Break The Arch Etc. - How to Make Stl Greater

phoaddict · PostNov 06, 2007#12007-11-06T22:18+00:00

I've been reading the threads and much analysis and thinking, it seems like pretty much everyone has the same views:

1.) St. Louis is a kick-ass city and deserves much props for this very true fact.

2.) St. Louis has a self-esteem issue among its weary citizens who don't see how great the city is.

3.) The city is markets itself poorly.

4.) The city is troubled by poor vision by many city leaders and "difference makers" (not one individual)

5.) St. Louis is plagued with an anti-development mentality that hinders progressive growth.

I know this has been discussed and might be a stretch for some of you. If what is stated above is true, doesn't that mean that we need to do something drastic to give St. Louis a stepping stone to move forward and to in turn make its citizens proud again!

Here are things that we can feasibly do:

1.) We build that f'ing MO-IL bridge soon and make it beautiful and asthetically perfect

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

3.) Every building constructed from now on should be modern and glass looking and we mandate an asthetic guideline buildings must pass(vs. the old stoney look of a lot of buildings. Yes, I love the old look, but we need more of a modern edge.)

4.) We add cool lighting to existing bridges.

5.) We lobby to change the liquor licenses of missouri to all be 3am or later and easier to get.

6.) We take over the post-dispatch and replace people that are young, progressive and forward thinking optimists.

7.) We actually build the bottle district and ball park village

8.) We renovate Midtown.

9.) We work with st. louis county and MoDot to line our highways with good highway lights for safer driving.

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

11.) We designate official Ethnic neighborhoods and market them: Chinatown, Little Bosnia, Hispania, etc.

12.) We build the sculpture park downtown.

13.) We increase our spending on elimination of gangs and place private police officers in all metro stops and high traffic areas.

And the last and greatest things we do IMO:

WE BUILD A FREAKING BUILDING TALLER THAN THE ARCH and TALLER THAN ANY BUILDING IN THE STATE (or even Midwest outside of Chicago).

These are steps we can take to break the chain of this non progressiveness infecting the progressive thinkers. We just break the arch height. I think that's the most important thing we can do that can give the greatest positive psychological impact on the city of st. louis. That is why we need to build past the arch and all these other things above, cause it makes us look good. And if we think we look good, we feel better about ourselves.

What are your thoughts??

stlgasm · PostNov 06, 2007#22007-11-06T22:28+00:00

I agree with most of your points, except the huge towering skyscraper idea. There are many great cities that do not have supertall buildings, but there are few cities that have a landmark as recognizable and timeless as the Arch. Supertall skyscrapers is not what, and never has been what St. Louis is about. Besides that, there is simply no demand for such a tower here.

I like the idea of lighting up the skyline at night, but that may be an increasingly unpopular proposal given that many progressive cities are actually turning the lights off to encourage energy conservation.

newstl2020 · PostNov 06, 2007#32007-11-06T22:29+00:00

Good ideas for sure, and I'm positive not many will argue against you here, except about priority of various issues over others. Building taller than the arch would necessitate the tallest building in MO, as the tallest building in KC is 631' - 1' taller than the arch. Building the tallest in the midwest is impossible, as Chicago is currently constructing the 2000' spire. It's not technically impossible, but financially and realistically speaking, it is impossible.

I know many will disagree with you and I and downplay the issue, but I believe building taller than the arch will definitely give a much needed psychological boost to the city, and signify the new era that has begun for St. Louis. Many people, even in this metro area, signify successful downtowns with TALL buildings being built, not by density as many here with rightfully argue. The reality, however, is that most of the population wants large glitsy towers that make an enormous skyline. I think a few new 500-800 (I would like that to be 600-1000) would do AMAZING wonders for the morale of this city. (Look what we've got!)

Nice points on the rest as well. The buildings and areas are getting the defib. paddles, time for the population to finally get the same treatment! Cool, modern, urban lighting on the bridges, as well with the certain floors of lights always on, would do wonders as well. It's amazing what miniscule (in the big picture) changes can do to the perception of an entire metro.

carrieocity kills · PostNov 06, 2007#42007-11-06T22:37+00:00

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?

phoaddict · PostNov 06, 2007#52007-11-06T22:41+00:00

newstl2020 wrote:Good ideas for sure, and I'm positive not many will argue against you here, except about priority of various issues over others. Building taller than the arch would necessitate the tallest building in MO, as the tallest building in KC is 631' - 1' taller than the arch. Building the tallest in the midwest is impossible, as Chicago is currently constructing the 2000' spire. It's not technically impossible, but financially and realistically speaking, it is impossible.

I know many will disagree with you and I and downplay the issue, but I believe building taller than the arch will definitely give a much needed psychological boost to the city, and signify the new era that has begun for St. Louis. Many people, even in this metro area, signify successful downtowns with TALL buildings being built, not by density as many here with rightfully argue. The reality, however, is that most of the population wants large glitsy towers that make an enormous skyline. I think a few new 500-800 (I would like that to be 600-1000) would do AMAZING wonders for the morale of this city. (Look what we've got!)

Nice points on the rest as well. The buildings and areas are getting the defib. paddles, time for the population to finally get the same treatment! Cool, modern, urban lighting on the bridges, as well with the certain floors of lights always on, would do wonders as well. It's amazing what miniscule (in the big picture) changes can do to the perception of an entire metro.

Ok, first of all...i meant in the midwest outside of chicago, haha. Of course we couldn't build higher than chicago! My bad...

That's the thing, about building an 800 foot tower and follow it with another, it would do WONDERS to our city's morale. It would signify to the nation of our true revitalization. Same thing happened to Charlotte when they build their huge tower, and I'm sure the same thing will happen to Nashville. We love the arch, but that's from the 60's! Our city lives in the past, and the pessimists are pessimists because they never see such drastic measures actually go through. How long are we going to be a "gateway to other places other than here"?

We hear all this hype about ball park village, people who aren't even following the city development, and they get excited and brag to their friends out of city how cool its going to be. We imagine new towers, etc. Then we learn...oh....it's 350 feet. Well...maybe next time...

LETS DO IT NOW!!!

I want to drive home on 55 and when I cross into Collinsville and see downtown in the far distance...I want to see a CITY, more than the met, at&t, us bank and the arch. Just imagine how great it would be to see a huge tower in the bunch (hopefully south half downtown), and imagine how much pride that would give people coming home to see their city...and to people for the first time seeing the city... It shows we are on the MOVE. We have moved beyond our thinking and holding on to the past. Yes, we cherish our past, but we don't hold on to it.

southsidepride · PostNov 06, 2007#62007-11-06T22:42+00:00

yeah, the Arch is great by itself. It's about the most unique man made structure in the USA IMO.

Flying into town Sunday night just as it was getting dark (at 5:30, ugh!) one can really see just how perfectly sized the Arch is (or how perfectly planned the other buildings downtown are). And while I wouldn't mind a few more skyscrapers downtown I really don't want to see us getting carried away with that kind of stuff.

phoaddict · PostNov 06, 2007#72007-11-06T22:44+00:00

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???

PostNov 06, 2007#82007-11-06T22:48+00:00

southsidepride wrote:yeah, the Arch is great by itself. It's about the most unique man made structure in the USA IMO.

Flying into town Sunday night just as it was getting dark (at 5:30, ugh!) one can really see just how perfectly sized the Arch is (or how perfectly planned the other buildings downtown are). And while I wouldn't mind a few more skyscrapers downtown I really don't want to see us getting carried away with that kind of stuff.

Then what should we get carried away with? What little steps can we take in turning the mentality of st. louis around without putting them in reeducation camps?

I think building taller than the arch is simply a psychological solution. True, the development of a tall building wouldn't be helpful if the demand isn't there to fill the space. But why not just build something taller for the sake of it, that doesn't necessarily need retail space. Like a tower for BPV whose top 200 ft is a huge reception hall with a restaurant and topped by a tall point??

southsidepride · PostNov 06, 2007#92007-11-06T22:50+00:00

^ I see your point pho, but I'd rather build interesting buildings downtown rather than just tall ones. What you mentioned about a reception hall at the top of a 200 foot tall buildng sounds cool.

olvidarte · PostNov 06, 2007#102007-11-06T22:51+00:00

But why not just build something taller for the sake of it,

Who's going to foot the bill? We can't expect someone to pay for a building when there's no demand for it

I know many will disagree with you and I and downplay the issue, but I believe building taller than the arch will definitely give a much needed psychological boost to the city, and signify the new era that has begun for St. Louis. Many people, even in this metro area, signify successful downtowns with TALL buildings being built, not by density as many here with rightfully argue.

I think the real psychological boost to the city would come with fewer vacant lots and buildings as well as more street life, less crime, better schools, etc. etc.

While I do think perception is important, we need more than cosmetic fixes to give the city the boost it truly needs.

The reality, however, is that most of the population wants large glitsy towers that make an enormous skyline. I think a few new 500-800 (I would like that to be 600-1000) would do AMAZING wonders for the morale of this city. (Look what we've got!)

I don't agree. I think most of the population wants places to go and things to see & do. I personally feel that the only people who notice and get off on super huge skylines are people who like tall buildings and skylines.

Don't get me wrong, I love looking at city skylines too, but I'd prefer smaller, infill that populates an area and brings life rather than one super huge building that takes away from its neighbors.

St. Louis has the beautiful Arch and a decent skyline, i'm happy with that for now...STL in all honesty, can't really support the types of super tall structures being proposed in this thread...maybe someday.

migueltejada · PostNov 06, 2007#112007-11-06T22:55+00:00

I love the ubiquitous (sic) "We". Who is this "we" you speak of? Politicians? People in the city? Yourself and a few friends?

Now, as for the feasibility of your ideas:

Here are things that we can feasibly do:

1.) We build that f'ing MO-IL bridge soon and make it beautiful and asthetically perfect

-aesthetic perfection? According to who? People have different tastes when it comes to design...or anything for that matter. Building the brdige is fine, but what the heck do we classify as "beautiful?" Dont' forget, some people like the Serra Sculpture.

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

- Sure, sounds good in theory, until you get the power bill. Who's going to pay for it? Or worse, the damn hippies yell at you for wasting power and contirbuting to greenhouse gasses. There's a movement to have buildings turn OFF their lights as a result. Freakin hippies.

3.) Every building constructed from now on should be modern and glass looking and we mandate an asthetic guideline buildings must pass(vs. the old stoney look of a lot of buildings. Yes, I love the old look, but we need more of a modern edge.)

- Cause that's something that can be regulated. Design policy maybe, but for EVERY building? And when does this policy expire - never? So every building must be cutting edge? Boy oh boy, I can see the backlog of paperwork in City Hall now, as a design review board has to decide on every single building application.

4.) We add cool lighting to existing bridges.

- again, define "cool". Fine idea though - but be careful about distracting and/or blinding drivers. MoDot, IDOT and the federal gov't I'm sure would need to be consulted before this would happen

5.) We lobby to change the liquor licenses of missouri to all be 3am or later and easier to get.

- NO. NO NO NO NO NO. I like partying as much as the next person (well not really, I'm usually in bed by 1am) , but keeping bars open that much later just adds to more issues of crime and nuisances than it adds to the economy. And easier to get? To what end? Turning St. Louis into Las Vegas? Thanks but no thanks.

6.) We take over the post-dispatch and replace people that are young, progressive and forward thinking optimists.

- Viva La Revolution! Lets go dig up Che, I'm sure he'd lead this band of rebels! (and god forbid anyone disagree with our point of view! We'll kill em!)

7.) We actually build the bottle district and ball park village

- Yes to BPV (with minor adjustments), NO to the current design of TBD. Most would agree with me on this one.

8.) We renovate Midtown.

- Define "we" and Midtown. A lot of the area is old industrial, no demand for residential. I'm open to ideas, but what?

9.) We work with st. louis county and MoDot to line our highways with good highway lights for safer driving.

- The lighting is bad? I've never noticed.

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.

11.) We designate official Ethnic neighborhoods and market them: Chinatown, Little Bosnia, Hispania, etc.

- Hispania!? Sounds like a mental illness. I've personally never liked designating a place as "ethnic town" because it just sends the wrong message to the people living there, like "this is where you live only". I mean, should we designate Chesterfield as "Hummerville", or Ladue as "Cracker Town", or Afton as "Little Mayonaise?" Leave the place names as they are.

12.) We build the sculpture park downtown.

- Ugh...don't we already have one (the fireman statue, Milles Fountain, Serra)? It's more of a redesign of the exisiting park space. But it's going ahead anyways, so that's fine.

13.) We increase our spending on elimination of gangs and place private police officers in all metro stops and high traffic areas.

- As if this isn't a priority of SLPD officers now? And private police officers!? Nothing says "John Wayne syndrome with a GED" more than a rent-a-cop. Sign me up to be around them when the sh*t hits the fan.

And the last and greatest things we do IMO:

WE BUILD A FREAKING BUILDING TALLER THAN THE ARCH and TALLER THAN ANY BUILDING IN THE STATE or even Midwest.

- Fantastic idea, the city needs another big parking garage.

What - he never said what the building had to be used for!

newstl2020 · PostNov 06, 2007#122007-11-06T22:55+00:00

^UGH you just lost me on that last point

. I'm very much against worthless ornamentation of buildings just for the sake of beating a height figure. Talk about a psychological issue.

The only reason I push for a building taller than the arch is that to me it is really a symbolic act that would psychologically b****-slap people in St. Louis into paying attention to the changes the city is legitimately experiencing. It's easy for people to brush over 300 foot buildings and claims of first new residential, but you open the front page of your paper and see "TALLER THAN THE ARCH" and you are forced to check into it. That might lead to a bit more discovery about everything that is truly going on here.

Oh, and St. Louis can build as tall as we want, the composition of the ground means absolutely nothing, as skyscrapers are anchored by caissons (Large diameter (8-15') reinforced concrete) which goes all the way into the bedrock.

Edit: response to phoaddict

xing · PostNov 06, 2007#132007-11-06T22:57+00:00

You brought up some very good points about the lighting. It kills me, it absolutely kills me, what something as simple as lighting the buildings, can do for the St Louis skyline.

phoaddict · PostNov 06, 2007#142007-11-06T23:01+00:00

southsidepride wrote:^ I see your point pho, but I'd rather build interesting buildings downtown rather than just tall ones. What you mentioned about a reception hall at the top of a 200 foot tall buildng sounds cool.

I get your point...but to the majority of people and "city Critics" height implies interesting most of the time.

About the building in BPV, they're proposing a maximum height of prolly 400 something feet, because that's all they need. What I'm saying is that we make it taller than 630 ft (height of the arch) on purpose....So we add an additional 200 something feet just to make it taller than the arch...with a huge receptional hall with glass surroundings and then a pointy tower to top it off taller than the arch.JUST to be taller than the arch.

Chicago isn't saying...DON"T BUILD THE SPIRE TALLER THAN THE SEARS TOWER!!! Chicago is known for the sears tower...we are known for the arch. Chicago has consistantly made better decisions than st. louis for the history of our "rivalry", yes we were rivals a century ago. Chicago "gets it". They have a "go get 'em" attitude. They are now beyond the sears tower. They are beyond just navy pier, john hancock, etc.

We historical do NOT make the right choices , aka riverways vs railways. And we think NO DONT BUILD HIGHER THAN THE ARCH!!! We "don't get it". And it's consistent through our history. Do you see what im saying?

If we build that tower taller than the arch, that becomes a part of st. louis too. If we build funkier buildings, that's st. louis. Whatever we do is st. louis. So i dont see why the arch-holders are so against building higher than the arch...

PostNov 06, 2007#152007-11-06T23:26+00:00

migueltejada wrote:I love the ubiquitous (sic) "We". Who is this "we" you speak of? Politicians? People in the city? Yourself and a few friends?.....

Wow, you sound like a typical city official of st. louis with all the pessimism, why not build on ideas and see where brainstorming leads to instead verus pure pessimism and doubt? At least I'm TRYING to make a difference... I was thinking the "we" as in the city of st. louis working together, with pride, led by visionary city leaders.

- aesthetic perfection? According to who? People have different tastes when it comes to design...or anything for that matter. Building the brdige is fine, but what the heck do we classify as "beautiful?" Dont' forget, some people like the Serra Sculpture.

Who determines if "anything" is beautiful? Who says the arch is beautiful? We can get scientific about it and say a bridge that follows a golden ratio or perfect mathematical blah blah. The golden gate bridge is beautiful. Poplar Street Bridge is not. Brooklyn Bridge is beautiful. The alton bridge is beautiful Something along the lines of different, modern design, etc. Then you can get into well what is different,etc. So I will stop on this one.

Sure, sounds good in theory, until you get the power bill. Who's going to pay for it? Or worse, the damn hippies yell at you for wasting power and contirbuting to greenhouse gasses. There's a movement to have buildings turn OFF their lights as a result. Freakin hippies.

Chicago figured a way to make it happen, so there must be a way. If hippies have problems with it, so be it. Will they boycott the city then...all 1000 of them? If they riot or protest, at least they will put our city in the nation's eyes.

Cause that's something that can be regulated. Design policy maybe, but for EVERY building? And when does this policy expire - never? So every building must be cutting edge? Boy oh boy, I can see the backlog of paperwork in City Hall now, as a design review board has to decide on every single building application.

Sorry I should've been more specific, i didn't realize someone was going to critique every word i said. What I was thinking was every building taller than 350 feet should pass some type of code. How that's done, you got me.

again, define "cool". Fine idea though - but be careful about distracting and/or blinding drivers. MoDot, IDOT and the federal gov't I'm sure would need to be consulted before this would happen

Im surprised this hasn't even been done yet...then again showing the lack or willingness of the city to show its willingness to be asthetically appealing. Why does seoul have beautiful colorful lights lining the bridges...or cincy...or beijing...or portland...etc.? Because people in those cities have vision. They know that when people see such lights, some instinct in their bodies say "wow, that is pretty" just as we do when we see a rose blossoming in botanical gardens. The problem is, we don't have people in charge that figure out how to do it, going past the number of obstacles you describe. I'm a producer in Chicago, we are forward thinking, we get things DONE here. We work with people who get things done. We have vision. St. Louis if it wants can have lights on bridges, it's not impossible.

NO. NO NO NO NO NO. I like partying as much as the next person (well not really, I'm usually in bed by 1am) , but keeping bars open that much later just adds to more issues of crime and nuisances than it adds to the economy. And easier to get? To what end? Turning St. Louis into Las Vegas? Thanks but no thanks.

You may not realize this, but many 20 yr olds (who the city MUST attract to grow in the future) can't stand st. louis because most of the bars close at 1am. YOU may not realize that. Young foreign tourists, students, travellers, visters, etc. who our city must target in order to be even CONSIDERED to be on the map of our ever changing and globalized world, in my encounters, have many critiques on the city and this was one i always heard. Chicago, ie, we stay out till 3 or 5 no problem with stuff to do. Night life (that lasts long) is fundamental aspect in a city to reach young people.

I'll respond to your other responses later...i gotta run .. [/i]

southsidepride · PostNov 06, 2007#162007-11-06T23:30+00:00

^most parts of the city have a 3 a.m. bar somewhere nearby.

shimmy · PostNov 06, 2007#172007-11-06T23:42+00:00

I'm sorry, I just don't see building higher than the arch as a big priority. I honestly couldn't care less if the next skyscraper built downtown is 520', 620', or 820'. I would like one to show up on the skyline and give it something modern, but I don't really care if its higher than the arch.

blzhrpmd2 · PostNov 06, 2007#182007-11-06T23:44+00:00

Lighting is the simple first step to me. Spent the night in KC last night and you don't have to guess where the prominent buildings are because from downtown to midtown, stuff is lit up. In STL there are awesome buildings (not tall) that people, both visitors and residents, don't see because they are not lighted. In shots I have seen where buildings are lighted, it's stunning. PLus, put the darn lights back on Eads Bridge, please. Hopefully Lumiere Places' fixture will increase other buildings' use of lights.

carrieocity kills · PostNov 07, 2007#192007-11-07T00:05+00:00

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?

juiceinkirkwood · PostNov 07, 2007#202007-11-07T00:19+00:00

carrieocity kills wrote: there are SO MANY great bars and clubs in the STL, why limit yourself to just one?

No reason, as long as you have a DD or call a cab

anniewarbucks · PostNov 07, 2007#212007-11-07T01:03+00:00

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.

courtland · PostNov 07, 2007#222007-11-07T01:18+00:00

to make STL greater in my view are these two things:

1) merge ctiy and county, the sooner the better

2) bring metro east, st. charles and jefferson county into the METROPOLITAN ZOOLOGICAL PARK MUSEUM AND GARDEN DISTRICT.

footnote: do you know how much money can be generated if these areas were brought into the district. why should these areas continue to get a FREE RIDE!

phoaddict · PostNov 07, 2007#232007-11-07T01:20+00:00

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.

I'm sure topeka is a great town, but you can't compare the skyline and needs of st. louis to topeka.

PostNov 07, 2007#242007-11-07T01:25+00:00

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.

This quote to me represents EXACTLY what i'm talking about in terms of the backwardsness and non progressiveness st. louis needs to overcome in order to grow in fame. GET OVER the arch. Sure, it's great and defines our city, but so do many other things. The city has way much more than the arch. I guarantee you people won't not "look at " or "notice" the arch if something's higher. Do you notice john hancock building in chicago because the sears tower is taller than it?

Come ON people. Stl will never be world class when people are just "content"...they WANT change deep inside...but I think they're afraid of it...or just don't know how to do it. And when someone comes out with answers, they argue against it like they don't want to hear it....

constant change · PostNov 07, 2007#252007-11-07T02:40+00:00

You were goin good on 1-4, but I don't qualify it as anti development mentality, more of a anti squanderment (except of course the squanderers). Green is more 'popular' than you realize, for reasons understood by more than just hippies. But maybe we could light things up at key times/nights. I like our skyline, unless someone thinks of something cooler than Aeros did, or the perfect compliment (maybe the bridge and fantastitechture you seek co-exist) leave it at it's current ceiling. I never have understood why we're inticed to drive drunk twice instead of once (not that I care anymore), and see your out of towner point. I like glass, but I also like bricks and stones. Let the architect decide. Yes, more Metro. No thanks, on the divided hoods.

I do I agree that we do need to re-establish ourselves as progressive, and building something sweet could help that perception.

But, realisticly, these things need supported, meaning more tax base, so we need to fix a couple... no, 3 other very real perceptions as we plan & prepare for this pipe dream (lol... couldn't resist with the hippie rhetoric).