urbanSTL

I was thinking the same thing. And if the development includes the Millennium Hotel site, it could nicely link the Ballpark to the Arch Grounds with, say, a broad walkway among the buildings.

Does anyone know what the height limits are for the Gateway Tower site?

Height Limits? Unofficially 630 feet?

urban_dilettante wrote:^ i'm a little confused… the owner (Sovereign Partners) conducted a feasibility study and now they're selling the building? was the study conducted for marketing purposes? maybe the study is older than the article lets on?

EDIT: looks like roger has the same questions.

The feasibility study just shows prospective buyers that they can get additional value from the property.

framer wrote:Does anyone know what the height limits are for the Gateway Tower site?

Here (<- note - large PDF download) is a map of the building zones. The Gateway Tower is in the Jefferson Memorial District zone (in blue on the map that encompasses the JNEM/Archgrounds and portions of the city immediately surrounding it.

Here are the height regulations from the JMD zone from the St. Louis Public Library's site:

26.64.040 Height regulations.

The height regulations are the same as those in the I central business district except that in no instance shall any portion of a building or structure including all appurtenances and super structures thereon, exceed a mean sea level elevation of seven hundred fifty-one (751) feet. It shall be unlawful to increase the height of an existing building or other structures located within this district unless it complies with the regulation of the district.
(Ord. 59979 § 17 (part), 1986.)

^ Now it mentions the Central Business District height regulations. Those are here:

From the CBD codes:

26.52.040 Height regulations.

Buildings may be erected to such height that the cubic contents of said building above the established grade shall not exceed the volume of a prism having a base equal to the projected horizontal area of the building and a height of two hundred (200) feet. In the case of buildings occupying a lot having frontage on intersecting streets and which buildings are so designed as to provide a setback or open space at one (1) corner or corners where such street intersections occur, or when such setback begins below the two hundred (200) foot height above the established grade, the volume determined by the above rule may be exceeded by an amount equal to the volume so taken out of the reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height; provided, however, that the total volume of the actual building shall not exceed by more than twenty-five percent (25%) the volume of said reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height.
(Ord. 59979 § 14 (part), 1986.)

Simple, no? In short, you take the property boundaries and draw an imaginary cube 200 feet tall. Take the volume of that cube, and that can be the volume of your building. So a perfectly square building built out to the edges of the property can only be 200 feet tall, but you can by code make the building taller by tapering the tower, hollowing out the center, or doing what the designers of the Gateway Tower did and have a shorter pedestal on one half of the property (a small-volume base) and a taller higher-volume tower on the other half. Here's a simple example of two cubes of the same volume but different heights:



Nowhere is there the arch specifically mentioned by name or by height in building codes. However, in the JMD zone only it does mention a specific hard height limit of "a mean sea level elevation of seven hundred fifty-one (751) feet". That's actually fairly limiting.

The arch grounds are 478' above sea level (reference, page 2), giving the 630'-tall arch a height above sea level of 1,108'. That means by code buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Archgrounds must be '357 shorter than the pinnacle of the Arch itself measuring from sea level.

So if you're building on ground at the same elevation above sea level as the Arch (an important qualification), that would limit a tower in the JMD zone to 273' in height. The Gateway Tower, for reference, is 260' tall.

-RBB

very good write up but a $160 fee for a Board of Adjustment hearing will throw all that out the window and give a variance for pretty much any height

Yep. Here's what Mayor Slay said about the building heights back in 2006 (in reference to towers proposed in the Bottle District):

Here’s how we will handle it: We’ll consider the impact of any new tall buildings added to the skyline very, very carefully. The “751 feet AMSL” language will be modified when the developers let us know exactly what they are planning to do — and when we’ve looked at the effect such buildings would have on the Arch.

So it's by no means a hard-and-fast rule.

-RBB

Great write-up RBB. Thanks for the info/clarification.

wabash wrote:Great write-up RBB. Thanks for the info/clarification.

-RBB

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... ew-620.jpg

a rendering of the proposed tower.

Just to be clear, no tower has been proposed. The owners of the property are just trying to entice buyers with a vision of what could be.

roger wyoming II wrote:I thought I'd re-bump this earlier post. On the State of Downtown thread several have commented that leasing appears to have slowed down recently. I took the Alverne off the Under Construction list and moved it to Planned as Hayden said he'd put that one off to around 2016 when he hopes to have the newly acquired 720 Olive Building done.

roger wyoming II wrote:Here is a link to my Downtown 2014 Projects list
http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 20#p230120

Here is a list of residential I've separated out... I'm counting almost 800 units recently completed or under construction and over 350 more planned not including intriguing other possibilities such as BPV or Laclede's Landing towers:

Recently Completed

Gallery 515 apartments - 515 Olive (102 units; Millennium Center 11 floor apartment conversion)
Lacassian Lofts -- renovation of 2200 Locust (27 units + ground floor commercial)
CitiParc at Pine - 1531 Pine (149 senior housing units; was vacant Plaza Square Building)
Tower OPOP - 411 N. 8th (128 units + ground floor restaurant)
406 units recently completed

Expected Completions 2014
Plaza Square improvements, including new garage (intended to create high occupancy rates)

2014 Expected Construction Starts with post-2014 completion

Under Construction
Arcade-Wright - 800 Olive (282 units + Webster U Gateway Campus))
Marquette Building - 304 N. Broadway (10 condos converted from old Y space)
1214 Washington mixed-use (5 units + first floor commercial)
378 units under construction

Planned
720 Olive - 111 units (partial residential conversion of office building; offices consolidated to lower floors)
The Alverne Building (1014 Locust) (81 units)
1900 Pine (87 units)
Chemical Building - 721 Olive (approx. 120 units)
2035 Lucas "Intrada Lofts" (57 units)

375 units planned

Keep an Eye On - Potential Projects Bandied About
Possible BPV residential tower
Possible residential tower by Drury at Washington and Third (currently surface parking lot)
2nd Possible residential project in Laclede's Landing (unknown address)
Possible purchase of 2nd Plaza Square building for senior housing

So, those complaining they can't rent apartments Downtown may be affected more by competition from these new unites rather than perceptions of crime.

wabash wrote:I love all the enthusiasm for new construction going on here. I also really like the Roberts Tower and the how it turned out. But there is a ton of inventory of old buildings that are either un-used or under-used that could be converted to residential in the coming years. I hope that residential conversions continue for years to come, as the office market is completely moribund. Here are a few examples of buildings that could be available for conversion after the current round of proposals are completed:


The office/retail/garage proposal for Municipal Courts seems to have stalled:




The building to the left of SLU Law:

I love this post; some of these are data centers, etc. and we have a few more potential cadidates out there so I'll try to update soon.

"So I have approx. 400 units recently completed + the City View renovation, 300 under construction and 300 planned"

I am sorry but those numbers are so weak. We need to put more pressure on the Partnership.

I don't see downtown having more then 500 unites under construction till some major changes happen downtown like noticeable gains in jobs, more metro-link or street car, all new side walks and getting rid of the one way streets. Not saying all has to happen but I think at lest one would help a lot.
Also I don't think a BPV residential tower would not be an indicator of how good or bad downtown demanded is it would be in a league of its own.

^ While I agree all those things would help spur projects, I think we can do 500+ units a year as things stand.... in fact the 87 units of the 1900 Pine project should get underway in early 2015, which will put us just under 500 and I'm sure there will be one or two others that get underway at some point next year.

The demand side seems to be doing okay and I think it will increase even more as downtown reclaims a bit of that sense of being where the action is at.... for a variety of reasons it lost a bit of that momentum but I'm optimistic that is starting to turn around. My main concerns are on the supply side and why developers aren't moving faster.... on the historic rehab side, it may be that our past success has left pretty much only more difficult candidates left to finance and on the new construction side, I think there is a bit of question of whether there is sufficient demand to meet the generally higher required rents.