8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostNov 30, 2010#501

this might help dt2007 - New condos ON TOP of the new garage.

3,541
Life MemberLife Member
3,541

PostNov 30, 2010#502

Condos like that are coming sooner or later. We just have to rehab and fill up the empty building first. Less than 10 left I believe.

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostNov 30, 2010#503

10 left at the Park Pacific?

That was the rendering I was trying to find. Much more pleasant than what's going up now.

284
Full MemberFull Member
284

PostNov 30, 2010#504

I think Goat was referring to the roughly ten empty major buildings that remain downtown (or at least that's the number I've been told by a few people).
As for Moorlander's rendering, is that for real? Looks kind of like some sort of Franken-building. Though it would explain why they haven't punched bigger windows in the western side of the Park Pacific.

827
Super MemberSuper Member
827

PostNov 30, 2010#505

^Uh...I like that other glass design, like, a lot better...lol

But what is currently going up is not a horrendous eye sore IMO...The structurs color and scale (even the fake windows) do match its sister to the west...

But how kewl would that post-postmodern thing be...I like hte wave to condo portion...that design feature has been mirrored elsewhere in teh Lou (buildings on the old Checkerboard Arena location) and I actually have the same patterns on a living room chair that over looks the city and a lamp....This is a river town, so I thought to incorporate wave action into the look...

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostNov 30, 2010#506

FYI, the "wave" roof on the top of the buildings in the Highlands (old arena site) pay homage to the roller coaster that once the star attraction at the Highlands amusement park.

68
New MemberNew Member
68

PostDec 02, 2010#507

They couldn't punch new windows in the back of the Park Pacific and still get the historic tax credits. The reason the back of the building looks unfinished is because the original plan called for a second building to be built against it facing Tucker. In true St. Louis fashion, that never happened.

6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostDec 02, 2010#508

landmarks wrote:They couldn't punch new windows in the back of the Park Pacific and still get the historic tax credits. The reason the back of the building looks unfinished is because the original plan called for a second building to be built against it facing Tucker. In true St. Louis fashion, that never happened.
Which points out some of the stupidity of historic tax credits. There is nothing historic about that facade, because it was never meant to be a facade.

68
New MemberNew Member
68

PostDec 02, 2010#509

Well it depends. Either you could have the building rehabilitated and put back into use using historic tax credits as a critical component of the financing, or you punch new windows in and let the building sit around vacant. I know which one I prefer.

6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostDec 02, 2010#510

landmarks wrote:Well it depends. Either you could have the building rehabilitated and put back into use using historic tax credits as a critical component of the financing, or you punch new windows in and let the building sit around vacant. I know which one I prefer.
I prefer the former, with the stupidity removed.

1,770
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,770

PostDec 02, 2010#511

You have a point. Stupidity is dumb.

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostDec 02, 2010#512

I agree with both of you. This seems like it would have been a good scenario where an exemption could/should be considered.

6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostDec 02, 2010#513

Moorlander wrote:I agree with both of you. This seems like it would have been a good scenario where an exemption could/should be considered.
I think the situation could be equated with The Bogen & other lofts which back against Lucas. Don't mess with the front/side "historic" facades, but allow windows and decks on the plain brick back walls.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostDec 02, 2010#514

I couldn't agree more that historic rehab credits should account for uncompleted projects and allow them to be adapted for current use.

525
Senior MemberSenior Member
525

PostJan 07, 2011#515



:/


Sent from my AT&T iPhone using Tapatalk

710
Senior MemberSenior Member
710

PostJan 07, 2011#516

maybe in sunlight w/ the storefronts, it won't be so bad, but man that looks depressing.

827
Super MemberSuper Member
827

PostJan 08, 2011#517

^Why not something of interest painted or sculpted onto both Park Pacific and the garage? Bet decent talent would work for cost of materials and gruel...

But let's be honest...It's hard to go down in aesthetic from an empty gravel parking pit and the backside of an unfinished historic building...

FWIW, it does look like the side facing the park has a little more interest with window cut-outs scaled to the windows in the building and awnings over each level...

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostJan 08, 2011#518

it's. really. ugly.

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostJan 08, 2011#519

Awful. It seems like a lot of parking to satisfy a building that size. I wonder if that garage is built to handle the new construction on top of it as proposed 4 years ago.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 08, 2011#520

^I don't want to assume, but I will almost guarantee that it is not.

It looked like the garage was built out of huge pre-fab concrete slabs. I would be about 80-90% sure that it was not built for expansion, which is a big loss, as the proposed structure looked pretty cool and would have been great to see come to fruition.

525
Senior MemberSenior Member
525

PostJan 12, 2011#521

RobbyD wrote:FWIW, it does look like the side facing the park has a little more interest with window cut-outs scaled to the windows in the building and awnings over each level...
I do appreciate the cut-out windows on the park side, so that it does not appear to be a big ugly parking garage. Too bad there are not 'windows' at Tucker and Olive, it looks like a big ugly parking garage from that corner.

There actually are not awnings at each level, as it appears in the photo. Those are actually the staircase landings at each level, that have not yet been enclosed. From the rendering, it looks like the stairs will be enclosed by glass in that corner.

1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostJan 12, 2011#522

According to the website, the leasing office will open this month. Has anyone been yet?

http://liveparkpacific.com/

525
Senior MemberSenior Member
525

PostJan 14, 2011#523

Tucker project may boost downtown
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 895d5.html
Among those who already own property on Tucker is Steve Smith, whose Lawrence Group is redoing the old Missouri Pacific railroad headquarters as the Park Pacific apartments, offices and retail space. Behind the building, at Tucker and Olive Street, Lawrence Group is putting up a parking garage to serve Park Pacific and areas nearby.

When the for-sale housing market collapsed during the recession, Lawrence Group substituted the garage for a condo tower the company had planned at the Tucker and Olive site. Smith said he didn't think about the new bridge when planning the Park Pacific project. But he added that he now realized that the street project and bridge meant more development potential for the Tucker corridor.
:roll:

Thanks for the ugly parking garage on Tucker!

7,801
Life MemberLife Member
7,801

PostJan 25, 2011#524

Strange work/construction schedule at Park Pacific. I've seen workmen installing windows, hammering away or doing welding during evening hours the last few weeks. Sometimes as late as 10pm when coming out of a Blues game.

And no, these aren't bums robbing the place of copper. These are guys in hardhats, Carhart jackets etc doing actual work.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJan 26, 2011#525

^Not to be harsh, but that's what construction loans get you.

Read more posts (134 remaining)