jlblues wrote:And, the name of the hotel operator starts with a W...
Does it end with a "W" as well?
- 10K
Does it end with a "W" as well?
I'm pretty sure that 1000 ft would put it roughly in the top 10 tallest skyscrapers in America.
^ Yes, you are correct.
According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_bu ... n_the_U.S.
Rank Building City Height Floors
1 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 1,451 ft (442 m) 110 1974
2 Empire State Building New York, NY 1,250 ft (381 m) 102 1931
3 Aon Center Chicago, IL 1,136 ft (346 m) 83 1973
4 John Hancock Center Chicago, IL 1,127 ft (343 m) 100 1969
5 Chrysler Building New York, NY 1,046 ft (319 m) 77 1930
6 Bank of America Plaza Atlanta, GA 1,023 ft (312 m) 55 1992
7 U.S. Bank Tower Los Angeles, CA 1,018 ft (310 m) 73 1990
8 AT&T Corporate Center Chicago, IL 1,007 ft (307 m) 60 1989
9 JPMorgan Chase Tower Houston, TX 1,002 ft (305 m) 75 1982
10 Two Prudential Plaza Chicago, IL 995 ft (303 m) 64 1990
According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_bu ... n_the_U.S.
Rank Building City Height Floors
1 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 1,451 ft (442 m) 110 1974
2 Empire State Building New York, NY 1,250 ft (381 m) 102 1931
3 Aon Center Chicago, IL 1,136 ft (346 m) 83 1973
4 John Hancock Center Chicago, IL 1,127 ft (343 m) 100 1969
5 Chrysler Building New York, NY 1,046 ft (319 m) 77 1930
6 Bank of America Plaza Atlanta, GA 1,023 ft (312 m) 55 1992
7 U.S. Bank Tower Los Angeles, CA 1,018 ft (310 m) 73 1990
8 AT&T Corporate Center Chicago, IL 1,007 ft (307 m) 60 1989
9 JPMorgan Chase Tower Houston, TX 1,002 ft (305 m) 75 1982
10 Two Prudential Plaza Chicago, IL 995 ft (303 m) 64 1990
- 6,775
^That's some pretty heady company!
- 359
james wrote:^ Yes, you are correct.
According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_bu ... n_the_U.S.
Rank Building City Height Floors
1 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 1,451 ft (442 m) 110 1974
2 Empire State Building New York, NY 1,250 ft (381 m) 102 1931
3 Aon Center Chicago, IL 1,136 ft (346 m) 83 1973
4 John Hancock Center Chicago, IL 1,127 ft (343 m) 100 1969
5 Chrysler Building New York, NY 1,046 ft (319 m) 77 1930
6 Bank of America Plaza Atlanta, GA 1,023 ft (312 m) 55 1992
7 U.S. Bank Tower Los Angeles, CA 1,018 ft (310 m) 73 1990
8 AT&T Corporate Center Chicago, IL 1,007 ft (307 m) 60 1989
9 JPMorgan Chase Tower Houston, TX 1,002 ft (305 m) 75 1982
10 Two Prudential Plaza Chicago, IL 995 ft (303 m) 64 1990
What about the new World Trade Center or the old one? Just curious.
- 6,775
stlmizzoutiger wrote:james wrote:^ Yes, you are correct.
According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_bu ... n_the_U.S.
Rank Building City Height Floors
1 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 1,451 ft (442 m) 110 1974
2 Empire State Building New York, NY 1,250 ft (381 m) 102 1931
3 Aon Center Chicago, IL 1,136 ft (346 m) 83 1973
4 John Hancock Center Chicago, IL 1,127 ft (343 m) 100 1969
5 Chrysler Building New York, NY 1,046 ft (319 m) 77 1930
6 Bank of America Plaza Atlanta, GA 1,023 ft (312 m) 55 1992
7 U.S. Bank Tower Los Angeles, CA 1,018 ft (310 m) 73 1990
8 AT&T Corporate Center Chicago, IL 1,007 ft (307 m) 60 1989
9 JPMorgan Chase Tower Houston, TX 1,002 ft (305 m) 75 1982
10 Two Prudential Plaza Chicago, IL 995 ft (303 m) 64 1990
What about the new World Trade Center or the old one? Just curious.
The old ones would have been #2. I believe the new one will be #1, assuming they count the spire.
- 1,026
I believe the new "world trade center tower" will be 1776 feet - for obvious reasons
god pray for this project to get off the ground. I'm really really skeptical - but man - would it be a boast to the region.
god pray for this project to get off the ground. I'm really really skeptical - but man - would it be a boast to the region.
Plus, there is the Trump Tower to be built in Chicago, which will be the new 2nd tallest.
Also to be begin construction is the 2000 ft Fordham Spire in Chicago, which will be the tallest building in the world.
![]()
By the time the MW building gets built, we probably wont be in the top 10 any more.
Also to be begin construction is the 2000 ft Fordham Spire in Chicago, which will be the tallest building in the world.
By the time the MW building gets built, we probably wont be in the top 10 any more.
- 1,610
Though I have some ideas of where a tall tower would best fit within our skyline, I ultimately hope that the location is within blocks of an existing MetroLink station. For what a missed opportunity would it be to have such added employment density not served by MetroLink. If built next to or over MetroLink south of Spruce between Cupples Ballpark Lofts and the Stadium, a new tower could be close to Chouteau Lake and the Stadium station. Likewise, a tower within Ballpark Village would be close enough to MetroLink, but also visible during televised games.
- 359
southslider wrote:Though I have some ideas of where a tall tower would best fit within our skyline, I ultimately hope that the location is within blocks of an existing MetroLink station. For what a missed opportunity would it be to have such added employment density not served by MetroLink. If built next to or over MetroLink south of Spruce between Cupples Ballpark Lofts and the Stadium, a new tower could be close to Chouteau Lake and the Stadium station. Likewise, a tower within Ballpark Village would be close enough to MetroLink, but also visible during televised games.
I agree but I don't really care as long as it gets built in either downtown, the Central West End, or in Clayton/Brentwood.
- 1,493
I'm definately not for putting this in Clayton/Brentwood. That would make no sense.stlmizzoutiger wrote:I agree but I don't really care as long as it gets built in either downtown, the Central West End, or in Clayton/Brentwood.
stlmike wrote:I'm pretty sure that 1000 ft would put it roughly in the top 10 tallest skyscrapers in America.
By the time it gets finished there is a good chance it wont be in the top 10. It obviosuly depends on HOW MUCH TALLER THAN 1000 FT it actually is....
Nashville (Signature tower) 1,047 ft - proposed 2009
Chicago (Fordham Spire) 2,000 ft - proposed 2009
Chicago (Trump Tower) 1,362 ft - Undr Cnstctn 2008
Chicago (Waterview Tower) 1,047 ft - Undr Cnstctn 2009
NYC (Freedom Tower) 1,776 ft - Proposed 2011 (this keeps getting pushed back)
NYC (Bank Of America) 1,200 ft - Undr Cnstctn 2008
NYC (NY Times Tower) 1,046 ft - Undr Cnstctn 2007
Philadelphia (Comcast Center) 975 Ft - Undr Cnstctn 2007
Miami (World Trade Towers Complex) 2 towers at 1,200 ft each - Proposed 2010.
There might be others but thats all i could find on emporis.
- 20
stlmike wrote:
Also to be begin construction is the 2000 ft Fordham Spire in Chicago, which will be the tallest building in the world.
Tallest in North America, yes.
Tallest in the world, no. The Burj Dubai (under construction right now) will hold that crown for a long time.
tbspqr wrote:stlmike wrote:I'm pretty sure that 1000 ft would put it roughly in the top 10 tallest skyscrapers in America.
By the time it gets finished there is a good chance it wont be in the top 10. It obviosuly depends on HOW MUCH TALLER THAN 1000 FT it actually is....
Nashville (Signature tower) 1,047 ft - proposed 2009
Chicago (Fordham Spire) 2,000 ft - proposed 2009
Chicago (Trump Tower) 1,362 ft - Undr Cnstctn 2008
Chicago (Waterview Tower) 1,047 ft - Undr Cnstctn 2009
NYC (Freedom Tower) 1,776 ft - Proposed 2011 (this keeps getting pushed back)
NYC (Bank Of America) 1,200 ft - Undr Cnstctn 2008
NYC (NY Times Tower) 1,046 ft - Undr Cnstctn 2007
Philadelphia (Comcast Center) 975 Ft - Undr Cnstctn 2007
Miami (World Trade Towers Complex) 2 towers at 1,200 ft each - Proposed 2010.
There might be others but thats all i could find on emporis.
Good list.
I know Toronto is getting a couple big time high rises - one of which is a 1,066 ft Trump Tower (under construction). They also have a proposal for a 1,122 ft. Sapphire Tower. Boston is also in the planning for a 1000+ footer. Also, a big proposal is floating around in San Francisco for several new tall builings which will eclipse their present buildings in height.
Anyways, the possibliites of a 1000+ new tower in St. Louis ($600 million)
is exciting. Couple in the bottledistrict buildings and to a lesser extend the ballpark village, and we may have our own skyline expansion. 
I really don't care if we're in any top ten lists for tall buildings. Honestly. Nice claim to fame I guess, but most of those cities have greater density, and if not, much greater population growth than St. Louis. I'd rather be on that list (density/pop. growth) than a tall building list.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a building like this go up. But to me it just seems like an overgrowth, when we could split it up and cover some serious ground in downtown with several buildings. I believe the market can support a tower like this, and it would be exciting to see it go up, I would just rather have a much better streetscape and walkable neighborhood over a nice addition to the skyline.
I'm sure, of all people, that McGowan understands this. So I'm not going to talk negatively about this project. Just to say that being on some list of tall buildings isn't important. The look and feel of the neighborhood around the building, and it's potential impact on the city are what is important.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a building like this go up. But to me it just seems like an overgrowth, when we could split it up and cover some serious ground in downtown with several buildings. I believe the market can support a tower like this, and it would be exciting to see it go up, I would just rather have a much better streetscape and walkable neighborhood over a nice addition to the skyline.
I'm sure, of all people, that McGowan understands this. So I'm not going to talk negatively about this project. Just to say that being on some list of tall buildings isn't important. The look and feel of the neighborhood around the building, and it's potential impact on the city are what is important.
- 10K
trent wrote:I really don't care if we're in any top ten lists for tall buildings. Honestly. Nice claim to fame I guess, but most of those cities have greater density, and if not, much greater population growth than St. Louis. I'd rather be on that list (density/pop. growth) than a tall building list.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a building like this go up. But to me it just seems like an overgrowth, when we could split it up and cover some serious ground in downtown with several buildings. I believe the market can support a tower like this, and it would be exciting to see it go up, I would just rather have a much better streetscape and walkable neighborhood over a nice addition to the skyline.
I'm sure, of all people, that McGowan understands this. So I'm not going to talk negatively about this project. Just to say that being on some list of tall buildings isn't important. The look and feel of the neighborhood around the building, and it's potential impact on the city are what is important.
I feel the same way - I'd rather see the elimination of vacant lots downtown than to have one of the tallest buildings in the country. Imagine if every empty lot from Fourth Street to Tucker had a building on it - what a huge impact that would have on downtown.
^And the lots that already have buildings but no retail space, convert!
DeBaliviere wrote:jlblues wrote:And, the name of the hotel operator starts with a W...
Does it end with a "W" as well?
Hmm...could be!
metzgda wrote:Interesting news! However, $600 million of a 71-story tower? Doesn't that seem expensive? I figured a 71-story tower might be $200-$300 off, but I guess I'm wrong!
Well, that was my thought as well, it does seem a bit pricey, but:
a) St. Louis is in the highest seismic zone in the country outside of the West Coast, which probably adds somewhere between $50 and $100 million to the price tag vs. building it in, say, Oshkosh, Wisconsin;
b) I suspect the finishes in this building will rival any building in the country. St. Louis has little to no Class A+ office space, so I'm sure that is part of the plan, to fill that niche. Kevin talked about how Express Scripts and/or Centene very well might have moved downtown IF there had been a large block of superior quality office space available. This might be somewhat wishful thinking on his part, but I know Express Scripts at least considered it;
c) They will spare no expense on the condo finishes, again they will rival just about anything in the country. These condos will go for over $500 per square foot. Assuming there will be 200 units, averaging somewhere around 2000 square feet, that is, conservatively, $200 million in revenue right there, or 1/3 the cost of the building. Is there a market for 200 new $1 million+ units in St. Louis, plus all of the units at BPV and GV? Maybe not today, but in a few years, there just might be;
d) I have stated this before, but very few people, even many developers, fail to realize the value added by the mixed-use nature of a building such as this. If you do it correctly, there may be more cost, but there is also less risk in one large mixed-use building than in 3 or 4 smaller single-use buildings. A mixed-use building can be designed to convert from one use to almost any other use fairly easily if there is a severe downturn in one sector, plus your risk is diversified by the very nature of the building. There are three or four different revenue streams from the one building versus one revenue stream each from the smaller buildings. Less risk means more favorable financing terms, which can save the developer a tremendous amount of $$$.
Though I have some ideas of where a tall tower would best fit within our skyline, I ultimately hope that the location is within blocks of an existing MetroLink station. For what a missed opportunity would it be to have such added employment density not served by MetroLink. If built next to or over MetroLink south of Spruce between Cupples Ballpark Lofts and the Stadium, a new tower could be close to Chouteau Lake and the Stadium station. Likewise, a tower within Ballpark Village would be close enough to MetroLink, but also visible during televised games.
I think this is the central issue with such a tower. I mean where does it go. If placed poorly, it will have the same negative effect on the surrounding enviroment that buildings like the Met Square and new Federal Courthouse had. So where does it go downtown? I do like southsliders idea of the blocks either directly east or west of the stadium and the notion that it should be close to a metro line. But at the same time, these locations are at the visual and mental edges of downtown and untill there is a clear strong plan for what will happen with the BV or the Lake area, I worry that such a tower will just end up pushing up values leaving the surrounding vacant properties vacant in the long run.
Personaly, I am a fan of the block bounded by Pine, Olive, 7th, and 6th. A nice new tower clearly in the heart of the downtown business district, next to Famous and a few parking garages with few vacant lots that will be developed near by and none directly adjacent to the property. Who knows, maybe federated would be interested in moving the property.
To those worrying about where this project will be built, I think it is pretty safe to say that IF it is built, it will be in or very near downtown, and I would guess that it will not be more than 4 blocks from Ballpark Village, at the most. If it ends up being built south of 40/64, then it is still going to be very close and will be close enough to blend with the skyline very nicely I think.
^I also wouldn't worry about driving up property values. Any empty lots or buildings surrounding this tower will be developed/redeveloped in a heartbeat.
Just to add more fuel to the speculation fire, I might or might not have overheard that, of the five sites which have been selected, one is already occupied by a 20-something story building. No, I don't know which one, but since this is McGowan|Walsh Historic Renovators, I am pretty sure it is not an historic building, and it would obviously have to be a building that has seen better days with few prospects for the future. Now offhand I can think of one pretty ugly and useless building that fits that description and which occupies a rather prominent place in our skyline, but that is of course just pure speculation. And, I don't think that site would be big enough for a building of this size anyway.
^I also wouldn't worry about driving up property values. Any empty lots or buildings surrounding this tower will be developed/redeveloped in a heartbeat.
Just to add more fuel to the speculation fire, I might or might not have overheard that, of the five sites which have been selected, one is already occupied by a 20-something story building. No, I don't know which one, but since this is McGowan|Walsh Historic Renovators, I am pretty sure it is not an historic building, and it would obviously have to be a building that has seen better days with few prospects for the future. Now offhand I can think of one pretty ugly and useless building that fits that description and which occupies a rather prominent place in our skyline, but that is of course just pure speculation. And, I don't think that site would be big enough for a building of this size anyway.
^ I would worry about driving up property values, given the past history of some prominent office development in downtown. But maybe if done less on a speculative basis, many problems would be avoided.
As for the locaiton, nothing wrong with some idle chatter and speculation.
As for the locaiton, nothing wrong with some idle chatter and speculation.
- 63
i know developers already have proposals and such for the already existing structure on this site but just throwing it out there for fun. What does everyone think of the St. Louis Centre site? If I remember correctly, right on top of a metrolink station. And it's right in the heart of downtown. It wont balance the south end of the skyline and I don't know about the land value effect that JMedwick mentions, but as he stated, just idle speculation and chatter 
....
....There is no question to me: one of the empty lots on the south end of downtown near the stadium.
New development should go on empty lots. Until there are no more empty lots between Washington on the north, 40 on the south, Tucker on the West (hell, maybe 16th or so), and the river on the east, I say no more wrecking!
New development should go on empty lots. Until there are no more empty lots between Washington on the north, 40 on the south, Tucker on the West (hell, maybe 16th or so), and the river on the east, I say no more wrecking!
JMedwick wrote:...If placed poorly, it will have the same negative effect on the surrounding enviroment that buildings like the Met Square and new Federal Courthouse had....
They said the same thing about the Empire State Building in NYC and it is still kind of alone, at the southern edge of Midtown, but I don’t think anyone would complain about the location/placement anything of the ESB. I think in the long run, with all the momentum that’s downtown, if it is anywhere near the CBD, it will work out. The more people that move downtown - especially people with a little money and power and a large voice - the more it will become more pedestrian friendly. Things that were unimaginable 8 years ago are being done downtown. Things like this always seem to come out for the better in the long run.... I have faith in the business people, the residents and the current city administration that it will all be done to a good level. Especially when $600 million is on the line....