an awesome mid-sized city, with steady population growth and densification.
- 104
Here's where I agree fully with Matt. St. Louis planners (yes you, SLDC) need to do much better at fostering such an environment.
I had very high hopes when the Washington Ave. renovation kicked in. What did we get for it? A lot of aesthetically cold storefronts filled with professional offices (at street level! - how silly) and a few upscale restaurants and boutique shops.
We need a reason to convince people that the travel to and parking hassle of downtown is worth it. Washington is still quaint enough that it could be a fantastic themed avenue for holiday shopping. The commitment from the city and building owners just isn't there though. So sad. Having part of Tucker lopped off nearby doesn't help matters much either.
I had very high hopes when the Washington Ave. renovation kicked in. What did we get for it? A lot of aesthetically cold storefronts filled with professional offices (at street level! - how silly) and a few upscale restaurants and boutique shops.
We need a reason to convince people that the travel to and parking hassle of downtown is worth it. Washington is still quaint enough that it could be a fantastic themed avenue for holiday shopping. The commitment from the city and building owners just isn't there though. So sad. Having part of Tucker lopped off nearby doesn't help matters much either.
^Patience, my friend. We're getting there. Washington is still in the process of renovation--it's not finished yet. We would all like to see downtown be a vibrant, exiting place right now, but it takes time. If you compare downtown to what it was five years ago, and then take into consideration all the projects currently underway and those in the pipeline, I don't think you would have the attitude you do.
- 104
Hrmm...steve..."pipeline"....sales? Could it be that you, in particular, have a vested interest? Did you recently switch teams? Or, have I guessed your identity wrong.
- 2,386
I'm not sure what's going in the last exchange there.
That said, Steve has a very valid point. The downtown area has changed immensly in the last 5 years, and there are plenty are great projects in the "pipeline" as well as those that have started construction. This applies to myself as well, but I think there are going to be a lot of changes in the attitudes of this metro when there are 5 tower cranes in the skyline this time next year.
That said, Steve has a very valid point. The downtown area has changed immensly in the last 5 years, and there are plenty are great projects in the "pipeline" as well as those that have started construction. This applies to myself as well, but I think there are going to be a lot of changes in the attitudes of this metro when there are 5 tower cranes in the skyline this time next year.
- 11K
steve wrote:^Patience, my friend. We're getting there. Washington is still in the process of renovation--it's not finished yet. We would all like to see downtown be a vibrant, exiting place right now, but it takes time. If you compare downtown to what it was five years ago, and then take into consideration all the projects currently underway and those in the pipeline, I don't think you would have the attitude you do.
Absolutely true. Why does anyone think that these things happen overnight? Not a single one of the examples people use here to show other vibrant cities/neighborhoods happened overnight, or even in a few years. Anyone who understands was Washington Avenue and other parts of downtown were in 2000 are very excited about the changes so far and excited for what is coming.
Patience is a good thing. What I fear though, is that people's patience will go out though. It seems in stl, people have been patient for a loooong time for changes to come around, and now don't have hope due to too many wolf cries...
I think st. louis needs more world series wins, more things to boost the self esteem of its citizens. The more pride stl has, the better it looks. This thread is essentially about doing things to boost that pride.
I think st. louis needs more world series wins, more things to boost the self esteem of its citizens. The more pride stl has, the better it looks. This thread is essentially about doing things to boost that pride.
- 11K
phoaddict wrote:I think st. louis needs more world series wins, more things to boost the self esteem of its citizens.
I guess it's a miracle that the north side of Chicago hasn't committed mass suicide.