urbanSTL

stlgasm wrote:If the AAA building can be saved from stupid ideas, this one's a slam dunk.

different animal - this thing is soooo urban unfriendly, completely auto oriented and the south tower is pretty squatty and ugly - the floor to floor heights are low and make it hard to reuse - I don't know if keeping it as is - is worth it or practical - maybe the north tower? even then it would take some work to integrate it into the city. It is such an average building on one of the best sites downtown - we can do better

If Ballpark Village is any indicator

My thoughts exactly. Ballpark Village is supposed to be prime real estate and we have a glorified strip mall with loads of surface parking downtown now. I'm not holding my breath for those lots to be built on....how many years did phase 1 take to happen?

I'm not opposed to demolition if something better/more urban would take the hotel's place, but STL has a terrible track record for this, as stated above.

And an owner not taking care of his property and wanting to tearing it down, I'm getting some Cupples vibes from that statement. So...are we going to have a deteriorating eyesore next to a national landmark until the building degrades to the point it needs to gets torn down?

Boo to the semi-off topic teeth grinding over BPV. It's going to be awesome and it's going to happen.

As for the millennium, I don't care if they tear it down and replace it with better, but that's the key. Just don't approve demo without having development plans in place.

I'm surprised to see so much indifference to this possible demolition. It's a contributing building of our skyline! It's round! It's midcentury! I, for one, would be very sad to see it go.

Boo to the semi-off topic teeth grinding over BPV. It's going to be awesome and it's going to happen.

Hopefully you're right, and hopefully it doesn't take over 10 years for it to be awesome...since that's how about how long we've already waited for "awesome" and we still haven't gotten it. OT

Anglophile wrote:I'm surprised to see so much indifference to this possible demolition. It's a contributing building of our skyline! It's round! It's midcentury! I, for one, would be very sad to see it go.

Agree. It's quite a shocker.

I love the Millennium, and would hate to see it go. It helps define our skyline, for crying out loud. I too am shocked by how many people on here don't appreciate it.

Now if someone were to propose a really, really good design to replace it, I'm willing to listen; but you better show me the money first!

When the closure was first announced it was floated that it could be turned into condos, even that was sort of bizarre to me as it's such a great location for a hotel and in a unique building, I assumed a quick turnaround. I cannot imagine the thought behind wanting to tear it down. This building is one of the tallest downtown and helps define the skyline. Even if the owners said they wanted to replace it with a taller building, it should not be allowed. If the owners don't want to put the investment into improvement they should sell. There is a massive amount of surface parking they could buy and use instead within shouting distance of the arch. Any of the massive lots around the stadium or bpv or the cupples site or the powell square site could be utilized for cheaper than tearing this down and would allow that prime building to be reused.

I like the hotel and I am spoiled seeing it on the skyline, but if the Millennium/developers want to build an awesome new modern replacement, I am for it. If it costs $80-million to renovate, they could build a VERY nice new hotel with that kind of money just by adding another $20-$30-million. I like the structure, but let's be realistic.

Give them a TIF already.

There should be a TIF with conditions such as:
1.) The new structure should be equal in height or taller and
2.) It would be a design to compliment the architectural integrity of the Gateway Arch.
3.) No demolition permit without solid construction plans in place.

Yep, need to hear more than 'the owner wants to knock it down'. Aside from the desirable location between the arch and the ballpark, this site gets free regional-to-national exposure from 82-94 nights a year on Cardinal broadcasts. I can't imagine it would sit empty for any time at all.

In my dream scenario, the main tower is retained but the lobby and south tower are demo'd, Clark St is extended to memorial, and a new tower erected in the newly restored block between Clark and Spruce. However, I'd be okay with a replacement if it's better oriented to the street and architecturally as significant (if not more) than the current tower.

But again, the owner should have not just a plan in hand, but have it 100% financed before the first medicine ball is allowed to fly.

-RBB

I am thinking something that echoes the arch shape:

Good question. Also, why is there a $100 million J.W. Marriott in Grand Rapids?

The hotel is Sheraton Huzhou Hot Spring Resort , which is located near Shanghai China.

rbb wrote: In my dream scenario, the main tower is retained but the lobby and south tower are demo'd, Clark St is extended to memorial, and a new tower erected in the newly restored block between Clark and Spruce. However, I'd be okay with a replacement if it's better oriented to the street and architecturally as significant (if not more) than the current tower.

But again, the owner should have not just a plan in hand, but have it 100% financed before the first medicine ball is allowed to fly.

-RBB

This is what I was getting at - the North tower is fine everything south of Clark is not helping Downtown out at all - And yes I would like to see a plan before demolition - but the south half of the site is not the saucer building, and that 80' of retaining wall bordering 4th st is really gruesome

I like the Millennium and I hate that we've lost our other distinctive round buildings. I think STLEnginerd said it best- style is subjective and density is quantitative. Besides, since this building is going to have to be essentially stripped down to its bones and rebuilt, there is potential to improve upon the aesthetics without compromising the original design. And I like the idea of a combination of residential units with a hotel. One complements the other, residents benefit as much as guests from the amenities, and a mix of uses seems like the best way to fill large buildings like this, the Railway Exchange, The Arcade, etc.

Forgive me for going off on a brief tangent, but I should know better than to respond to the nonsensical clutter that litters Facebook these days. I was called heartless and my intelligence was called into question because I dared to disagree with the idea (shared on a local Facebook page, of course) that Rev. Rice should turn the Millennium into a homeless shelter. I made an admittedly flippant remark when I suggested to someone that perhaps someone should buy the homes in her suburban neighborhood and donate those to Rev. Rice. Oops. That unleashed a lot of fury, but not much logic.

Obviously that idea will never happen anyway since the building requires tens of millions of dollars in renovations. And warehousing the poor is no solution. But this unpleasant exchange reminded me of one of my top pet peeves with Greater St. Louis- so many NIMBY suburbanites expect the city to have all of the solutions for a regional problem.

threeonefour wrote:I like the Millennium and I hate that we've lost our other distinctive round buildings. I think STLEnginerd said it best- style is subjective and density is quantitative. Besides, since this building is going to have to be essentially stripped down to its bones and rebuilt, there is potential to improve upon the aesthetics without compromising the original design. And I like the idea of a combination of residential units with a hotel. One complements the other, residents benefit as much as guests from the amenities, and a mix of uses seems like the best way to fill large buildings like this, the Railway Exchange, The Arcade, etc.

Forgive me for going off on a brief tangent, but I should know better than to respond to the nonsensical clutter that litters Facebook these days. I was called heartless and my intelligence was called into question because I dared to disagree with the idea (shared on a local Facebook page, of course) that Rev. Rice should turn the Millennium into a homeless shelter. I made an admittedly flippant remark when I suggested to someone that perhaps someone should buy the homes in her suburban neighborhood and donate those to Rev. Rice. Oops. That unleashed a lot of fury, but not much logic.

Obviously that idea will never happen anyway since the building requires tens of millions of dollars in renovations. And warehousing the poor is no solution. But this unpleasant exchange reminded me of one of my top pet peeves with Greater St. Louis- so many NIMBY suburbanites expect the city to have all of the solutions for a regional problem.

You were not that much off topic. I read the same facebook stuff and see how it relates to the topic. Now I am going off topic the city needs to shout down Larry Rice with him out of the picture would really help raise downtown land value. So making it easier to redevelop places like the Millennium. I am not anti homeless but we need to rebuild downtown even it hurts the poor a little. A stronger downtown would help everyone in the region. Sorry for the rant.