urbanSTL

Marmar wrote:If they build more than two towers, I hope the number of stories is varied, or at least different enough in design that they're not all indentical towers.

I agree... making them different enough in design should be alright. If the renderings are any indication, the designs do differ slightly, but they do keep the same building materials.

Someone should make a picture or an outline to show what they think St. Louis will be like in ten years, How the sky line will be different. I think the BD is really gonna help the skyline.

That's the first time I have seen that rendering. Are those beams of light on top of the towers just an artistic effect or are they spotlights?

why do these renderings change every week ... does anyone know what they're actually going to build?

I am still anxiously waiting for a finalized rendering. These are comps and don't show enough detail, especially with the multicolors used on the buildings. Is this reflection, or haven't they decided the color or materials of the clading yet? I'm curious.

Reguarding comments on the heights/number of stories, I would rather see a beautiful and interesting skyline, and one that is ever changing. The idea that "filling in" be done makes me think that when it's filled in, its done. Besides, I think this would give the skyline a rather child like interpretation of a city skyline.

Most cities the size of St. Louis (that is, metro area) have many far taller buildings than St. Louis, so why would a building 60 stories be out of place in St. Louis? I would hope soon we had several beautiful towers, ranging in the 55 to 75 story range rather than "filling in" (that will happen to a degree, anyway). And I don't think we have to be afraid of becoming "another New York"...that's a pretty hard task to accomplish. Chicago (my favorite skyscraper city) isn't like New York, and likely never will "catch up" skyscrapers-wise, and the same could be said of St. Louis in reguards to Chicago, let alone New York. What I'm saying is let us hope for a competative, interesting and beautiful skyline rather than worry about things which will come naturaly as a result.

Marmar, just to clarify what I mean by "filling in", it has nothing to do with the appearence of the skyline. And it has nothing to do with a dislike of super tall buildings. But, if you have a city with many empty blocks, and you have a market for only so many condos & offices, you can build one super tall building to satisfy that market, and therefore, leave the other blocks empty. Or you can build several smaller buildings. The several smaller buildings do nothing for the skyline, but fill in the blocks, making things on street level much more appealing.



I love a beautiful and exciting skyline, but I am more concerned about street level, than sky level.

SoulardD wrote:

trent wrote:It also sounds like the interest in the highrise living must have been high enough to increase the size of the buildings. This is good news.



I hope they are able to accomplish the two large towers, that would be exciting.

Two large bildings. That'll be a great expansion to the skyline. Might one be larger than the arch?

No. By city ordinance, no building in downtown St. Louis can be taller than the Arch.

Don't forget the fact that the taller a building is tghe most it costs. If real estate is relatively cheap, like in St. Louis for example, a developer probably won't want to invest in super tall buildings.



There is also the risk factor to consider. Build a 60 story building and get 30% occupancy and you are, for lack of a better term, screwed. Build a 35 story tower, wait a few years, then build another tower. That seems like a safer bet to me. I might love the rebirth of St. Louis, but you never know when it might cool.

^^ Sigh...........

That is just not true, there is no law on the books baring buildings to be built higher than the arch.



Read this thread:

http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t ... &start=315

From time to time I've heard this myth, and in passed decades after the arch was built at least two buildings were proposed that were taller than the arch. If such a law were in effect, the buildings would not have gotten to the stage they had.

Someone, I forgot who, posted some of the bylaws concerning height restrictions. There are none for downtown, in fact when a piece about the bottle district was shown on the news (I believe it was channel 5), the reporters ALSO thought there was a height restriction, and stated that they searched, but found none. Even if it were true, it should be abolished. To have and enforce such a law would be counterproductive to a CBD, especially these days, and who needs that?

If there isn't an ordinance, there should be. In a city like St. Louis-- far from a boomtown-- it would just be obnoxious to build a building that dwarfs the Arch. I think being a city of "short talls" is very endearing, and we need to remain true to that. It's unique to us! There is absolutely no conceivable reason to build supertall in St. Louis. The Arch should keep its commanding presence over the city- it's our identity!

I stand corrected.



http://www.westendword.com/moxie/news/s ... ook-.shtml



But I agree. It may not be a bad idea.

Well, if you want to remain small, unnoticed in the corporate world, this would be a good way to do it. I would like more for St. Louis...I guess that's because I remember before the Arch was there and what a wonderful downtown we had, and I'd like for downtown to return to being the kind of place that can compete in the world class city sector as it once did. Everywhere you look cities are passing us up and their skylines have soared. If you don't want tall buildings, you don't want a prosperous city, it's really that simple. (Don't mention D.C. as an argument, they have the US Government running things there...they can do whatever they want and prosper.)

Gpoing back to the whole "changing of the tower's heights" thing, they havent changed the numbers a bit on Emporis, they have had the same numbers for a while.

I wouldn't exactly call a 35 story tower "small."

Marmar, I disagree with you. I'd love to see the skyline fill in with 30-40 story towers, but why do we need 60-70 story ones? We have enough vacant office space as it is, and it would basically come down to shuffling the same people from one building to another. Skyscrapers are built based on demand. St. Louis has come a long way, but our downtown is still a lot quieter than it should be. I'd love to see a continuous skyline of tall but not obnoxiously tall buildings stretching from the downtown to Forest Park. There are lots vacant lots to fill...

Gasm, no city "needs" a 70 or even 40 story building. They're a vanity thing on the part of the builders and their city. Not an opinion, but fact. If you take that 60 or 70 story building and spread it out to "fill in the empty lots" , you still need buisness and people to fill them...so, you have all these buildings that rise to the same height and have this line that stops at 30 or 40 stories, or a cross section like:

15, 18, 20, 24, 26, 29, 30, 35, 40, 44, 42, 35, 30, 29, 26, 24, 20, 18, 15.

or worse:

30, 40, 30, 40, 30, 40, 30, 40, 30, 40, 30, 40, 30, 40, 30, 40, 30, 40, 30

I'd rather see:

15, 30, 18, 12, 40, 20, 18, 25, 44, 20, 15, 35, 20, 32, 42, 29, 18, 30, 26

Nor would I want to see:

15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 55, 60, 70, 60, 55, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, 15.

Example 1 & 4: BORING

Example 2: Disgusting

Example 3: Interesting, if of good design, similar to what's there now. Buildings that are dispersed, height wise. So tell me, why would buildings taller than what we have now (42 stories) be a bad thing? You do realize, that if St. Louis continues its renaissance, it most likely will happen. I've said before and I believe we should be concerned rather with the design of a building rather than height. It is my opinion that taller than the arch is not detrimental to St. Louis or the arch, and visualy will put us in competition with our peers. Do you guys see what I'm trying to get across?

There is no reason we can't have buildings that are taller than the Arch without keeping the Arch the dominant part of our skyline. As long as the buildings in direct proximity of the arch are not taller than it, I think it will be alright. As you build further away from the arch, the buildings should get taller. It would appear as if the Arch was standing in the middle of a bowl. If the buildings that are as tall as/taller than the arch are designed to complement the arch, I think it would make for a very interesting skyline.

In a city like St. Louis-- far from a boomtown...

I, personally, wouldn't call St. Louis "FAR from a boomtown..."



look at the project we are currently posting about - much less the many projects under construction or development in the city alone. Sure, we might not be "booming" with population trends sweltering (like Toronto or many of our Southern Cities) but we are building a very nice infrastructure to maintain the city and grow. STL has a lot more BIG projects and developments going on (especially downtown) than many of it's counterparts. The city and skyline is poised to drastically change in the next year or so (from downtown to Clayton).

I'm with Marmar on this one. Height is only one aspect of a building's (and a city's) aesthetic appeal. At the same time, if a combination of vanity and economics makes a 60- or 70-story building viable in St. Louis, I say build it.



Here's another thought about tall buildings vs. the Arch: technically speaking, is the Bottle District even downtown? I can never remember which street marks downtown's "official" northern border.

I have to say I'm pretty disapointed with you Gasm and your views on building big buildings. You didn't used to have this attitude, but I see now your way of thinking has become mainstream St. Louis after a few years of living in the city- scared to think big.