urbanSTL

Actually, Chicago has dozens in the 60-story range and most other cities St. Louis' size or larger have at least one 40 plus story residential tower.

Not MOST other cities have taller residential buildings.

Interesting, albeit somewhat unrelated fact. The following cities have, or will have by 2010, buildings as tall or taller than any building in St. Louis:

Des Moines, Tulsa, Omaha, Mobile, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Tampa, Columbus, Nashville, Louisville, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, New Orleans and Milwaukee, and most of these cities have at least 3 or 4...

SOME of these cities will have taller COMMERCIAL buildings (now or proposed) not all RESIDENTIAL. AND most (see review below) don't have anything seriously proposed over STL height. If they do - remember it is just that PROPOSED. Anyone can Propose. Sales must be at a GOOD percentage before a 40 or even 60 story residential building will be built. In addition, many new towers are combining both - residential and commercial - in order to achieve building. Not many banks will finance a building before around 50-60 percent is in pre-sale.



The fact that STL is actually selling it's new highrise buildings and they are getting built is better than one huge project that may not get built. STL is also unique because we are rehabbing so many of our older smaller highrise buildings into residential buildings NOW. These are selling and filling nicely, they also add a lot of charachter. BUT, new buildings like the Park East Tower, 4545 Lindell, Lindell Condominum Tower and the Renaissance on Euclid are all nice fits to begin.



STL ALSO DOES have 40 + story tall proposals in Residential Highrise living too (just like most of these cities listed - proposed).



I would rather propose 25 - 40 story buildings (like we are) and get them sold and built faster than proposing a 50-60 + story building that probably will not sell and get cancelled or be pushed off - much less after completion have outrageous occupancy rates and cash strapped. Look at Mobile with the new mixed use RSA Tower - standing just over 600 feet and the tower features 80 commecial / 20 residential and is being built with only 50 percent occupied overall. It is the biggest news in Mobile (I know I use to live there) about how the thing will finance itself and will ever get filled. The rest of the beautiful buildings downtown are over 70 percent vacant and mostly shuttered. That is not the way to build a city!

I like that STL HAS rebuilt itself and now is begging to build up and new because of DEMAND!

Interesting, albeit somewhat unrelated fact. The following cities have, or will have by 2010, buildings as tall or taller than any building in St. Louis:

Cities in Review:



Mobile: The RSA Tower - see above.

Louisville: Museum Place has a very slim chance of being financed and built. The building is very strange looking if you ask me and is also mostly commercial space.

Charlotte: Already does

Nashville: Signature Tower, same thing goes for Nashvillle as Knoxville on getting this building up

Vegas: Yes

Baltimore: Mixed use 10 Inner Harbor may be built according to sales again

New Orleans: Yes - but probably not soon. I just came back from there ysterday and the city looks worse now than just after Katrina - the place is a dump and the people are not there. The quarter is the only part that is going.

Tampa: Yes, if Trump get's the interest

Seattle: Already does

Sacramento: Maybe, first I would like to see them get one of the 10 proposed sold and done. It maybe easier there because it's Cali.

Denver: Already does

Minneapolis: Already does

Tulsa: None proposed

Omaha: None proposed

Cincy: None proposed

Milwaukee: None proposed

Kansas City: None proposed

Des Moinse: None proposed

Columbus, OH: None proposed

Indy: None proposed





Again, I would rather have a viable, livable and successful city under tall buildings than just a white elephant hovering over vancancy rates, desolate streets and dwarfing what ever other skyline exists. In addition, I want any tall building full of life.

matguy70 wrote:I want any tall building full of life.

Having tall buildings is growth - having "tall buildings (that are) full of life" is smart growth.

One of the big things I like about most of this new development in St. Louis lately is that it is justified and smart. There are MORE people downtown now than there were before, and LOTS of people have shown interest in living downtown - so more buildings are being proposed.... the way it should happen.

Very good points, MatGuy. I'm so sick of hearing about all these super-tall towers other cities are supposedly building. Probably only about 20% will actually GET built.



I, too, would rather have a beautifully filled-in city with several moderately tall buildings than some empty shell with a few "gold teeth" sticking up out of nowhere.

I agree the overall health is most important, but never underestimate the power of a skyline defining tower. When you go to Chicago what's the first building you see? Most likely the Sears Tower or Hancock etc. It can do a lot to the morale for those in the city who are yet to buy into the cities resurgence. It also is a clearly visible sign to those outside the region driving through the area, or Sports Games backdrops on TV etc. It's not the be all end all by any means, but it's amazing the power a true skyscraper can have on psyche and morale. It is important though on the back end to be able to support it, otherwise it could be seen as a blunder. If the resurgence continues I think we will see a nice sized scraper in the future. I also think I would prefer 3 or 4 35 or 40 story buildings then one 60 story, as the density would offset anything the height would provide.

matguy70 wrote:

Interesting, albeit somewhat unrelated fact. The following cities have, or will have by 2010, buildings as tall or taller than any building in St. Louis:

Des Moines, Tulsa, Omaha, Mobile, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Tampa, Columbus, Nashville, Louisville, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, New Orleans and Milwaukee, and most of these cities have at least 3 or 4...

SOME of these cities will have taller COMMERCIAL buildings (now or proposed) not all RESIDENTIAL. AND most (see review below) don't have anything seriously proposed over STL height. If they do - remember it is just that PROPOSED. Anyone can Propose. Sales must be at a GOOD percentage before a 40 or even 60 story residential building will be built. In addition, many new towers are combining both - residential and commercial - in order to achieve building. Not many banks will finance a building before around 50-60 percent is in pre-sale.

matguy, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply reading my post. Do you see the word "residential" in front of the word building in the above quote of my post?



By the way, even if you remove the "proposed" buildings from my list (which have just as much chance of being built as the highrises in Ballpark Village or Gateway Village), only three cities drop off, Cincinnati, Baltimore and Louisville. If you leave the proposed buildings in, you can actually add Austin and Birmingham to the list, and Albany has a building just a few feet shorter than Met Square. So, I think I have made my point.



The question is, why is that point so difficult for you to understand? Many on here seem to work themselves into a froathing frenzy at the slightest perceived criticism of St. Louis, which is followed shortly thereafter by the loss of their reading comprehension ability. This city needs doers, not cheerleaders.

matguy70 wrote:The rest of the beautiful buildings downtown are over 70 percent vacant and mostly shuttered. That is not the way to build a city!

I like that STL HAS rebuilt itself and now is begging to build up and new because of DEMAND!...Again, I would rather have a viable, livable and successful city under tall buildings than just a white elephant hovering over vancancy rates, desolate streets and dwarfing what ever other skyline exists. In addition, I want any tall building full of life

Hmm, "white elephants" and "desolate streets"...and you still don't understand my point in the other forum about too much entertainment development? (The forum which YOU called ME a troll, and then shut it down - nice)



Oh yeah, and thanks for the real estate lesson!

^Come on jlblues, this is a pro-STL forum. How did you think such a strong negative portrayal of STL was going to be met here? You keep saying the city needs doers and not cheerleaders, but unless you are a developer or do something else productive for the city, then you are a cheerleader as well, just for the opposite side. And as far as matguy70 calling you a troll and then shutting down the thread...you were trolling, I've been all around the country and people know exactly where St. Louis is located. Even if you meet the occasional person who doesn't know how large of a city STL is, they certainly don't ask if you are home schooled. You wrote that stuff specifically to illicit a response.

but never underestimate the power of a skyline defining tower.

We have the arch - and I never underestimate that thing! It is truly more defining than most skyscrapers in the USA/World at that

^ I think jlblues has a lot of very valid, intelligent things to say. He's right: you claim that this forum is created to organize and rebuild St. Louis or promote development, yet anyone who offers any criticism about the current state of affairs is looked at as a troll.



The bottom line is that without criticism, you'll never elicit any change or development. If you want a forum full of people that say everything in St. Louis is awesome and that drastic changes still don't need to happen, then fantastic, mission accomplished. Go ahead and keep giving each other high-fives each time a Jimmy John's opens up downtown.



I just don't see how sugar coating every scenario and attacking anyone with objectivity does you any good. There aren't many people on here who post just to say "St. Louis Sucks." Most people are on here because they have some kind of connection to it and they are interested in what is going on and how to push the change in the city that they feel is needed.



What is the problem with people vocalizing frustrations? Aren't frustrations and discontent opportunities for development and change?

SLU_Alum wrote:^ I think jlblues has a lot of very valid, intelligent things to say.



I agree. He has said a great many intelligent things.





I just don't see how sugar coating every scenario and attacking anyone with objectivity does you any good. There aren't many people on here who post just to say "St. Louis Sucks." Most people are on here because they have some kind of connection to it and they are interested in what is going on and how to push the change in the city that they feel is needed.

?

That doesn't happen when people are objective, but I question the objectivity of some of his posts:

jlblues wrote:I think you would be surprised at just how many people I encounter in my travels (yes, in this country, and yes, these are well-educated, well-travelled people I am talking about) that have no clue where the Arch is, if they even know of its existence. I have had many other experiences like the Clayton one. During conversations about where I was from, after St. Louis was mentioned I have had people ask me, "Where is that?", "How do you like living in Mississippi, isn't it really hot there?", "Which is bigger, St. Louis or Chicago?" , "How come you don't have a Southern accent?" , and this one I never quite figured out, "Were you home-schooled?"

Notice how he keeps slipping in the CHI references? Nothince the southern comments? Home Schooled?!? Give me a break. It just seems like planted statments meant to set people off.



Anyways, I'm done going off topic. How 'bout those highrises?

If you are not finding any constructive critism and discussion on the boards, look again.



I never said that any posters on these forums views do not have validity or intelligence.

I do, however, question posts/threads that are made with "personal" agendas and views that tend to downtrod the city made on a website that does promote urban St. Louis. We have the media to do that, and yes, this is not the place.

I do, however, question posts/threads that lead to city vs. city. Intelligent discussion about St. Louis is permitted on these boards, but to use city vs. city (we/they got a bigger this and that than you or us) is not constructive critism about St. Louis.



If you wish to discuss "personal" views and ideas about St. Louis that have pertaining issues about St. Louis' development, do so without "comparisons to other cities" and use correct information with resources and figures documented. Anyone can meerly say that St. Louis' Forest Park is too spread out and it should be more like Chicago's Lincoln Park - but state valid statements why and "why" this is not good for St. Louis beyond the fact that you don't think it is and because "its better in city ABC". Then discuss the issues in which you feel could help St. Louis achieve the goal (you believe it should be accomplishing). There are many threads - most threads here actually - that posters are talking about the issues with their own "ideas". But threads that blatantly "compare cities", have incorrect information, simply posted to downtrod St. Louis, Spam, not issues about St. Louis, personal agendas, or include flames and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Period.



and yes, there is no longer any relevant discussion on this thread about highrises in St. Louis. Discussion closed.



Feel free to contact me or any of the moderaters via private message at anytime and thank you for your input & involment with UrbanStLouis.