Was just wondering if anyone managed to get a decent pic of the MW Tower proposal. McGowan-Walsh had a few display boards at the Packard Lofts sales center, but alas my phone battery was dead (probably wouldn't have come out well anyway).
jlblues wrote:Was just wondering if anyone managed to get a decent pic of the MW Tower proposal. McGowan-Walsh had a few display boards at the Packard Lofts sales center, but alas my phone battery was dead (probably wouldn't have come out well anyway).
I saw those, too, but I didn't have my camera with me. I stood there and stared at those display boards for about 5-10 min. I hope someone did get a picture of them to post.
bpe235 wrote:MW tower... ??? anyone got any details???
Details: (Straight from the mouth of Kevin McGowan)
MW stands for McGowan|Walsh...
71-story, mixed-use building. First 20-something stories would be hotel on top of (what looked to be) about 6-8 stories of parking, next 25 or so stories are office, then condos the rest of the way up. The site hasn't been finalized, but it is narrowed down to six sites. The preferred site is along Chouteau Lake. Didn't say exactly where, but I think close to the ballpark. It would have around 350,000 SF of office space, of which, according to Kevin, ~300,000 SF is being seriously considered by a local company. If Chouteau Lake is a go, and the office tenant commits (which probably depends on the lake happening) it could be going up in five years...
Not from the mouth of Kevin, thus purely my own speculation:
This building is a bit too optimistic for any place other than Ballpark Village, thus I believe this building is a proposal from McGowan|Walsh for a project to be co-developed by McGowan|Walsh and Cordish as part of Ballpark Village, IF the city and the Cardinals/Cordish can come to some agreement on incentives/city backing of the TIF.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and there is also the fact that the 350,000 SF of office space in the MW Tower specs is the same amount of office space that was in the Ballpark Village specs
The design of the building is ok, but rather uninspired. If you wanna see the rendering, go by the Packard Lofts sales center (at least it was there this weekend)
Visual Details? Like was it mostly glass? Was the top pointed or flat? ...
Xing wrote:Visual Details? Like was it mostly glass? Was the top pointed or flat? ...
Flat top, roughly rectangular floor plan, looks to be mostly dark aqua colored glass (this was probably just the rendering). It had an obvious transition between hotel - office. The hotel part was sort of a grid w/ glass layout (with different colored glass), transitioning to all glass office. The condo portion looks to be all glass as well, except the plane of the glass is broken up by the occasional vertical plane of balconies. (Those would be very windy balconies!
) It looks quite a bit like this building...
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=196560
...with roughly the same dimensions, except the balconies obviously don't run the full height of the building, plus there was an offset glass grid on the hotel portion of the MW Tower and it didn't have the white cap thingie at the top.
Is this for real? How is there not a thread of its own already?
If this is placed directly south of 40 and the Ballpark it could be a definent possibility. Every room would have an awesome view: to the west would be of Chouteau Lake, to the North would be of the ball park and the sky line, the east would have the Arch and the river, and the South would have views of the near Southside frenchtowns.
If this is placed directly south of 40 and the Ballpark it could be a definent possibility. Every room would have an awesome view: to the west would be of Chouteau Lake, to the North would be of the ball park and the sky line, the east would have the Arch and the river, and the South would have views of the near Southside frenchtowns.
Alright, I wasn't there. So, I hope some of those on the loft tour can explain what they saw.
This project really blows me away, but I can't yet figure out how much of a possibility it really is. I would love to see a rendering.
This height is still taboo ( above 630? or top of the arch), but we need a stellar building like Philly?s One Liberty Place to break this barrier (One liberty was the first building to go above William Penn?s statue on the top of city hall - since several buildings have been constructed above the statue.) Look at the Bottle district, the tallest building was stated at maxing out at 630? It would be easy for the BD to make a 632 foot building ? but there is a barrier?.
It would be a great addition to Chouteau Lake if it is accompanied by some other substantial development. I don?t want another Williams Tower Houston (64 story building surrounded by a bunch of 20 story buildings) It just looks out of place.
St. Louis has 3 distinct sky lines (downtown, CWE and Clayton) and all have multiple similarly sized buildings, which makes for good looking proportional skylines. The wildest ideas for BV (including putting this or any 60+ story building there) blend well into the current downtown fabric. Bottle District will be close to tall buildings downtown like Met Square and US Bank Plaza - tying it into the current level. Plus both of these developments contain more than one tower. If this tower is south of I64, and further to the west, it will certainly have good views of downtown and CWE, but it may look out of place and separate from current developments. The drawings I have seen show 20 story buildings on Chouteau Lake, combine these with one really tall building is poor planning.
With that said ? GOD I HOPE STL GETS A BUILDING LIKE THIS. Not to mention looking cool, it will certainly gain STL some street credit (with other major cities that say "no 700+ foot buildings - you aren't a real city?) TAKE THE TITLE FROM KC.
It would be a great addition to Chouteau Lake if it is accompanied by some other substantial development. I don?t want another Williams Tower Houston (64 story building surrounded by a bunch of 20 story buildings) It just looks out of place.
St. Louis has 3 distinct sky lines (downtown, CWE and Clayton) and all have multiple similarly sized buildings, which makes for good looking proportional skylines. The wildest ideas for BV (including putting this or any 60+ story building there) blend well into the current downtown fabric. Bottle District will be close to tall buildings downtown like Met Square and US Bank Plaza - tying it into the current level. Plus both of these developments contain more than one tower. If this tower is south of I64, and further to the west, it will certainly have good views of downtown and CWE, but it may look out of place and separate from current developments. The drawings I have seen show 20 story buildings on Chouteau Lake, combine these with one really tall building is poor planning.
With that said ? GOD I HOPE STL GETS A BUILDING LIKE THIS. Not to mention looking cool, it will certainly gain STL some street credit (with other major cities that say "no 700+ foot buildings - you aren't a real city?) TAKE THE TITLE FROM KC.
This is the first I've ever even heard of it. Sounds awfully pie-in-the-sky to me. I'd rather have two 35 story buildings though. I'm not a big height guy, I just like density, with good size.
trent wrote:This is the first I've ever even heard of it. Sounds awfully pie-in-the-sky to me. I'd rather have two 35 story buildings though. I'm not a big height guy, I just like density, with good size.
Still, wouldn't that look great rising over the left field wall of Busch Stadium...it never hurts to daydream.
It's exciting to hear someone like McGowan talking about making this thing happen. There'll be plenty of naysayers about it, sure, but I think someone with so much knowledge of DT and the market like McGowan will have a better understanding of what DT will support than the naysayers. Plus, how freaking cool would this thing look? Height may not be goal #1, but it sure would make those who don't know alot about the city take notice.
- 8,905
is this thing for real..? is there anyone else who saw this on the loft tour??? I'd like to see it near the cbd as apposed to south of 40...i wouldn't want it to sit alone...all in all this is really exciting...especially for the folks on this forum...it would really put a mark on this time in stl history..with the building boom downtown and all the excitement and possitive press this city is getting.
Very intersting. Hopefuly someone can come up with a shot of the rendering for folks here to see.
As for the plan itself. That's alot of if (office tenant committing and the Lake getting done). I mean we don't even know what the progress of the grand lake project even is (i frankly thought it was dead). However, if everything came together, this would be a great project. I too would rather have 2 35 story towers than 1 71 story tower. If MW thinks it could get the project without the lake, then maybe this is a good project for the parking lot just east of the stadium. Interesting news and what seems like a good push by MW to get people thinking about what downtown can become.
As an intersting aside, I once talked with a local architect/ developer about downtown STL and new highrise construction. He had an intersting take, particularly on the new court house and the Met. His argument was that in many ways, while great addtions to the skyline, neither were so good for downtown. His argument was that these new towers raised land values downtown and that there was not enough development demand downtown to take advantage of these higher values. Therefore, rather than having lower valued land that could have been easier to develop at lower intensities (say instead of a 45 story building, multiple 15 or 20 story buildings) we end up with towers and then empty lots. Moreover, the Met was built on a speculative basis and its construction left many older downtown buildings empty, creating the shinny new tower surrounded by derlict buildings. Just a few things to think about when someone is talking about a 71 story tower.
As for the plan itself. That's alot of if (office tenant committing and the Lake getting done). I mean we don't even know what the progress of the grand lake project even is (i frankly thought it was dead). However, if everything came together, this would be a great project. I too would rather have 2 35 story towers than 1 71 story tower. If MW thinks it could get the project without the lake, then maybe this is a good project for the parking lot just east of the stadium. Interesting news and what seems like a good push by MW to get people thinking about what downtown can become.
As an intersting aside, I once talked with a local architect/ developer about downtown STL and new highrise construction. He had an intersting take, particularly on the new court house and the Met. His argument was that in many ways, while great addtions to the skyline, neither were so good for downtown. His argument was that these new towers raised land values downtown and that there was not enough development demand downtown to take advantage of these higher values. Therefore, rather than having lower valued land that could have been easier to develop at lower intensities (say instead of a 45 story building, multiple 15 or 20 story buildings) we end up with towers and then empty lots. Moreover, the Met was built on a speculative basis and its construction left many older downtown buildings empty, creating the shinny new tower surrounded by derlict buildings. Just a few things to think about when someone is talking about a 71 story tower.
JMed; ^interesting points. You read my mind regarding the lot between the stadium and Pointe 400. Of course if the Lake gets underway and becomes the next hub for construction this would be a great fit. But I agree that if the Lake district continues to stay stagnant for the time being, filling that lot with a quality project (as this appears to be) would be extremely beneficial. I tend to think two 35's would fit better there as well.
If around the lake, however, depending on how far west it would sit, 70 stories could fit nicely into the skyline and the streetscape by bridging the gap between the core of downtown and the campuses of Ameren and Purina. Ideally the 70 stories would be well balanced by surrounding mid rises ( like some of the renderings show) as well to keep it from being too isolated. What makes this so influential to me is that considering BV, Chouteau's Landing and now this contribution. South of Market density that seems to be so demanded is becoming more of a reality.
If around the lake, however, depending on how far west it would sit, 70 stories could fit nicely into the skyline and the streetscape by bridging the gap between the core of downtown and the campuses of Ameren and Purina. Ideally the 70 stories would be well balanced by surrounding mid rises ( like some of the renderings show) as well to keep it from being too isolated. What makes this so influential to me is that considering BV, Chouteau's Landing and now this contribution. South of Market density that seems to be so demanded is becoming more of a reality.
- 8,905
^ like what was stated above, creating new office space can be detrimental to the surrounding areas if it solely draws from current businesses in surrounding buildings... I say build high in the sky, if the major new tenants are either from new job growth or relocation from outside the metro... hmmm
- 10K
I'd really like to see the gaps in downtown (such as the lot next to the Pet Building) filled in before attention is turned to the Chouteau's Pond area.
I never really considered the impact on land values that Met Square and the Eagleton Courthouse might have had - very interesting. I had heard though that Met Square basically just took tenants from other downtown buildings, which helps explain why the Arcade, Paul Brown, Chemical, Marquette, Security, etc. were available to be converted to residences.
bpe is right on the money - we need to start attracting new businesses so that we're not just playing musical office space. It's great to have current downtown tenants growing and expanding, but we need more than that. I'd love to see Ernst & Young, Husch & Eppenberger, and other high profile tenants move back once their leases expire down the road.
I never really considered the impact on land values that Met Square and the Eagleton Courthouse might have had - very interesting. I had heard though that Met Square basically just took tenants from other downtown buildings, which helps explain why the Arcade, Paul Brown, Chemical, Marquette, Security, etc. were available to be converted to residences.
bpe is right on the money - we need to start attracting new businesses so that we're not just playing musical office space. It's great to have current downtown tenants growing and expanding, but we need more than that. I'd love to see Ernst & Young, Husch & Eppenberger, and other high profile tenants move back once their leases expire down the road.
- 359
tbspqr wrote:This height is still taboo ( above 630? or top of the arch), but we need a stellar building like Philly?s One Liberty Place to break this barrier (One liberty was the first building to go above William Penn?s statue on the top of city hall - since several buildings have been constructed above the statue.) Look at the Bottle district, the tallest building was stated at maxing out at 630? It would be easy for the BD to make a 632 foot building ? but there is a barrier?.
There is only a limited area in downtown that is affected by the 630' barrier. I believe the proposed building is in area that is not affected by this so they can build the building as tall as they want to.
- 1,493
I believe he was just reffering to the "stigma" that no one should build higher than the Arch, that stigma alone has been enough to stop anyone from trying it so far.stlmizzoutiger wrote:tbspqr wrote:This height is still taboo ( above 630? or top of the arch), but we need a stellar building like Philly?s One Liberty Place to break this barrier (One liberty was the first building to go above William Penn?s statue on the top of city hall - since several buildings have been constructed above the statue.) Look at the Bottle district, the tallest building was stated at maxing out at 630? It would be easy for the BD to make a 632 foot building ? but there is a barrier?.
There is only a limited area in downtown that is affected by the 630' barrier. I believe the proposed building is in area that is not affected by this so they can build the building as tall as they want to.
^He was only stating that there is kind of an unwritten rule, and it will take an adventurous developer to go higher. But once someone does, everyone will want to.
BTW, welcome to the forum.
BTW, welcome to the forum.
- 20
tbspqr wrote:
With that said ? GOD I HOPE STL GETS A BUILDING LIKE THIS. Not to mention looking cool, it will certainly gain STL some street credit (with other major cities that say "no 700+ foot buildings - you aren't a real city?) TAKE THE TITLE FROM KC.
I agree 100%.
Supertall buildings define a city's skyline and IMO would be tremendous source of excitement and pride for St. Louis. I truly hope this project is legit and we see something that breaks the unofficial height limit established by the arch. It's extremely possible to have much taller buildings while keeping the signifigance and visual stature of the arch. I'm hoping we get one tower out of the bottledistrict that is near the arch's height as well.
Even Nashville is a getting a 1000+ ft tower (Signature tower)....
I agree that "musical office space" is not necessarily advantageous for DT, but I do think that there was benefit from building Met Square. How many of those office tenets in the Security bldg, Arcade, etc. would have eventually left downtown due to lack of class A office space? I'm sure many of the companies would have outgrown their class B space and looked for new, shiny class A offices with lots of space and amenities in Clayton, Chesterfield, etc.
I remember having read in the business journal that some companies who thought about moving out of downtown or who weren't considering downtown simply couldn't find the amount of contiguous class A office space they were seeking. Consider Express Scripts: DT offered them the old Dillards building (which at the time was stuck in the quagmire with St. Louis Centre) and not much else. DT didn't have any class A space to offer them-either available, under construction, or on the drawing boards. I honestly think that downtown may be underserved when it comes to contiguous class A office space. And until that problem is solved, we really won't be able to attract large new office tenets (unless of course they would be willing to build their own new building from scratch).
Edit: Van der Werf discusses this issue in the Post today-article
I remember having read in the business journal that some companies who thought about moving out of downtown or who weren't considering downtown simply couldn't find the amount of contiguous class A office space they were seeking. Consider Express Scripts: DT offered them the old Dillards building (which at the time was stuck in the quagmire with St. Louis Centre) and not much else. DT didn't have any class A space to offer them-either available, under construction, or on the drawing boards. I honestly think that downtown may be underserved when it comes to contiguous class A office space. And until that problem is solved, we really won't be able to attract large new office tenets (unless of course they would be willing to build their own new building from scratch).
Edit: Van der Werf discusses this issue in the Post today-article
Does K.C. or St. Louis hold the title for the state's tallest building? I'd just guess K.C. with the Hyatt.