urbanSTL

Sorry, STLgasm, don't agree. The Arch was not built to admire from afar. It is a feature of the riverfront, not a landmark that should stand out at great distances. When you get reasonably close to the Arch, such as driving over the PSB (let alone when you are actually on the Arch grounds), there is no doubt the beauty and magnificence of the Arch stands out. Judging what determines a "proper and fitting" skyline with reguards to the arch from these great distance makes as much sense as the people west of the arch complaining they can't see the arch for the new buildings (Thomas Eagleton Courthouse....need we not build tall buildings to apease THEM? Do we really need to twart growth to please "distant viewers"?)

I'll say it again: Our new "official" skyline shot should be taken from the north. I think it shows everything off better anyway. It also accentuates the arch as a gateway no matter how tall everything gets to the right of it.

You have a good point there, stlmike. Personally, I always thought the best view of the downtown skyline (besides from most places from the East Side) is from the south, from near Chouteau & Tucker...but then this view would not show off the Bottle District, would it?!?!

It seems to me that in the Bottle District (or Gateway Village) we are getting the both of what I hear people saying they want.



1) Seven blocks of what are primarily parking lots, used only during Ram's games, are being replaced with (according to the latest site plan) high density urban developments.



2) Several of these blocks are going to have "tall" buildings and perhaps one "really" tall building.





So let both density and height lovers rejoice!!!





Besides this we are also getting:



1) More population living (officially or unofficially) downtown.



2) And likely a population capable of bringing in sales for downtown businesses



3) And likely a population capable of paying high taxes to grow the city's coffers.



4) This in addition to that fact we are now seeing proposals to develop over ground level parking lots... such at the Mairfair Tower north of the OPO or a mid-rise at Tucker and Washington, etc...



5) And this in addtion to both dense urban development and "tall" buildings in Ballpark Village.



Again...I say both density and height lovers rejoice!!! And pass me new renderings!!!

A bunch of St. Louis preservationlists bitched and belly ached about the convention center hotel. Instead of getting a 42 story tower that really stands out we now have a 20 story tower that is hidden in the skyline. You anti -height people need to step back and look at the big picture here and welcome these big projects if you are serious about getting St. Louis out of the dumps and into a prosperous future. Remember, the image of STL starts with downtown. And when people see the big towers going up they start believing something is happening. If you guys want to stay small with declining populations keep on the path of building a couple of 20 story buildings here and there. Detroit does it that way.

Thanks, Xing. As for me, I like the interesting "ups and downs"...actually, it stimulates creativity: "what might we put here as we grow". That said, any growing city will create gaps in the skyline as the city grows. This new St. Louis gap did not exist (will not exist until built) until these excellent renderings were posted. This is growth. I don't know why there's so much support for filling these gaps when some of those same people don't want buildings taller than the Arch. That would result in such a boring skyline, kind of like Philadelphia's before they did away with their height restrictions. (Does anyone remember what their skyline looked like before that? That may be what we wind up with...and that's why they disposed of the restriction)

Not a big fan of restrictions when it comes to development. The thought of the City of St. Louis telling developers to take a hike when they say they want to plant a tall skyscraper downtown. Things might be getting better, but we to take what we can get.



I think it is impossible to control the skyline. You plan developments based on logistics not what it will look like in conjunction with a monument and 20 other buildings you have no control over. Not to mention that most of us don't see that view very often anyway. And who says the skyline has to be symmetrical?

And let's not forget that we will always have one of the most recognizeable skylines in the country/world. We have the most beautiful monument as the centerpiece of our skyline. No building, no matter the height, will ever diminish that. So I say bring on the Gateway Village. If it is indeed a great project (I'm starting to feel pretty good about it), let us not worry about our skyline being symetrical.

Exactly. A growing one never will be anyway.

midcountyguy wrote:And let's not forget that we will always have one of the most recognizeable skylines in the country/world. We have the most beautiful monument as the centerpiece of our skyline. No building, no matter the height, will ever diminish that. So I say bring on the Gateway Village. If it is indeed a great project (I'm starting to feel pretty good about it), let us not worry about our skyline being symetrical.

Finally, we're all coming around. I can't wait until this thing is done. I can't even wait until construction begins. Can you imagine all the cranes that'll be over there and what the rising towers will look like. That's all not to mention the street level density and activity it will add and the new places to go hang out and show our city off to out-of-towners. It's going to be ***** Awesome, I mean with a capital F.

Hope I'm not beating a dead horse here, but "Gateway Village" is such a disappointing, hoky and unoriginal name.



Way to go, Ghazi. Your headquarters is in Charlotte, NC -- and I know it may be a wild-ass coincidence, but there also happens to be a Gateway Village in Charlotte too. According to this webpage, they don't appear to be involved. But still.... And wouldn't you know it, Charlotte also has the "Charlotte Vue Tower." Do a search for the Vue on this page. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but if this fiasco is indicative of Ghazi's creativity and marketing prowess, I'm a bit concerned.



Think about it. The design and vision of this development seem fresh and cosmopolitan. Gateway Village might as well be the name of a retirement home as someone else mentioned or a suburbian wasteland. Sorry, but this doesn't jibe at all.



St. Louis is undergoing a renaissance. What about Renaissance Pointe? Ok, so I already see some google results for that name, but it's a hell of a lot more cosmopolitan and fitting than Gateway Village. Renaissance Bend may evoke feelings of a rebirth along the river (bend...)



Please rethink this, whomever you are! Either that or maybe St. Louis should just change its name to Charlotte. Yeah, that's the ticket.

STLgasm wrote:Gateway Village??? What a stupid, contrived name. What are we, Kalamazoo?

Agreed, they should do a little more work on the names.



Renaissance is a no. Then it will be compared to Ren Center - Detroit. Besides, we already have a nice new building going up in the CWE with that name. You may have something in using "The Point" to imply riverviews.

Yes, I agree with you guys (Expat, Xing and innov8ion). Gateway sounds outdated and unsophisticated, alsmost cheesey. Don't like Renaissance either for the same reasons Expat gave, and Millenium has been used to death, too (and hopefully it's too late for that). How about something like "River Point" or "River Vista", something with 'River' in it? Maybe even "Vista Point" (Don't anybody suggest "Arch View" or "Arch...something"....that sounds almost as bad as Gateway.)

We ALL need to email this development team to let them know that the name Gateway Village is awful and ridiculous.

Recently I have noticed names based on the address:



For Example:

1010 North Sixth Street called "the TenTen"

1111 North Sixth Street called "the ElevenEleven"

555 Cole Street called "the 555"

They look a little funny here, but in a nice scroll over the front door of a elegant building it can appear rather modern.



And how about "the Broadway" or "the Downtowner".

Way to go, Ghazi. Your headquarters is in Charlotte, NC -- and I know it may be a wild-ass coincidence, but there also happens to be a Gateway Village in Charlotte too. According to this webpage, they don't appear to be involved.

I think the Gateway Village in Charlotte was developed by Bank of America. Sure would be nice to still have some major bank headquarters here in downtown St. Louis.

Would be nice, but alas we don't. We don't even have the private bank/ wealth management stuff HQ'd here. Its up in Boston now with the merger of Fleet and BoA.

Maybe we shouldn't be reminded that Charlotte took our bank (or banks). And if I recall, they took some of our art, too. It belonged to the bank, but I felt like it belonged to St. Louis. The art was paid for by years of doing business in St. Louis. This is an old resentment that has become fuzzy in my mind, so don't take it too seriously.

I don't know that they took any art. I belive while it was Nations Bank, the G.C. Bingham stuff that Boatman's owned was perminatly donated to the SLAM and is now up in the gallaries. That was a great addition for the SLAM and is a high point of their collection.





As for emailing the development team, seems like there was a sometime poster/ lurker of this website who was working with the BD people, so I would imagine that this stuff might get back to those involved. I swear that how we got the updated renderings showing better concetivity with the surrounding area.

Jmedwick, thanks for info on the art. I wasn't aware of that and glad to hear it. I can put that resentment to bed.