Share
766
Super MemberSuper Member
766

PostNov 07, 2007#26

constant change wrote:...Green is more 'popular' than you realize, for reasons understood by more than just hippies....


Don't forget that companies nowdays must report their energy consumption -- both in total gigawatts consumed and as a ratio (watts consumed / product produced). Cutting the lights off at night is a quick and easy way to make a dent in their published numbers. And there are business politics involved -- mfg managers will not agree to cuts in their power use (that require big investments in new equipment to make happen) when they know the 8:30 to 5:00 folks at HQ keep the lights burning all night.



I agree with CC that the DT towers could agree to keep lights on for key events -- namely when there are regional or national events -- but otherwise this is going to be a tough sell for the building owners and tenants.
181
Junior MemberJunior Member
181

PostNov 07, 2007#27

migueltejada wrote:10.) We add at least 4 good lines for the metrolink connecting our greatest attractions and neighborhoods in the next 5-10 years.



- Great idea. Now come up with $4 billion for the studies, design, and build aspects, add another 10 years onto your projection, and you're all set.




That figure seems about right



with the COST OVERRUNS and CORRUPT CONTRACTING GROUPS



:wink:
115
Junior MemberJunior Member
115

PostNov 07, 2007#28

carrieocity kills wrote:and i like hopping from a 1:30 to a 3am bar- but then i like to do it up when i go out, and not stay in one spot for more than a couple drinks. there are SO MANY great bars and clubs in the STL, why limit yourself to just one?


Carrie, I seriously think I need to buy you a drink next time I'm in STL. :wink:
308
Full MemberFull Member
308

PostNov 07, 2007#29

carrieocity kills wrote:
phoaddict wrote:
carrieocity kills wrote:Actually, most other cities' bars quit serving at 1am or 1:30am. they may stay open later but they cant serve alcohol. i think we have a pretty decent bar scene, actually. and even tho its technically in illinois, i think most people (out of towners) associate the east side with the city of st. louis- where the party lasts 24 hours. i am (obviously) a big fan of bars but i think ours stay open plenty late as it is. i just hope they continue to let us smoke in them- others will certainly disagree but we aint talking health clubs, we's talkin bars:)



and can our geography/geology support super tall buildings? New York can but that is because their ground is solid rock.... and the reason you dont see tall buildings in Cali- their ground is sand. whats our ground made of?


There are SOOO many times we've been out in st. louis like cwe or the loop, and were having a BLAST where we were, but then had to leave to find another bar. It ruins the momentum. Just all being 3am would be amazing. Then if we feel like going more...we go to IL.



I'm not sure if our ground can support tall buildings. LA doesn't have tall buildings???


i dont think LA has tall buildings- at least not 65 floors like the federal courthouse in lower manhattan.



and i like hopping from a 1:30 to a 3am bar- but then i like to do it up when i go out, and not stay in one spot for more than a couple drinks. there are SO MANY great bars and clubs in the STL, why limit yourself to just one?


You can do it up if you stay at a really fun place...And it's soo much fun to drunk drive across the way to nick's pub or atomic cowboy or any other 3 am place in a neighborhood far way. Not to mention the plethora of taxi cabs that go around our city....
476
Full MemberFull Member
476

PostNov 07, 2007#30

phoaddict wrote:2.) Every building downtown with certain floors must keep its lights on at night (chicago has something like this)


What would Al Gore think if he knew about this........
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostNov 07, 2007#31

citywatcher wrote:
migueltejada wrote:10.) We add at least 4 good lines for the metrolink connecting our greatest attractions and neighborhoods in the next 5-10 years.



- Great idea. Now come up with $4 billion for the studies, design, and build aspects, add another 10 years onto your projection, and you're all set.




That figure seems about right



with the COST OVERRUNS and CORRUPT CONTRACTING GROUPS



:wink:


A good portion of our area municipal governments ARE cost overruns and corrupt - why does Metro consistently get singled out? I know, lets continue to support new and bigger highways regardless of the costs.
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostNov 07, 2007#32

phoaddict- I agree with your list of Saint Louis' main problems as you've stated them as well as some of the possible things we could do now to make Saint Louis a more desirable place in which to live.



However, I don't see the need for a new building that would eclipse the Gateway Arch. Some cities have supertall buildings, while others have great monuments. I'd say we're fortunate to have the latter. And I think we could embrace excellent modern architecture without building a structure taller than the Arch. We could start by filling the vacant lots that are holding back parts of downtown and other vibrant city neighborhoods.



As I stated in another thread recently, my philosophy on development in Saint Louis is as follows: Give us horizontal density now, and with increased demand, the vertical density will inevitably follow. 8)
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostNov 07, 2007#33

^I don't think we have to break 630 by any means, but I would really like to do it, even just once. In my dream world we would have enough demand right now for density and height. Alas, we have to wait for both.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostNov 07, 2007#34

Everyone keeps stating that there is no demand for a tower that would be high enough to eclipse the arch...this is simply not true as of right now. It would be pretty easy for Centene to eclipse the height of the arch based on some key factors.



1 - 2 floors of retail in podium form, as currently planned.



2 - 1500 parking spots just for Centene.... If organized in a manner similar to that found in most major cities, this would come in the form of 15 or so floors of parking above the podium containing the retail portion of the building. That would still only get about 1/2 of the needed spots.



3 - 700,000 sq ft of office space. If a building is designed in a slimmer (more modern, currently very popular) way, this can easily yield around 35-45 floors.



We are looking at 50-65 floors right there, and this is office space. It's not hard to get that height. The only thing is that developers and companies here choose not to go that route, as opposed to cities like Chicago and New York (city size comparisson is valid, but it could easily be done here).



This is obviously done on a cost basis as well, I'm not discounting that factor. This is just to illustrate that spacially, this could be accomplished RIGHT NOW if it was desired by the company. Not to mention this would still leave a whole plot for a 500,000 sq foot tower in the future (for those wishing for more 20-30's first :wink:) .



Oh, and in response to a post on the second page, LA's tallest building is the U.S. bank building at 1008' (I believe). There are also numerous taller buildings that easy eclipse anything in StL. (Just a reply, I know it's a little late.)



In summation, I echo Matt ^

PostNov 07, 2007#35

Oh yeah, and does anyone disagree that building something taller than the arch would, as I previously posted, psychologically b****-slap the majority populus of this metro area into REALLY paying attention to a story about the city, leading to gradual realization of how far it's actually come, and further the realization that this is, no kidding guys, a great place to live? I think this is the most key point. A story like that would not be skipped over. It might or might not be the single instance that we can look back and point to as the actual tipping point in the revitalization of this great city. (How do you know if you never try?)
2,434
Life MemberLife Member
2,434

PostNov 07, 2007#36

Well if STL does build taller than the Arch, I would hope it would be at least a couple buildings. One single building sticking up above the skyline would look silly. We'll need 3 or 4 towers to legitimize it. :)
2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostNov 07, 2007#37

phoaddict wrote:
anniewarbucks wrote:Why would you want to put a skyscraper higher than the arch? The Arch and the old courthouse creates a visible corodore through downtown. Any building any higher will take the viewers eye away from this great structure. Here in Topeka Kansas there is an unwritten ordinance that no building can be built any higher than the top of the state capital dome. It makes for a rather interesting skyline of Topeka.


Because st. louis needs to stop living in the past. Building higher symbolizes this advancement.


Uh huh. And Washington, DC, is so living in the past as well. They need to revoke that height restriction of theirs, because who really needs to look at the Washington Monument, anyway? I mean, that was started when, in the early 1800s? They need to get over themselves and move forward into the 21st Century!
308
Full MemberFull Member
308

PostNov 07, 2007#38

newstl2020 wrote:Oh yeah, and does anyone disagree that building something taller than the arch would, as I previously posted, psychologically b****-slap the majority populus of this metro area into REALLY paying attention to a story about the city, leading to gradual realization of how far it's actually come, and further the realization that this is, no kidding guys, a great place to live? I think this is the most key point. A story like that would not be skipped over. It might or might not be the single instance that we can look back and point to as the actual tipping point in the revitalization of this great city. (How do you know if you never try?)


You must be in marketing or pr ;)

PostNov 07, 2007#39

bonwich wrote:
phoaddict wrote:
anniewarbucks wrote:Why would you want to put a skyscraper higher than the arch? The Arch and the old courthouse creates a visible corodore through downtown. Any building any higher will take the viewers eye away from this great structure. Here in Topeka Kansas there is an unwritten ordinance that no building can be built any higher than the top of the state capital dome. It makes for a rather interesting skyline of Topeka.


Because st. louis needs to stop living in the past. Building higher symbolizes this advancement.


Uh huh. And Washington, DC, is so living in the past as well. They need to revoke that height restriction of theirs, because who really needs to look at the Washington Monument, anyway? I mean, that was started when, in the early 1800s? They need to get over themselves and move forward into the 21st Century!


No offense, but St. Louis isn't washington DC. The problem is no one (in my experiences) on the coasts or outside the US even knows where st. louis is. Some people I met knew about the arch and what it looked like and didn't even know it was in st. louis. These are the thing you discover when you get OUT of st. louis and the midwest and see the world. NO ONE knows who we are. So how great is our arch? People will only start to recognize us through our modernization. Right now, our hip hop scene is the ONLY thing putting us on the map, as well as our cardinals. What else is? Wash U.? Biomedical? DC doesnt have to worry because they're the capital of the US....we're just some city in Missouri. Why is it that Atlanta has taken off? Why does everyone know where it is?



I think plain and simple is because cities like Atlanta are modernizing, and they have a "can do" attitude...like Minneapolis as well. If we keep dwelling in the past, we will be put in the past. Plain and simple.

PostNov 07, 2007#40

STLgasm wrote:Well if STL does build taller than the Arch, I would hope it would be at least a couple buildings. One single building sticking up above the skyline would look silly. We'll need 3 or 4 towers to legitimize it. :)


Why will it look silly?? Does shanghai look silly?



Does kuala lumpur look silly?





Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's silly...
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostNov 07, 2007#41

Oy vey. Although brainstorming is nice from time to time, this has gotta be the Don Quixote thread of the year. Chase windmills much?



308
Full MemberFull Member
308

PostNov 07, 2007#42

LOL...I'm just tired of the same-old routine st. louis has....



At least it's fun... :lol:
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostNov 07, 2007#43

Ethnic neighborhoods don't develop through marketing. Moreover, we had a Chinatown but demolished it for Busch I. And we did this because whites were "too afraid" to continue to use Sportsman Park at Grand and Dodier. Perhaps things wouldn't have gotten so bad if whites remained instead of running away like scared children.



St. Louis is provincial in mindset. Rather than innovate we accept whatever we are given. It is depressing and why we have braindrain.
308
Full MemberFull Member
308

PostNov 07, 2007#44

And I wouldn't necessarily think Don Quixote...he was living in a fantasy world...



How is what we've discussed here anything close to being just fantasy???



That's the problem and difference with other cities, because they think BIG...and we don't, and with a mediocre attitude, we will always be mediocre. And always in fourth place.



You know the saying in Chicago in advertising and business, when I say i'm from st. louis, they tell me to think different than what I'm used to because where I'm from (where people don't think big). They say, here, to be successful, you have to think BIG. I'm SO TIRED of defending our city when our city doesn't appreciate the defending or want to listen to what it needs.



We have to stop the mediocrity as a city. But...i'm beginning to think it's impossible if people on this forum can't even think big....no, they're "practical"... as are the people in des moines.

PostNov 07, 2007#45

Doug wrote:Ethnic neighborhoods don't develop through marketing. Moreover, we had a Chinatown but demolished it for Busch I. And we did this because whites were "too afraid" to continue to use Sportsman Park at Grand and Dodier.


True, they don't. They already are developed. All we have to do is sanction them as an official area. Olive U-city - chinatown. Gravois south city - little bosnia...cherokee, etc. Just put them on tourist maps so they know where they are.



People come to chicago and they know where to find all the chinese restaurants, Greek, ukranian, etc. Because they're on the MAPS and highway signs, aka, the city has sanctioned and recognized them as official neighborhoods. It's ALL marketing, and only people in marketing understand this...It all makes our city look good.
3,557
Life MemberLife Member
3,557

PostNov 07, 2007#46

phoaddict wrote:
Doug wrote:Ethnic neighborhoods don't develop through marketing. Moreover, we had a Chinatown but demolished it for Busch I. And we did this because whites were "too afraid" to continue to use Sportsman Park at Grand and Dodier.


True, they don't. They already are developed. All we have to do is sanction them as an official area. Olive U-city - chinatown. Gravois south city - little bosnia...cherokee, etc. Just put them on tourist maps so they know where they are.



People come to chicago and they know where to find all the chinese restaurants, Greek, ukranian, etc. Because they're on the MAPS and highway signs, aka, the city has sanctioned and recognized them as official neighborhoods. It's ALL marketing, and only people in marketing understand this...It all makes our city look good.


I personally agree with you phoaddict, we need things like Chinatown, Bosnian, Latino districts, Africantowns etc etc. That is how you attract new immigrants in a place as centralized as St. Louis. People have to understand that we are in the middle of the country (and we dont have the international notoriety of a Chicago) so we don't get the easy access to immigrants like the East and West coasts. So we have to do what we can to attract new faces of all kinds.
212
Junior MemberJunior Member
212

PostNov 07, 2007#47

I have to say, I disagree with the whole premise of building a couple really tall buildings when we could really use the equivalent square footage to fill in the empty lots we have downtown. Bridging these gaps would really make the city more pedestrian-friendly, safer and more pleasant in general. Secondly, I think that while having the whole downtown lit up like a Christmas tree may look pretty, in this day and age we should know better than to squander natural resources unnecessarily in this manner. As far as I'm concerned, environmental stewardship is an important part of being a good citizen and reflects a true love of one's city more than trying to create some image that we hope the rest of the country will envy. I love St. Louis and want it to be the best city it can be, but what does that mean? I think it has to go much deeper than just image-making. We need to start thinking about what cities of the future need to be so they don't run themselves into the ground. I don't have a lot of answers, but I think the questions need to be asked.

p.s. I think Shanghai does look a little silly.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostNov 07, 2007#48

Sort of like, of I dunno, the Hill, or dogtown?
308
Full MemberFull Member
308

PostNov 07, 2007#49

dmmonty1 wrote:I have to say, I disagree with the whole premise of building a couple really tall buildings when we could really use the equivalent square footage to fill in the empty lots we have downtown. Bridging these gaps would really make the city more pedestrian-friendly, safer and more pleasant in general. Secondly, I think that while having the whole downtown lit up like a Christmas tree may look pretty, in this day and age we should know better than to squander natural resources unnecessarily in this manner. As far as I'm concerned, environmental stewardship is an important part of being a good citizen and reflects a true love of one's city more than trying to create some image that we hope the rest of the country will envy. I love St. Louis and want it to be the best city it can be, but what does that mean? I think it has to go much deeper than just image-making. We need to start thinking about what cities of the future need to be so they don't run themselves into the ground. I don't have a lot of answers, but I think the questions need to be asked.

p.s. I think Shanghai does look a little silly.


I agree with you fully in making the city more pedestrian friendly and how making the city "pretty" might conflict with future wants of being more environmentally friendly. I also agree that we have to dig deep to see what the cities of the future want and need.



I'm not just saying making a few buildings taller than the arch to make our city look good though. I'm saying that as a pyschological ploy to the city itself to slap it in the face for us to think beyond 1960's. It's symbolic.



I bring up Shanghai because Shanghai is a city of the future. China is becoming the future, if you don't believe it, you haven't been there. Yes, they have troubles with human rights, environment, but they will fix them if they want to rise, and THEY WILL rise. The thing is, people in St. Louis doesn't realize how continental we are. The world is becoming more and more globalized and we're left out due to our lack of connection with that globalization...it doesn't help that we're land locked. St. Louis compared to other global cities fails to remotely be on par with. You only see this when you live in these cities. (And you also see the great things we have as well)



If we want to grow and be significant again, we have to start thinking and mimicking cities that "get it" and add our own innovations.



For example, if there are environmental concerns with making for lights, but we still see the need to make our city more asthetic, we can't just drop our desire to do so because of some obstacle. We find a way to make it work. We could add solar panels or something to the tops of buildings, or lead in some type of innovation that matches both needs of environmentalists and progressive thinkers. Nonetheless, we can't be a city of the future if we don't think like a city of the future.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostNov 07, 2007#50

phoaddict wrote:And I wouldn't necessarily think Don Quixote...he was living in a fantasy world...



How is what we've discussed here anything close to being just fantasy???
I totally appreciate vision and challenging the status quo but every Don Quixote can use a Sancho Panza and vice versa. Guess I don't understand how you find so much good in St. Louis yet also deem it so mediocre. But the biggest niggle is that your rants so often tend to come off as patronizing. Just curious and don't take this the wrong way, but how old are you?



There was a lot of fantasy in the post. Increasing spending to eliminate gangs and crime? Sorry, but it's not that simple and doesn't address the root cause. Easier said than done.



Take over the Post Dispatch and replace it with young, forward-thinking optimists? Uhh, ok. I, for one, value diversity and find this pollyannish suggestion a bit amusing.
Read more posts (147 remaining)
Share