^ I've never liked the massing nor cladding of the towers. They are unique, I grant you that.
I know the joke has been made before but there's a unique opportunity to tear down the hotel and construct a second Arch that would line up almost perfectly from certain perspectives from the East. Something to think about...
- 1,607
I would advocate to keep the main tower and tear down and rebuild on the shorter.
- 2,053
Dang... quite a big footprint...dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Mar 26, 2024It’s a complete demo
huge opportunity. 
- 8
Looks like they almost could build three towers there. A hotel and two residential. Shame that massive garage is there in front of the parcel, blocking potential of connecting retail to ballpark village
^ The good part, for this lot anyway, is a building of similar height to OCW would have a nice view into the ballpark.
Yep, 2nd the opinion and add the parking garage needs to be demo as well & street extensions to fully carry the grid over to Arch.
Unfortunately, the tough reality is you would most likely mid rise mixed use come back instead of residential towers over an agonizing length of time considering you are already have two proposed towers between BPV and AHM/West downtown with neither moving. A new hotel tower would probably be long stretch as well as considering that any of the new ground up downtown hotel rooms proposed, outside of BPV/Loews, in last several years have stalled out recently. I would say that even the locals like Drury (Lacledes Landing) and LHM (now owning Shannon Space) are getting really good at land banking as well.
I think the replacement has to be pretty big to justify the acquisition and demo costs.
I can see the lower building be reused possibly ... but the round tower staying and turned into posh apartments... possibly 3 per floor. The tower is unique and still quite attractive IMO. In fact, they don't build round towers at all in the USA anymore. They are expensive. STL had 3 round towers at one time... one in the west end, one near Jefferson and Market and this one.
The Rodeway Inn and the Regency Nusing Inn
More of the Rodeway. Would love to still have this.
Torn down 1988.
Torn down 1988.
+1
And here she is... hopefully to remain!
Under construction
- 1,291
As long as STL keeps/gets a new revolving restaurant I'm honestly pretty indifferent as to whatever happens to the site.
- 2,419
The site's current land use, near the Arch and river, at the edge of the downtown CBD and a national park, just doesn't cut it for me.
I'd like to see the parcel divided up into two or three, and I'd like to see something more modern on the forefront of the St. Louis skyline come out of it. Something that would impress visitors/residents as they cross the river into the city.
It would be nice to have a pedestrian/bike bridge for Clark Ave. into the Arch grounds. I like that idea. I really love how it could much better connect Union Station, City SC, the Blues, the Cardinals, Ballpark Village, etc. to the Arch grounds, riverfront, and Mississippi River. It would give visitors of the park another path into downtown and to many of the city's attractions.
With the Brickline Greenway eventually coming and the city planning streetscape and pedestrian improvements for the 7th St. and Tucker Blvd. corridors, this could be a huge opportunity for the city to start the process of creating a rich pedestrian network in downtown St. Louis and beyond.
I'd like to see the parcel divided up into two or three, and I'd like to see something more modern on the forefront of the St. Louis skyline come out of it. Something that would impress visitors/residents as they cross the river into the city.
It would be nice to have a pedestrian/bike bridge for Clark Ave. into the Arch grounds. I like that idea. I really love how it could much better connect Union Station, City SC, the Blues, the Cardinals, Ballpark Village, etc. to the Arch grounds, riverfront, and Mississippi River. It would give visitors of the park another path into downtown and to many of the city's attractions.
With the Brickline Greenway eventually coming and the city planning streetscape and pedestrian improvements for the 7th St. and Tucker Blvd. corridors, this could be a huge opportunity for the city to start the process of creating a rich pedestrian network in downtown St. Louis and beyond.
I wonder what made these circular buildings so disposable. Such short lifespans to be built and then torn down within 20-30 years.
^ These towers are almost 60 years old but, yes, that's still a short lifespan.
From what I recall, circular buildings don't offer optimal floorplans?
From what I recall, circular buildings don't offer optimal floorplans?
They maximize floor area but minimize flexibilitypdm_ad wrote:^ These towers are almost 60 years old but, yes, that's still a short lifespan.
From what I recall, circular buildings don't offer optimal floorplans?
I will be sad if the tall tower disappears from our skyline. I fear that the site will be cleared and will sit empty and in limbo for decades. That's the sad reality that we've seen play out time and time again in this city. And even if a solid redevelopment proposal is revealed, there's a very good chance it would get dumbed down and what actually gets built could be a far cry from the original vision. Even a dumbed down version would take many years even if the plans are released tomorrow. So, wha does everyone think will happen first - North-South MetroLink, or Millennium Redevelopment? I just hope I'm not in a nursing home by the time one or both of these projects come to fruition.
As good as the views east are, there's not a lot you can do at ground level with it sandwiched between a highway and a parking garage and needing to cross a busy 4-lane stroad to access the rest of downtown. It's a shame that we've islanded off what should be one of the most prime properties in the city.
^^ Just the action of demolition and site preparation, if indeed something new is built, would help to make the site appear active. But I understand your pessimism, it's warranted.
Speaking of unbuilt projects, I'd love to see something similar to what was proposed for 300 S Broadway replace the taller tower. Nothing too large or small, something that adds a decent amount of density and is workable for our market size. I think most here would be disappointed if they knock down the tall tower then replace with something low slung unless it was a stunner and had street activation.
Speaking of unbuilt projects, I'd love to see something similar to what was proposed for 300 S Broadway replace the taller tower. Nothing too large or small, something that adds a decent amount of density and is workable for our market size. I think most here would be disappointed if they knock down the tall tower then replace with something low slung unless it was a stunner and had street activation.
This one will be a battle between the "don't demo anything that's over 20 years old" crowd and the "urban efficiency" crowd. Circular building is cool and historic and, at the same time, one of the least efficient uses of pretty critical land relative to the Arch/river/downtown/BPV.
I used to pull for a redevelopment, but it's time to demo it and maybe see if you can create some momentum on upscale multi-family to complement the success of BPV, Pointe 400 in that immediate area.
I used to pull for a redevelopment, but it's time to demo it and maybe see if you can create some momentum on upscale multi-family to complement the success of BPV, Pointe 400 in that immediate area.