urbanSTL

This project is coming right along, I see progress almost daily. It is estimated to create 4,500 jobs: 700 construction jobs, 1,300 permanent jobs, and an additional 2,500 ancillary service jobs in the region. Hopefully a bunch of those 1300 permanent employees will make downtown their home!

Has anyone been to this site yet? It seems to have some more updated renderings of both the downtown and SoCo Pinnacle Casino sites.

http://www.pinnaclestlouis.com/



I have to tell you, I really don't like that hotel tower. Maybe it will look better in person - but it's literally a box with a swoop on one side - looks really crappy to me. I wish they would spend a little more money and modernize it some.



Plus, from the renderings it looks like the SoCo site will have more street activity - something I hope is missing only from the downtown renderings. This thing better not become another STL Centre.

"Growing from the banks of the Mississippi River, the St. Louis Metropolitan Area is now the nation?s 18th largest, with more than 2.6 million residents." - From pinnaclestlouis.com





This quote from their property facts sheet shows just how clueless this company is about St. Louis. Pinnacle seems to think that people here are PROUD that St. Louis is the 18th largest metro area. It is especially funny that they would emphasize that it is NOW the 18th largest metro area. They might as well have added, '...and if you check back in 4 years it will be all the way up to the 22nd or 23rd largest metro area!'



The whole project seems to be some odd mix of 60's modernist, 80's suburban post-modernist, and 90's retro-old design. The garage reminds me of the green and white stripes on St. Louis Centre, except we get maroon tinted glass instead of green stripes. Notice that there is a skywalk connecting the Embassy Suites with the casino. I thought we figured out a long time ago that skywalks are bad design and bad urban planning. No wonder Pinnacle released so few renderings of this project. And, on what exactly, could they possibly be spending $400 million?



While I was initially on the fence, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that this casino will be Mayor Slay's St. Louis Centre or Gateway One project. I see no reason why this project won't suck the life out of the Landing, or at least whatever life it had left. Like most casinos, this one seems to be completely self-contained and inward-focused. Once someone parks in the casino garage, and walks through the casino and passes all of their buffets, restaurants, and clubs, why would they leave the air conditioning/heat to walk over to a restaurant on the Landing? I imagine that you will be able to walk the entire perimeter of this casino/hotel on a Friday night and not see a single soul on the sidewalk with you, except for a valet or two.



By the way, they still haven't released the name of the hotel operator. It was supposed to be something like a Four Seasons, but why do I get the feeling it will end up being something more like a Sheraton?

I like it. The only thing I don't like about it is the lower level horizontal lines. That looks like some crap they would design in Clayton. It's different. It's new. It's being built and replacing something really crappy. I'm all for it.

The design does resemble some bad 1980's suburban office building. If they didn't provide the Gateway Arch in the background this building could be anywhere west of I-270 along Highway 40. Terrible urban design - no pedestrian scale to the base course of the building and obviously no external street level interest (unfortunately this is the nature of the beast with casinos - this is why outside of a destination like Vegas they are a terrible urban neighbor - they completely isolate pedestrian function and activity - I'm afraid this will not provide the shot in the arm needed for the Landing or for the northern portion of downtown.

Wouldnt it be so cool if this project jump started the landing into other constructions? I hope that is what happens

Well i have to say, any modern designed buildings will look bad in the city because every other building except the courthouse is either from the 1970's or earlier. So unless they design the buildings with darker colors or stone or brick facadings, no new building will look great with the rest of St. Louis being older buildings behind it. just look at the MCI building.

St. Louis Texan wrote:Well i have to say, any modern designed buildings will look bad in the city because every other building except the courthouse is either from the 1970's or earlier. So unless they design the buildings with darker colors or stone or brick facadings, no new building will look great with the rest of St. Louis being older buildings behind it. just look at the MCI building.

Modern? What is modern about this design? The entrance canopy and the stone wall around the entrance look very late 50's - early 60's. The hotel tower is derivative of a Mies van der Rohe design. The garage is 80's suburban schlock, and the casino itself is a very weak attempt to blend into the historic buildings on the Landing. The tan stucco, concrete, whatever it is, on the second level of the casino is hideous. It sort of looks like the New Brutalism of the Pet Building.



It is almost as if they decided to take samples of all of the worst architecture of St. Louis over the decades and combine them into one Frankenstein of a building.

jlblues wrote:"Growing from the banks of the Mississippi River, the St. Louis Metropolitan Area is now the nation?s 18th largest, with more than 2.6 million residents." - From pinnaclestlouis.com



This quote from their property facts sheet shows just how clueless this company is about St. Louis. Pinnacle seems to think that people here are PROUD that St. Louis is the 18th largest metro area. It is especially funny that they would emphasize that it is NOW the 18th largest metro area. They might as well have added, '...and if you check back in 4 years it will be all the way up to the 22nd or 23rd largest metro area!'

Wow! Talk about reading something that isn't even there!



From the quote provided, it is also obvious that they hate Jews.

Only 40 table games and no mention of a poker room.

That is my concern.

MattonArsenal wrote:Only 40 table games and no mention of a poker room.

That is my concern.

I know nothing about gambling. Is 40 table games bad?

I also just noticed that it looks as if the hotel portion of the building has a combover.

Let's face it: It's a casino. It's only function is to draw you in, squeeze you dry, and spit you back out when you're broke. They don't have any interest in "relating to the streetscape", or "addressing the architectural history of St. Louis".



Like jambalaya says, casinos only succeed as an urban element in a very few areas, such as Vegas, or even more so in Reno. That's why I wish we could hang on to the Admiral, and also add a third casino on The Landing. Then you would have a casino DISTRICT, with people walking from venue to venue. THAT would put people on the streets of The Landing. But one Mega Casino alone will simply be an island unto itself (which is exactly what Pinnacle wants).



BTW, I think the tower will add a nice touch to the skyline.

^^ Agreed.



Also I haven't gone through the whole thread but I am sure there were complaints about the pedestrian bridge and/or tunnel. Normally I would be against that, but for a casino I think it is a good idea.



Nothing like having drunk gamblers with fresh 100's in their pockets walking through the deserted streets at 3 or 4 in the morning.



I did that with some loud dumba** friends once, and felt pretty luck to get home incident free.

Pinnacle wanted to put a casino here, the city wasn't holding a gun to their head. Maybe the city was desperate to get a casino on the Landing, I don't know. But the city could and should have been more proactive and demanding in the design process. There is no valid reason why they couldn't have done something like a small version of Fremont Street in Vegas between the hotel and casino (running east-west), which would have better connected the Dome/Gateway Village to the Landing. They could have put a few shops and restaurants along the street to create more pedestrian activity. Of course the casino company doesn't WANT that, but is it a deal killer? Did the city even try to negotiate some design standards into the deal? It certainly doesn't look like it.



The main reason why the city wanted a casino on the Landing, other than the tax revenue of course, was to add activity to, and hopefully provide a shot in the arm for, the Landing. However, as configured now, it appears as though this project will not add any activity to the streets/sidewalks and wlll more than likely REDUCE activity on the Landing. It also completely cuts off the Landing from the Gateway Village project and makes the entire area less pedestrian friendly, and thus reduces the likelihood of traffic flow between the two areas.



This project could have been planned and designed to achieve the city's goals for downtown, for not a whole lot more money. This is exactly why I am so concerned about how Ballpark Village and Gateway Village will turn out. Until the city starts doing some creative thinking and grows some cajones, developers will continue to walk all over it and we will continue to get poor designs like this.

I have not read all the posts so I am sure this is in there somewhere but can somebody tell me when this thing will be completed? Thanks.

MOFORGOV wrote:I have not read all the posts so I am sure this is in there somewhere but can somebody tell me when this thing will be completed? Thanks.

The website says Fall '07.