Here's a neat shot:
![]()
Large image available here:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1241/472 ... 2c37_b.jpg
Large image available here:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1241/472 ... 2c37_b.jpg
- 339
Excellent picture, sad to see what might have been...
- 11K
?DaronDierkes wrote:Where are the two images this was based off of?
- 712
^the scale can't be right. Pictures of downtown from forest park make the buildings look smaller. Here downtown, the central west end, and clayton are all about the same size. I don't think the arch would be that big if the proper eight or nine miles between them was shown.
- 11K
It's just a single photo. The foreshortening can be deceiving.DaronDierkes wrote:^the scale can't be right. Pictures of downtown from forest park make the buildings look smaller. Here downtown, the central west end, and clayton are all about the same size. I don't think the arch would be that big if the proper eight or nine miles between them was shown.
- 17
That is an awesome perspective. I think even cooler would be one from the south or north showing the linear stretches of dense buildings from downtown to Clayton, if it's possible.
- 3,757
I've always hated the fact that Met Square and the SBC Building mesh into one or block out one another from certain angles. This pic is a prime example of that. They look like one building due to the darkness, haze or fog. Even on clear days, from certain parts of town, the buildings block each other.
- 11K
I've always disliked out the federal courthouse fills in the Arch coming East on I-64.
Thats funny because I like how it perfectly fills the arch and also has a dome top emulating the curvature.
Great photo.
What could have been? It is what IS STL today. This IS the entire Skyline West to East ...
What could have been? It is what IS STL today. This IS the entire Skyline West to East ...
^Interesting photo. It'd be cool to see a timeline of these, same angle, maybe one from each decade from the 40s to present day.
- 11K
And if it could be in 3D and allow us to rotate and zoom in - all the way to streetview please! 
I think the point was what could have been if we didn't needlessly fracture our city's Central Business District into two separate, relatively dilute CBDs, as opposed to having one strong, concentrated CBD.matguy70 wrote:Great photo.
What could have been? It is what IS STL today. This IS the entire Skyline West to East ...
- 8,155
I'd like to see a photoshop of what Saint Louis City (and Clayton) skyline could look like each of the next several decades.terence d wrote:^Interesting photo. It'd be cool to see a timeline of these, same angle, maybe one from each decade from the 40s to present day.
- 8,155
yeah. Actually, what I'd really like to see is a simulation of what the city would roughly have to look like at populations of 350K (starting to regain population) and then every additional 100K through 850K. Of course, this growth would also go hand in hand with more commerical and corporate rebirth.wabash wrote:^Throw in CWE and Midtown while you're at it.
How high would we have to go in downtown and the midtown-CWE corridor while roughly keeping intact our historic neighborhoods? Given what I assume to be a continued social construct of smaller families and fewer people per household unit than in the heydays, what would be our population if existing housing stock were maxed out?
It's a shame that so many people have the wrong impression of our skyline because they base their assumptions on the typical postcard view, which in many cases depict the city as dated, underwhelming, short and small. The fact is, outside of Chicago and perhaps Detroit, St. Louis has by far the largest collection of pre-war high-rises outside of the CBD in the entire Midwest. There are no high-rise districts in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, much less Kansas City, Columbus or Indianapolis that come even close to the scale of Midtown, CWE, Skinker or Clayton. Even DeBaliviere Place as seen from Forest Park Parkway comprises one of the most urban cityscapes in the Midwest. Minneapolis- a much younger city than St. Louis- has plenty of new towers, but hardly any from the pre-war era outside of downtown. As a whole, St. Louis' central corridor is quite expansive. I think it's misunderstood and overlooked because we don't have any supertall skyscrapers. Even downtown, the size and density isn't visible from skyline shots because our building stock is short and squatty. Look at Downtown West-- it's a big, dense section of the city but almost completely hidden from view.
Looking at aerial shots like this, it's easy to see St. Louis' early ascent and then its abrupt free-fall. Very few tall buildings in the skyline (particularly east of Kingshighway) were built after the middle of the 20th century (except for a mini-boom of boxy buildings in the '80s). It's as if someone pushed pause in about 1970. You can imagine how new towers would've filled in the gaps had St. Louis continued to grow. I'd bet Forest Park would be surrounded by highrises, and the Central West End would be filled with tall, sleek modern towers. What could've been... Oh well, what we have now is still more impressive than 90% of cities in this country, and out-of-towners are the first ones to notice it.
Looking at aerial shots like this, it's easy to see St. Louis' early ascent and then its abrupt free-fall. Very few tall buildings in the skyline (particularly east of Kingshighway) were built after the middle of the 20th century (except for a mini-boom of boxy buildings in the '80s). It's as if someone pushed pause in about 1970. You can imagine how new towers would've filled in the gaps had St. Louis continued to grow. I'd bet Forest Park would be surrounded by highrises, and the Central West End would be filled with tall, sleek modern towers. What could've been... Oh well, what we have now is still more impressive than 90% of cities in this country, and out-of-towners are the first ones to notice it.