Knowing Jive, the original letter was probably laced with expletives 
Actually, the letter was softened a bit. As you can see, Jive was steaming mad when he read that ridiculous argument against the new highrise. I was hoping there would've been more letters.
That was not only an eloquent letter, it just plain made sense! I'd love to write a letter in support of this new urban tower to the West End Word, but not being a resident of the CWE, it may be met with resentment...what do you think?
IMO, with a developer like Opus wanting to build here in the premier high rise neighborhood of St. Louis, and Ms. Teper being against it, I can only sumise that she has a very selfish agenda or is stark raving mad.
IMO, with a developer like Opus wanting to build here in the premier high rise neighborhood of St. Louis, and Ms. Teper being against it, I can only sumise that she has a very selfish agenda or is stark raving mad.
The letter writing to the West End Word is heating up, guys.
![]()
Waiving historic guidelines is slippery slope
Posted Wednesday, October 12, 2005
To the editor:
I write in response to Randy Vines? letter regarding the high-rises being built in the Central West End. While I do not think that the Central West End Historic Guidelines should be enforced, the guidelines state that a proposed building should be within 15 percent of the average height of the existing buildings on the block.
Patti Tepper [whose letter appeared in the Sept. 28 issue] is correct in stating that this new building would be much taller than any other on the block. Once you start messing with the guidelines, it can be a slippery slope.
Furthermore, Vines? argument that a ?real city? allows for high-rises does not hold up. Both Washington, D.C., and Paris, France, have building restrictions. Washington, D.C., rules restrict buildings to be no taller than the Washington Monument. The tallest building there is the Cairo Building and it is all but 12 stories. In a city like Washington, D.C., this building ? as pretty as it is ? stands out like a sore thumb.
>>>> continued <<<<
Waiving historic guidelines is slippery slope
Posted Wednesday, October 12, 2005
To the editor:
I write in response to Randy Vines? letter regarding the high-rises being built in the Central West End. While I do not think that the Central West End Historic Guidelines should be enforced, the guidelines state that a proposed building should be within 15 percent of the average height of the existing buildings on the block.
Patti Tepper [whose letter appeared in the Sept. 28 issue] is correct in stating that this new building would be much taller than any other on the block. Once you start messing with the guidelines, it can be a slippery slope.
Furthermore, Vines? argument that a ?real city? allows for high-rises does not hold up. Both Washington, D.C., and Paris, France, have building restrictions. Washington, D.C., rules restrict buildings to be no taller than the Washington Monument. The tallest building there is the Cairo Building and it is all but 12 stories. In a city like Washington, D.C., this building ? as pretty as it is ? stands out like a sore thumb.
>>>> continued <<<<
Another one.
![]()
Daring design was once city?s strong suit
Posted Wednesday, October 12, 2005
To the editor:
I agree with the opinions expressed by Randy Vines. Another high-rise in the CWE will contribute to the density we need if St. Louis is to be more than clusters of suburban-style enclaves with historic facades.
Once upon a time ? the 1920s ? high-rise development first modified the fabric of this residential neighborhood. The Park Plaza is twice as tall as its neighbor The Chase and its Art Deco architecture is dramatically different. Today it is one of the city?s cherished landmarks and a hub for urban activities.
>>>> continued <<<<
Daring design was once city?s strong suit
Posted Wednesday, October 12, 2005
To the editor:
I agree with the opinions expressed by Randy Vines. Another high-rise in the CWE will contribute to the density we need if St. Louis is to be more than clusters of suburban-style enclaves with historic facades.
Once upon a time ? the 1920s ? high-rise development first modified the fabric of this residential neighborhood. The Park Plaza is twice as tall as its neighbor The Chase and its Art Deco architecture is dramatically different. Today it is one of the city?s cherished landmarks and a hub for urban activities.
>>>> continued <<<<
Here's my letter to the editor. Whether it gets published next week I don't know.
Dear Editor,
I support Randy Vines? letter ['St. Louis shouldn?t be afraid to be a real city'] 100%. While Paris Bouchard makes logical points in her letter ['Waiving historic guidelines is slippery slope'], I feel the need to remind Paris Bouchard that the Chase Park Plaza Apartments is a 30-story tower one superblock to the west of Opus? 25-30 story proposal.
Furthermore, Bouchard?s point about Central West End Historic Guidelines indicating that ?a proposed building should be within 15% of the average height of the existing buildings on the block? is a bit vague. How old are these guidelines? Were they written in the 1920?s during the Central West End?s ascension? Were the guidelines written after the last tower was built in the Central West End - some 25 years ago? It would be helpful if there was a reference to observe.
Respectfully, her point is further mooted by the fact Park East Tower (26-stories) is rising on Euclid and LaClede and will dwarf any structure currently on the block. The slope is slippery no more. If there are such guidelines in place, they have already been invalidated. And even if such guidelines do exist, guidelines can be modified to meet new demands of today.
Today, we live in an era where high-rise living in the United States is not only increasingly desirable, but a necessity. Building up is beneficial in a number of ways. First, it helps to curb sprawl. Secondly, by helping to curb sprawl, it preserves the environment, which is increasingly at risk as the population grows. Third, it helps to build population density in a city that has been losing it. Fourth, population density encourages people to interact with one another, which could result in a real community. Fifth, projects such as the one Opus is proposing gives citizens an array of housing options in the city. And last, it strengthens the economy of the CWE with residual effects likely to be felt throughout the city and region. Businesses would be more inclined to open in a neighborhood thriving with people.
This project is smart development and would do nothing to corrupt the fabric and function of the CWE. It just doesn?t make sense to complain about a 25-30-story tower when one already exists a block away.
In 1910, in Washington D.C, Congress passed a height-restrictions act to prevent federal monuments from being overshadowed by commercial construction. Unlike other large cities, Washington D.C. is not dominated by skyscrapers because of this act. Paris, on the other hand, is unlike any other city in the world. It did not want its beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers. Yet, it is said that Paris has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant in the world. Imagine if Paris had built up. I?d rather have Forest and Tower Grove park than a stubby six story building any day.
Paris is a unique and beautiful place, but so is St. Louis. In 1891, St. Louis built the tallest building in the world ? the Wainwright Building. The skyscraper?s origins are in St. Louis.
St. Louis, of all places in the world, should not be afraid of building skyscrapers (her invention) ? especially in high density, high-rise neighborhoods on appropriate high traffic and high pedestrian intersections.
Dear Editor,
I support Randy Vines? letter ['St. Louis shouldn?t be afraid to be a real city'] 100%. While Paris Bouchard makes logical points in her letter ['Waiving historic guidelines is slippery slope'], I feel the need to remind Paris Bouchard that the Chase Park Plaza Apartments is a 30-story tower one superblock to the west of Opus? 25-30 story proposal.
Furthermore, Bouchard?s point about Central West End Historic Guidelines indicating that ?a proposed building should be within 15% of the average height of the existing buildings on the block? is a bit vague. How old are these guidelines? Were they written in the 1920?s during the Central West End?s ascension? Were the guidelines written after the last tower was built in the Central West End - some 25 years ago? It would be helpful if there was a reference to observe.
Respectfully, her point is further mooted by the fact Park East Tower (26-stories) is rising on Euclid and LaClede and will dwarf any structure currently on the block. The slope is slippery no more. If there are such guidelines in place, they have already been invalidated. And even if such guidelines do exist, guidelines can be modified to meet new demands of today.
Today, we live in an era where high-rise living in the United States is not only increasingly desirable, but a necessity. Building up is beneficial in a number of ways. First, it helps to curb sprawl. Secondly, by helping to curb sprawl, it preserves the environment, which is increasingly at risk as the population grows. Third, it helps to build population density in a city that has been losing it. Fourth, population density encourages people to interact with one another, which could result in a real community. Fifth, projects such as the one Opus is proposing gives citizens an array of housing options in the city. And last, it strengthens the economy of the CWE with residual effects likely to be felt throughout the city and region. Businesses would be more inclined to open in a neighborhood thriving with people.
This project is smart development and would do nothing to corrupt the fabric and function of the CWE. It just doesn?t make sense to complain about a 25-30-story tower when one already exists a block away.
In 1910, in Washington D.C, Congress passed a height-restrictions act to prevent federal monuments from being overshadowed by commercial construction. Unlike other large cities, Washington D.C. is not dominated by skyscrapers because of this act. Paris, on the other hand, is unlike any other city in the world. It did not want its beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers. Yet, it is said that Paris has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant in the world. Imagine if Paris had built up. I?d rather have Forest and Tower Grove park than a stubby six story building any day.
Paris is a unique and beautiful place, but so is St. Louis. In 1891, St. Louis built the tallest building in the world ? the Wainwright Building. The skyscraper?s origins are in St. Louis.
St. Louis, of all places in the world, should not be afraid of building skyscrapers (her invention) ? especially in high density, high-rise neighborhoods on appropriate high traffic and high pedestrian intersections.
Arch City - perfect response! You hit it just right.
By the way, the Cairo sticks out, but it isn't horrible. It does stick out a bit, but it is on a street of low apartment buildings and townhouses. Not a street of high-rises like Lindell. But, if the Cairo were around the corner on 16th Street, it would stick out less. If the Cairo were at Kingshighway & Lindell in St. Louis, it would be dwarfed.
But, that doesn't matter and has nothing to do with the CWE. St. Louis is not DC. You will find highrises near midrises and houses all over St. Louis. It is too late for St. Louis to use DC or Paris as a model and who wants to? And I love your point about the Wainwright.
Again, great letter. Melanie's letter was good, too.
By the way, the Cairo sticks out, but it isn't horrible. It does stick out a bit, but it is on a street of low apartment buildings and townhouses. Not a street of high-rises like Lindell. But, if the Cairo were around the corner on 16th Street, it would stick out less. If the Cairo were at Kingshighway & Lindell in St. Louis, it would be dwarfed.
But, that doesn't matter and has nothing to do with the CWE. St. Louis is not DC. You will find highrises near midrises and houses all over St. Louis. It is too late for St. Louis to use DC or Paris as a model and who wants to? And I love your point about the Wainwright.
Again, great letter. Melanie's letter was good, too.
Arch City wrote:Respectfully, her point is further mooted by the fact Park East Tower (26-stories) is rising on Euclid and LaClede and will dwarf any structure currently on the block.
Paris Bouchard (Boo-shard) is a man.
you couldn't have said it better arch, and while the entire editorial was excellent, your last three paragraphs made his (or her) entire argument appear to make no sense (which it doesn't)
Fantastic letter, Arch City!!!
I was so mad reading Paris Bouchard's letter that I was inclined to write a rebuttal myself, but I figured having the last name as Jive wouldn't have a good chance of being printed. But yours covers all the points we're all thinking.
To even mention Paris, France in the same breath as St. Louis is absurd. As Expat noted, the CWE is already dotted with high-rises, so there is no height restriction to be preserved! That particular block of Lindell is lined with highrises, so if anything building one at the corner will compete the streetscape, not ruin it.
There are obviously certain people who don't want the city to progress. I believe that they view growth as a threat. We are not talking about tearing down a historically significant building. We're talking about a prime underutilized corner that deserves to have a sleek, eye-catching tower rising on it, not some staid forgettable 4-story building. A dynamic city means a better city for us all to enjoy.
Way to go, Arch City.
I was so mad reading Paris Bouchard's letter that I was inclined to write a rebuttal myself, but I figured having the last name as Jive wouldn't have a good chance of being printed. But yours covers all the points we're all thinking.
To even mention Paris, France in the same breath as St. Louis is absurd. As Expat noted, the CWE is already dotted with high-rises, so there is no height restriction to be preserved! That particular block of Lindell is lined with highrises, so if anything building one at the corner will compete the streetscape, not ruin it.
There are obviously certain people who don't want the city to progress. I believe that they view growth as a threat. We are not talking about tearing down a historically significant building. We're talking about a prime underutilized corner that deserves to have a sleek, eye-catching tower rising on it, not some staid forgettable 4-story building. A dynamic city means a better city for us all to enjoy.
Way to go, Arch City.
- 10K
Good work, AC. You might as well be speaking for all of us here.
- 1,610
Paris Bouchard ran for state rep not too long ago. Since Mr. Bouchard is of Canadian heritage and openly gay, I would have thought he would have more progressive and open-minded views than our anti-density NIMBY nativists. But given his letter warning against allowing Lindell to continue its history as a high-rise corridor, I'm now kind of glad Paris lost a race to represent the CWE in Jeff City.
Thanks everyone.
I had no idea that Paris Bouchard was a man. Interesting. Guess the letter shouldn't have referred to gender. Maybe the WEW will clean up the letter if they decide to publish it.
Also, I don't believe Mr. Bouchard is necessarily against the tower, but was outlining guidelines that he says validated Patti Teper's position. I think he was taking issue with Jive's "real city" comment too. St. Louis certainly could be a "real city" without skyscrapers, but it is imprudent, I think, to complain smart, sensible development.
Like STLgasm, I believe some NIMBY's will view growth as a threat. It threatens their way life, even if it practical.
Quick example. I was recently working on a job in Baytown, Texas. Baytown is "suburban" Houston, but is really a country town, that Houston connected. I was talking to a guy that was born and raised in Baytown. He told me that he was moving from Baytown to Gas City, Indiana because Baytown was becoming "too much like New York City". I held my tongue, but I laughed heartily when I got the chance. Baytown is as dinky as they come, but because it got a few new strip centers and subdivisions, it's now like "New York City". How laughable. But the Baytown where he grew up is changing. A huge new bridge connects it to other parts of metro Houston and it is a lot browner (Latino) too.
Point is, I believe the level of development, such as what is happening in the CWE, hasn't happened in our lifetime. For some people, who are accustomed to seeing the CWE the way it has been for so many decades, I imagine it could be a threat to their normalcy so they manage to raise hell.
I had no idea that Paris Bouchard was a man. Interesting. Guess the letter shouldn't have referred to gender. Maybe the WEW will clean up the letter if they decide to publish it.
Also, I don't believe Mr. Bouchard is necessarily against the tower, but was outlining guidelines that he says validated Patti Teper's position. I think he was taking issue with Jive's "real city" comment too. St. Louis certainly could be a "real city" without skyscrapers, but it is imprudent, I think, to complain smart, sensible development.
Like STLgasm, I believe some NIMBY's will view growth as a threat. It threatens their way life, even if it practical.
Quick example. I was recently working on a job in Baytown, Texas. Baytown is "suburban" Houston, but is really a country town, that Houston connected. I was talking to a guy that was born and raised in Baytown. He told me that he was moving from Baytown to Gas City, Indiana because Baytown was becoming "too much like New York City". I held my tongue, but I laughed heartily when I got the chance. Baytown is as dinky as they come, but because it got a few new strip centers and subdivisions, it's now like "New York City". How laughable. But the Baytown where he grew up is changing. A huge new bridge connects it to other parts of metro Houston and it is a lot browner (Latino) too.
Point is, I believe the level of development, such as what is happening in the CWE, hasn't happened in our lifetime. For some people, who are accustomed to seeing the CWE the way it has been for so many decades, I imagine it could be a threat to their normalcy so they manage to raise hell.
- 197
i think people are glossing over real concerns in their rush to condemn anyone against this as a close-minded NIMBY. I agree this building's height is fine, and it will benefit the CWE for all the reasons listed (which have to do with bringing more people into the area, increasing general densities, etc). However, from an urban design point of view people don't seem to understand WHY it works where it does, and why it WOULDN'T work in another location a block or two away. Not to mention, in the single minded lust for high rises, people are missing a valid point: great cities are not only made of high rises, in fact, they aren't even all that necessary.
High rises are appropriate for certain locations, and not for others. This particular project works because it is part of the Lindell corridor, a wide, heavily trafficked thoroughfare with many existing mid rise buildings. People should expect building heights to increase as they approach major traffic arteries, and particularly towards large activity nodes where multiple traffic arteries intersect. The width of this street makes it an opportunie place for mid-rises. Euclid, on the other hand, may be overshadowed and burdened, but seeing as its only one building, and the importance of this corner, i think this is acceptable.
Increased building heights are not justified solely by the presence of existing high rise within a quarter/half mile, or any similarly simplified justification. That sort of argument works if you're thinking of the skyline, which is only one of many factors that have to be considered.
I also think the writer has a good point, which is great cities DO NOT NEED high rises to be great urban places. High rises are nice for show, but they are not necessary to achieve the urban characteristics people enjoy and love about great places. I appreciate high rise corridors and awesome dt skylines, but I also realize that some of the very best neighborhoods and cities in the world consist of large numbers of buildings 5 stories and under. Prominent thoroughfares and locations deserve stand out buildings, but we shouldn't forget that the city's vitality and future lies in the smaller context buildings more so than the post card high rises. The CWE will be a much more beautiful and successful place if it is able to identify the precise locations and corridors for stand out buildings, and the areas that are more appropriate for smaller buildings. Lindell is a great corridor for high rises, Euclid is not.
High rises are appropriate for certain locations, and not for others. This particular project works because it is part of the Lindell corridor, a wide, heavily trafficked thoroughfare with many existing mid rise buildings. People should expect building heights to increase as they approach major traffic arteries, and particularly towards large activity nodes where multiple traffic arteries intersect. The width of this street makes it an opportunie place for mid-rises. Euclid, on the other hand, may be overshadowed and burdened, but seeing as its only one building, and the importance of this corner, i think this is acceptable.
Increased building heights are not justified solely by the presence of existing high rise within a quarter/half mile, or any similarly simplified justification. That sort of argument works if you're thinking of the skyline, which is only one of many factors that have to be considered.
I also think the writer has a good point, which is great cities DO NOT NEED high rises to be great urban places. High rises are nice for show, but they are not necessary to achieve the urban characteristics people enjoy and love about great places. I appreciate high rise corridors and awesome dt skylines, but I also realize that some of the very best neighborhoods and cities in the world consist of large numbers of buildings 5 stories and under. Prominent thoroughfares and locations deserve stand out buildings, but we shouldn't forget that the city's vitality and future lies in the smaller context buildings more so than the post card high rises. The CWE will be a much more beautiful and successful place if it is able to identify the precise locations and corridors for stand out buildings, and the areas that are more appropriate for smaller buildings. Lindell is a great corridor for high rises, Euclid is not.
I read your comments with amusement. I do think you misunderstood my letter. I am very much in support of the proposed building at the corner of Euclid and Lindell. I was simply stating that I understand Mrs. Teppers thoughts. Everytime you grant a varience it becomes harder to defend.
I am in agreement with you all, so I am pritty confussed by your statements.
I do want to point out however a couple of things about the letter written by Arch City (I think.)
The Chase Park Plaza is not only one block away. It is not on Lindell, it is on Kingshighway. Being more than a block away does make a lot of difference. Just look at Fullerton's Westminster Place then look at Olive or Washington just north of it. There is a big difference from one block to the next. That is why the guidelines referese to looking at each block seperately.
The guildelines were created in the late 70's I believe. I can any of you a copy if you would like. Just email me back if interested. (I do not agree with much of the guidelines, but they are currently being modified).
The Park East Tower is not in the Historic District. So that future building does not invalidate the guidelines as they are written. I can also get you a map of the historic district if you are interested.
I am an enviormentalist at heart. That is one reason that I believe that this building should be built and the reason I believe that the future guidelines should include a special section for high-rises. I also think that making sure that the high-rises are built "green" is very important and should be included in the guidelines.
The letter stated that "It (Washington, DC) did not want its beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers." I do not understand, so the writter does want our beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers? I actually do not think this is what he ment, but this is the way it sounds.
"Yet, it is said that Paris has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant in the world." Exactly who said? Haussaman, the noted designer of Paris made sure that each person living in Paris had a park within 5 blocks of his/her home. The inhabitents of Paris still have this great luxury and are very proud of this fact.
Thank you for giving me the time to clarify my original letter and my thoughts. It is through these kinds of open and honest debate which is heard with an open mind that true progress is made. Being respectful of each others opinions is crutial to keeping the ears of the other open to your views.
Thank you again.
Respectfully,
Paris Bouchard
P.S Sorry for the spelling, I was in a hurry and I have dyslexia. I am sure that many words were mispelled.
I am in agreement with you all, so I am pritty confussed by your statements.
I do want to point out however a couple of things about the letter written by Arch City (I think.)
The Chase Park Plaza is not only one block away. It is not on Lindell, it is on Kingshighway. Being more than a block away does make a lot of difference. Just look at Fullerton's Westminster Place then look at Olive or Washington just north of it. There is a big difference from one block to the next. That is why the guidelines referese to looking at each block seperately.
The guildelines were created in the late 70's I believe. I can any of you a copy if you would like. Just email me back if interested. (I do not agree with much of the guidelines, but they are currently being modified).
The Park East Tower is not in the Historic District. So that future building does not invalidate the guidelines as they are written. I can also get you a map of the historic district if you are interested.
I am an enviormentalist at heart. That is one reason that I believe that this building should be built and the reason I believe that the future guidelines should include a special section for high-rises. I also think that making sure that the high-rises are built "green" is very important and should be included in the guidelines.
The letter stated that "It (Washington, DC) did not want its beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers." I do not understand, so the writter does want our beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers? I actually do not think this is what he ment, but this is the way it sounds.
"Yet, it is said that Paris has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant in the world." Exactly who said? Haussaman, the noted designer of Paris made sure that each person living in Paris had a park within 5 blocks of his/her home. The inhabitents of Paris still have this great luxury and are very proud of this fact.
Thank you for giving me the time to clarify my original letter and my thoughts. It is through these kinds of open and honest debate which is heard with an open mind that true progress is made. Being respectful of each others opinions is crutial to keeping the ears of the other open to your views.
Thank you again.
Respectfully,
Paris Bouchard
P.S Sorry for the spelling, I was in a hurry and I have dyslexia. I am sure that many words were mispelled.
- 1,649
paris wrote:Being respectful of each others opinions is crutial to keeping the ears of the other open to your views.
I couldn't agree more.
urbanstlouis wrote:paris wrote:Being respectful of each others opinions is crutial to keeping the ears of the other open to your views.
I couldn't agree more.
^True
Paris, thanks for chiming in. I have a better understanding of your view now.
Thanks for the response, Paris. I am familiar with your tireless work to improve the CWE, and I couldn't believe that you would be opposed to this project. I think your letter had many of us confused, so I'm glad you wrote to clarify.
Welcome to the forum. I hope to see more posts from you in other threads in the future.
Welcome to the forum. I hope to see more posts from you in other threads in the future.
Paris, welcome and thanks for commenting. For the record, I want to say simply that I understood your letter, which is why I commented earlier that it did not appear you were against the tower, but only explaining Teper's position and taking issue with a description written Vines' letter. Essentially, you were being the devil's advocate (no pun intended) as well as shedding light on what you understand to be the current guidelines. I also want to say thanks for pointing out the CWE Historic District dilemma. I have done some research and will comment on it later.
Nonetheless, I will immediately clarify points of my letter that you have addressed. First, I am well aware that the Chase Park Plaza Apartment Tower is on Kingshighway. However, if you look at the block west of the proposed site it is a super block. In essence, there are no major through streets between Euclid and Kingshighway or Lindell and Maryland - only alleys. This is what makes the Chase tower theoretically on the next block from the Opus proposal. (Superblock: Definition)
![]()
Although the tower is actually on Kingshighway and Maryland, its height looms over every other building in the immediate vicinity, which is the other point I am attempting to make. In my opinion, objecting to a supposed "behemoth" hovering over the historic district is contradictory - especially considering there's already one in the historic district itself. The Chase has already established height precedence in the district.
I found a link of the guidelines (CENTRAL WEST END HISTORIC DISTRICT) originally written in 1974 and updated in 1988. In the link I found, it says:
"Section Two. The proposed standards to be applied within the district including, but not limited to demolition, facades, setbacks, height, scale, materials, color and texture, for all structures and the design details of all fences, streets and drives, street furniture, signs and landscape materials are set out in the "Development Plan for the Central West End Historic District", approved by the City Plan Commission, February 20, 1974 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds at Book..., page..., which is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference, and copies of which shall be filed for inspection in the Office of the Register and in the Office of the Building Commissioner."
While the stewards of the CWE Historic District can critique height apparently, it doesn't mention the 15% rule in which you speak - although that's not to say the guidelines haven't been modified since '88.
Let's see.....What would hurt the historic context? Height? No. The Chase Park Plaza has established height in the immediate district. Maybe this is why Opus proposed a 25-30 story building to ensure the height doesn't impede on the Chase. Perhaps a 25-story tower would appease stewards of the historic district. Location? No. The corner, with its function and flow, is appropriate for a modest tower. Design? No. The new tower, based on the description by Opus, is likely to look "traditional" thus better than what is currently on the corner. By it being "traditional" it is likely to meet all historic codes (ie. fa?ade, setbacks, scale, materials, color, texture, including height). Functionality? No. If built facing Lindell with standard "Lindell" setbacks with garage access similar to the Schafly Library's garage, I don't see a problem with this project. For the most part, it seems like Opus did their homework.
Here's another aerial in case you missed it before.
![]()
Absolutely not, Paris. First, the beauty and charm reference was made about Paris, France - not D.C. Second, I stated very clearly that Paris, France is a unique place basically implying that Paris did not build lots of towers, like its peers worldwide, while opting to protect its beauty and charm. This has been noted in literature. Imposing a height restriction demonstrated Paris' autonomy, which has to be respected, however, the vast majority of urban cities (or "real cities" as Randy Vines offered) have skyscrapers.
In expounding, it is widely known Parisians are very protective of their culture, history, and architecture. However, there are other cities in the world that are just as protective of their culture, history, and architecture; however, they have chosen differently how they protect those characteristics and assets. No two cities are completely alike and Paris, France, while unique and pioneering in some respects, is not (and should not be) the absolute barometer for all cities in the world.
Paris, respectfully, just because a park is "within 5 blocks of each living person's home" it doesn't mean that actual green space is high. It just means that a park, which may or may not be green, is 5 blocks away. What matters most in determining green space is the concentrated acreage of green space - trees, bushes, flora, and other vegetation. Apparently, despite all of the parks in Paris, Paris still has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant. Hypothetically, it could be that all of the "park" land in Paris still might not add up to the "green space" acreage accessible in St. Louis. I don't know this for sure.
Below are pictures of a park I took near Wall Street in New York City. Surely it is a beautiful park, but how much green space does it really have? Little, just a few manicured bushes. If a kid kicked a ball there, someone is bound to be disturbed.
![]()
![]()
Here's a resource for you to review (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_76156179 ... city).html). Please review the heading LANDMARKS. It specifically speaks to the connection between Paris' height restrictions and its lack of green space.
In concluding, although opinions run strong, this discussion is not necessarily about right or wrong. It is enlightening, but it is also about presenting the most accurate information and scenarios in order to make the best assessment possible. It certainly should not be about disrespecting one's opinion.
Nonetheless, I will immediately clarify points of my letter that you have addressed. First, I am well aware that the Chase Park Plaza Apartment Tower is on Kingshighway. However, if you look at the block west of the proposed site it is a super block. In essence, there are no major through streets between Euclid and Kingshighway or Lindell and Maryland - only alleys. This is what makes the Chase tower theoretically on the next block from the Opus proposal. (Superblock: Definition)
Although the tower is actually on Kingshighway and Maryland, its height looms over every other building in the immediate vicinity, which is the other point I am attempting to make. In my opinion, objecting to a supposed "behemoth" hovering over the historic district is contradictory - especially considering there's already one in the historic district itself. The Chase has already established height precedence in the district.
I found a link of the guidelines (CENTRAL WEST END HISTORIC DISTRICT) originally written in 1974 and updated in 1988. In the link I found, it says:
"Section Two. The proposed standards to be applied within the district including, but not limited to demolition, facades, setbacks, height, scale, materials, color and texture, for all structures and the design details of all fences, streets and drives, street furniture, signs and landscape materials are set out in the "Development Plan for the Central West End Historic District", approved by the City Plan Commission, February 20, 1974 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds at Book..., page..., which is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference, and copies of which shall be filed for inspection in the Office of the Register and in the Office of the Building Commissioner."
While the stewards of the CWE Historic District can critique height apparently, it doesn't mention the 15% rule in which you speak - although that's not to say the guidelines haven't been modified since '88.
Let's see.....What would hurt the historic context? Height? No. The Chase Park Plaza has established height in the immediate district. Maybe this is why Opus proposed a 25-30 story building to ensure the height doesn't impede on the Chase. Perhaps a 25-story tower would appease stewards of the historic district. Location? No. The corner, with its function and flow, is appropriate for a modest tower. Design? No. The new tower, based on the description by Opus, is likely to look "traditional" thus better than what is currently on the corner. By it being "traditional" it is likely to meet all historic codes (ie. fa?ade, setbacks, scale, materials, color, texture, including height). Functionality? No. If built facing Lindell with standard "Lindell" setbacks with garage access similar to the Schafly Library's garage, I don't see a problem with this project. For the most part, it seems like Opus did their homework.
Here's another aerial in case you missed it before.
paris wrote:The letter stated that "It (Washington, DC) did not want its beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers." I do not understand, so the writter does want our beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by kyscrapers? I actually do not think this is what he ment, but this is the way it sounds.
Absolutely not, Paris. First, the beauty and charm reference was made about Paris, France - not D.C. Second, I stated very clearly that Paris, France is a unique place basically implying that Paris did not build lots of towers, like its peers worldwide, while opting to protect its beauty and charm. This has been noted in literature. Imposing a height restriction demonstrated Paris' autonomy, which has to be respected, however, the vast majority of urban cities (or "real cities" as Randy Vines offered) have skyscrapers.
In expounding, it is widely known Parisians are very protective of their culture, history, and architecture. However, there are other cities in the world that are just as protective of their culture, history, and architecture; however, they have chosen differently how they protect those characteristics and assets. No two cities are completely alike and Paris, France, while unique and pioneering in some respects, is not (and should not be) the absolute barometer for all cities in the world.
paris wrote:"Yet, it is said that Paris has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant in the world." Exactly who said? Haussaman, the noted designer of Paris made sure that each person living in Paris had a park within 5 blocks of his/her home. The inhabitents of Paris still have this great luxury and are very proud of this fact.
Paris, respectfully, just because a park is "within 5 blocks of each living person's home" it doesn't mean that actual green space is high. It just means that a park, which may or may not be green, is 5 blocks away. What matters most in determining green space is the concentrated acreage of green space - trees, bushes, flora, and other vegetation. Apparently, despite all of the parks in Paris, Paris still has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant. Hypothetically, it could be that all of the "park" land in Paris still might not add up to the "green space" acreage accessible in St. Louis. I don't know this for sure.
Below are pictures of a park I took near Wall Street in New York City. Surely it is a beautiful park, but how much green space does it really have? Little, just a few manicured bushes. If a kid kicked a ball there, someone is bound to be disturbed.
Here's a resource for you to review (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_76156179 ... city).html). Please review the heading LANDMARKS. It specifically speaks to the connection between Paris' height restrictions and its lack of green space.
In concluding, although opinions run strong, this discussion is not necessarily about right or wrong. It is enlightening, but it is also about presenting the most accurate information and scenarios in order to make the best assessment possible. It certainly should not be about disrespecting one's opinion.
Thank you all for your comments.
Arch City thank you for your notes and info. I will take a look at Landmarks. I look forward to it.
I also look forward to reading future comments by all of you. Keep up the open dialogue! I loved much of your opionions, views and your enthusiasm for the City.
Also, anybody interesed in getting involved with the Central West End Associations Planning and Development Committee need only ask. Your views wouold be great to have, especially since they are reviewing the guidelines. I am a firm believer that you have to work within the system to change it.
"A neighborhood is only as good as the committment and involvement displayed by its residents".
Thanks again,
Paris Bouchard
374-5328
Arch City thank you for your notes and info. I will take a look at Landmarks. I look forward to it.
I also look forward to reading future comments by all of you. Keep up the open dialogue! I loved much of your opionions, views and your enthusiasm for the City.
Also, anybody interesed in getting involved with the Central West End Associations Planning and Development Committee need only ask. Your views wouold be great to have, especially since they are reviewing the guidelines. I am a firm believer that you have to work within the system to change it.
"A neighborhood is only as good as the committment and involvement displayed by its residents".
Thanks again,
Paris Bouchard
374-5328
- 835
Thanks so much for getting involved in this discussion, Paris. We love hearing comments directly from the horse's mouth. I am Randy Vines, who wrote the letter in favor of the new tower. I could understand Patti Teper's position if the neighborhood in question was Lafayette Square or Soulard or Tower Grove East. But the Central West End? This neighborhood has been riddled with highrises since early 20th Century! What are we protecting by restricting new highrise construction? The American Heart Association Building?
What kind of message does it send to the out of town developers who spend oodles of money to draw up grandiose plans for an up-and-coming neighborhood in a city that has been thirsty for this kind of project for decades? It tells them that we are just fine upholding the status quo. It tells them that we have no interest in thinking outside the box. It tells them that we don't like change. It tells them that we think small rather than big. It tells them "thanks but no thanks." That's lame.
What makes it all the more perplexing is that the people who oppose projects like these are the same people who "love" city living. They are the ones who take weekend trips to Chicago and leave their cars at the hotel. They're the ones who enjoy getting around New York City on foot or by subway. They're the ones who find these two cities awe-inspiring because of their innovative and prolific architecture. But when something is proposed for St. Louis that mimics what these great cities have been doing for decades, it is perceived as a threat to their peaceful city-dwelling existence. As if St. Louis is their own personal playground. NIMBYs are an interesting bunch.
If the new tower is ugly as hell, I will oppose it because I think St. Louis is now in a position to demand high-quality development. We have settled for less long enough. But if the Park East is any indicator, I think it will be a wonderful, beautiful addition to our neighborhood.
btw, I love Washington, DC and Paris as well, but those examples are completely irrelevant to this discussion IMO. Those are cities that never built highrises. St. Louis has had highrises in the West End for a long, long, long time. I just don't see the threat.
What kind of message does it send to the out of town developers who spend oodles of money to draw up grandiose plans for an up-and-coming neighborhood in a city that has been thirsty for this kind of project for decades? It tells them that we are just fine upholding the status quo. It tells them that we have no interest in thinking outside the box. It tells them that we don't like change. It tells them that we think small rather than big. It tells them "thanks but no thanks." That's lame.
What makes it all the more perplexing is that the people who oppose projects like these are the same people who "love" city living. They are the ones who take weekend trips to Chicago and leave their cars at the hotel. They're the ones who enjoy getting around New York City on foot or by subway. They're the ones who find these two cities awe-inspiring because of their innovative and prolific architecture. But when something is proposed for St. Louis that mimics what these great cities have been doing for decades, it is perceived as a threat to their peaceful city-dwelling existence. As if St. Louis is their own personal playground. NIMBYs are an interesting bunch.
If the new tower is ugly as hell, I will oppose it because I think St. Louis is now in a position to demand high-quality development. We have settled for less long enough. But if the Park East is any indicator, I think it will be a wonderful, beautiful addition to our neighborhood.
btw, I love Washington, DC and Paris as well, but those examples are completely irrelevant to this discussion IMO. Those are cities that never built highrises. St. Louis has had highrises in the West End for a long, long, long time. I just don't see the threat.
Hello Randy, nice to hear from you.
I agree with you about the Central West End and its high rises. I do however still believe that the historic district rules should be changed to reflect the modern needs of high rises. Currrently, it does not. That I think leads many to this delima. People like Patti.
I also agree that many City lovers go to New York and Chicago because they love what they have to offer. They also like thier own nieghborhood for what "they see" it as. As such, do not want it to change for what ever reason(s).
Many however are not in love with those cities at all. I know many people who love the CWE but hate both New York and Chicago. I Love (and I mean love) Chicago but can't stand New York. I also love to visit many cities over and over again, but would never, EVER want to live their. Its all about personal choices I guess.
My statements about Paris or Washington,D.C. (my hometown - born and raised in the City) was only to point out that cities do not have to have high rises to be "real cities". A city can be high density and great places to live with out them. Thats all I meant. However, the CWE - high rises - absolutely!!!!!!! Come on Opus!!!!!!!
Thanks for responding Randy. I really appriciate it.
Now, lets both keep are fingers crossed no obsticles come up.
Paris
I agree with you about the Central West End and its high rises. I do however still believe that the historic district rules should be changed to reflect the modern needs of high rises. Currrently, it does not. That I think leads many to this delima. People like Patti.
I also agree that many City lovers go to New York and Chicago because they love what they have to offer. They also like thier own nieghborhood for what "they see" it as. As such, do not want it to change for what ever reason(s).
Many however are not in love with those cities at all. I know many people who love the CWE but hate both New York and Chicago. I Love (and I mean love) Chicago but can't stand New York. I also love to visit many cities over and over again, but would never, EVER want to live their. Its all about personal choices I guess.
My statements about Paris or Washington,D.C. (my hometown - born and raised in the City) was only to point out that cities do not have to have high rises to be "real cities". A city can be high density and great places to live with out them. Thats all I meant. However, the CWE - high rises - absolutely!!!!!!! Come on Opus!!!!!!!
Thanks for responding Randy. I really appriciate it.
Now, lets both keep are fingers crossed no obsticles come up.
Paris
- 282
Arch City wrote:Paris, respectfully, just because a park is "within 5 blocks of each living person's home" it doesn't mean that actual green space is high. It just means that a park, which may or may not be green, is 5 blocks away. What matters most in determining green space is the concentrated acreage of green space - trees, bushes, flora, and other vegetation. Apparently, despite all of the parks in Paris, Paris still has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant. Hypothetically, it could be that all of the "park" land in Paris still might not add up to the "green space" acreage accessible in St. Louis. I don't know this for sure.
I disagree that "concentrated acreage" is what matters most. In a dense city such as NYC and Paris the proximity to a park is what matters most. Taking an hour to walk a few blocks and just decompress in a local pocket park is far more valuable on a daily basis than the massive urban park where you run and play ball.
You need the big urban park for weekends but proximity to a park by foot cannot be overlooked.