Proposed Kevin McGowan 1000' Skyscraper

threeonefour · PostJul 13, 2006#1512006-07-13T05:43+00:00

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.

My sentiments exactly. I don't want to be negative about this proposal- and I don't see how anyone can be given McGowan's commitment to, and enthusiasm for, downtown St. Louis.

However, when I look at the big picture, I couldn't care less about building height. I'd rather strive for Portland's density than gain a skyscraper or two. And call me conservative or old-fashioned, but I don't want to see a building dwarf the Gateway Arch. (I wouldn't mind a few more 500'-600' towers, however.)

Others have made good points about the benefit of one large building versus a cluster of smaller structures, but I would like to see construction that is integrated with its surroundings AND adds considerable density. I'd like to see construction on vacant lots, or perhaps structures to replace parking garages like Stadium East and West, and/or the Kiener garages.

I'd like to see this tower as part of Ballpark Village. Along with the proposed tower in the Bottle District, these new towers could form nice bookends for our skyline. Wherever the location, I agree with stlmike, in that we shouldn't see any more wrecking balls to accommodate this proposed building or others. (Unless, of course, we're willing to sacrifice one of the aforementioned and ghastly parking structures!!!)

O/T: Central Scrutinizer, I didn't attend the downtown panel discussion the other night, but I feel your pain. Here is more info on the lady you mentioned- and she is clearly in love with herself...

rustedhinge · PostJul 13, 2006#1522006-07-13T06:39+00:00

ThreeOneFour wrote:
trent wrote:Here is more info on the lady you mentioned- and she is clearly in love with herself...[/url]

hot. very hot.

st.louis kid · PostJul 13, 2006#1532006-07-13T08:14+00:00

hey i was on emporis i just saw proposal for it and i was like wow, does anyone know where i can get more info on this like pics and stuff like that

moorlander · PostJul 13, 2006#1542006-07-13T12:41+00:00

U saw this building on emporis?

the central scrutinizer · PostJul 13, 2006#1552006-07-13T12:47+00:00

bpe235 wrote:U saw this building on emporis?

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=268892

urbanstlouis · PostJul 13, 2006#1562006-07-13T13:02+00:00

st.louis kid wrote:does anyone know where i can get more info on this like pics and stuff like that

I should have a rendering to post shortly... could be as early as today.

debaliviere · PostJul 13, 2006#1572006-07-13T14:24+00:00

JMedwick wrote:So where does it go downtown?

While my first choice would probably be to fill in the blocks of the Gateway Mall, how about these options:

- Northeast corner of Tucker and Clark, directly across from the municipal garage. Currently parking lots and a small, unattractive office building. Close to Cupples, the courthouses, Busch III, MetroLink, etc.

- Northeast corner of Broadway and Washington. Vacant lot next to the MAC. There is an additional vacant lot to the north of it (at Broadway and Lucas) that could be used for additional development, parking, etc. This northern lot overlooks Baer Plaza, which would make for a nice entrance.

- East of Tucker between St. Charles and Locust. Massive parking lots.

- The lot between Broadway and Fourth, immediately west of the Pet Building, as discussed previously.

stlmike · PostJul 13, 2006#1582006-07-13T14:37+00:00

Honestly--and I'm not one to priviledge views over functionality (I do think that the Gateway Mall should be mostly built out)--I think that the one place where I don't want a supertall skyscraper is the Gateway Mall. It's really the only place where dwarfing the arch really makes a difference in the skyline. I would prefer anywhere north of Chestnut or south of Market.

jmedwick · PostJul 13, 2006#1592006-07-13T14:40+00:00

Deb, my guess would be that the last of those is the most likely spot. I do agree though that in particular the Clark/Tucker lot is an interesting choice. I have always thought a nice large parking garage for ity hall could go there, allowing the lots along Clark to be relpaced with a city hall expansion that would consolidate the disparate city offices.

As for the negatives, they are all related to a conversation I had a few years ago with a local person who had an interesting perspective on the effects of two of St. Louis' most prominent towers. In particular, because the Met was a speculative project, all it did was suck office tenents from surrounding older office buildings and leave downtown with a shinny new tower surronded by empty buildings. (though, those buildings have since become a positive) For the new court house, we discussed the 'green space' to the east and he focusedon the notion that were something to be developed on that location, it would likely not fly far due to

1. concerns over the adjacent buiding as a terroist target (federal courthouse tower= car bomb target) and how many costs, inlcuding insurance, would make it prohibitive

2. the downtown office market was so week that any land owner would realize that the land was valuable enough to build a large tower on the spot, but that there would be no market for such tower, so nothing would be built. He cited this as a problem with quite a few open lots downtown. People realize the potential, but unless there is a market for that potential nothing happens.

So where does this notion leave us? Not sure. If this project were purely speculative, I would be concerned that some of our older Class A space would be vulnerable to such a new tower. But if it is largely filled by new downtown tenents, then those concerns go away. The vacant land concerns are similar, in that we will find out how deep the demand for downtown office space is. I would agree though, that it is probably pretty deep around the new stadium. But it would be nice if the adjacent lots to such a new tower were already largely developed.

soulardd · PostJul 13, 2006#1602006-07-13T15:04+00:00

Well, if it's true that it's already 85% by Wall Street, I think the demand must be alot better than we have previously thought. I suspect the empty lots will not be empty for long if that kind of demand is present.

I can't wait for something to dwarf the arch and get it over with once and for all. Look at Seattle, the space needle is dwarfed, but it's still the icon of the skyline. The arch will be the same.

moorlander · PostJul 13, 2006#1612006-07-13T15:13+00:00

i'm salavating for that rendering..

tbspqr · PostJul 13, 2006#1622006-07-13T16:18+00:00

SoulardD wrote:Well, if it's true that it's already 85% by Wall Street, I think the demand must be alot better than we have previously thought. I suspect the empty lots will not be empty for long if that kind of demand is present.

I can't wait for something to dwarf the arch and get it over with once and for all. Look at Seattle, the space needle is dwarfed, but it's still the icon of the skyline. The arch will be the same.

But Seattle doesn't have the "stigma" that St. Louis does (arch v Space Needle) Both monuments were built in the early 60s, but the first building in Seattle to pass it was finished in 1969. The Arch is 40? and still has yet to be passed.

MW tower has been on Emporis for 2 days now as a "vision" with no info -- worthless if you ask me... especially if it really is already 85% financed

archmadness · PostJul 13, 2006#1632006-07-13T18:15+00:00

So where does this notion leave us? Not sure. If this project were purely speculative, I would be concerned that some of our older Class A space would be vulnerable to such a new tower. But if it is largely filled by new downtown tenents, then those concerns go away. The vacant land concerns are similar, in that we will find out how deep the demand for downtown office space is. I would agree though, that it is probably pretty deep around the new stadium. But it would be nice if the adjacent lots to such a new tower were already largely developed.

I think there is a hidden market for class A space downtown that isn't found in real estate market reports. A big problem with downtown class A space is that all of it is outdated. The newest office building downtown is Met Square and it was built in 89, before high speed internet (or any internet capabilities). The interior wiring infastructure is seriously lacking. I think a new building will find itself in a very attractive position on getting tenants to move in from around the metro. Right now downtown doesn't have the buildings to compete with brand new ones along 40.

soulardd · PostJul 13, 2006#1642006-07-13T18:22+00:00

tbspqr wrote:
SoulardD wrote:Well, if it's true that it's already 85% by Wall Street, I think the demand must be alot better than we have previously thought. I suspect the empty lots will not be empty for long if that kind of demand is present.

I can't wait for something to dwarf the arch and get it over with once and for all. Look at Seattle, the space needle is dwarfed, but it's still the icon of the skyline. The arch will be the same.

But Seattle doesn't have the "stigma" that St. Louis does (arch v Space Needle) Both monuments were built in the early 60s, but the first building in Seattle to pass it was finished in 1969. The Arch is 40? and still has yet to be passed.

MW tower has been on Emporis for 2 days now as a "vision" with no info -- worthless if you ask me... especially if it really is already 85% financed

That "stigma" you refer reflects that St. Louis hasn't really grown since the 60's, but many cities like Seattle have. The Arch need not be a reminder of better times in the past, it can remain an icon and be complemented by new signs of vibrancy and life. It's time to break that stigma.

steve · PostJul 13, 2006#1652006-07-13T19:12+00:00

I agree. The notion that we must keep sacrosanct the Arch's dominance on our skyline seems a bit goofy. I wouldn't advocate crowding the Arch with taller structures, but if developers keep them a healthy distance away, I say build them as tall as the market allows. Being one of the most unique and recognizable structures in the world, the Arch will always define St. Louis' skyline even if it isn't the tallest component.

stlmike · PostJul 13, 2006#1662006-07-13T19:17+00:00

^agreed. I think it would be in poor taste to, say, build a 1000 ft tower right behind it on Kiener Plaza, but the arch is always going to be the defning quality of our skyline.

steve · PostJul 13, 2006#1672006-07-13T19:37+00:00

I also think that taller structures enhance the look of the Arch. When I look at photos taken when the Arch was completed, it sort of depresses me. I mean, in the 60's, the Arch REALLY dominated the skyline. It overshadowed a squat, and forgive me for saying, dingy-looking city. Today, with the five or so relatively tall towers behind it, the Arch looks like a symbol of a genuinely great city. Tall buildings, in my opinion, only enhance the aesthetic beauty of the Arch by creating effective contrast.

I think the comparison to Seattle is apt in that regard.

marmar · PostJul 13, 2006#1682006-07-13T19:47+00:00

I think people tend to think of the arch in terms of height while ignoring it's width...it is just as wide as it is tall. Put a building as tall as the arch right behind it, and the arch will still dominate. It really is a massive structure.

SouldardD said it best, and I agree with steve and stlmike, too.

I know to some it may seem sophomoric to be in support of tall buildings or to believe they really aren't important to a city's needs or image, but it really is just the opposite...they wouldn't build skyscrapers if people didn't care about homes or offices in them, and who doesn't know exactly where the nations tallest building is...or its name? There really is no other reason for them except for image. It really is that simple.

stlmizzoutiger · PostJul 13, 2006#1692006-07-13T21:20+00:00

Wonder what the St. Louis skyline would look like if some of the existing buildings in downtown were built taller (I.E. Metropolitan Square and the U.S. Bank tower among others)?

trent · PostJul 13, 2006#1702006-07-13T22:50+00:00

That picture doesn't look real to me for some reason.

If this is going to get built, I would think that the best spot for it would not be within the first seven blocks of the city. The Arch dominates the skyline because most of the skyline shots are taken across the river on the ground, which puts the Arch in the foreground, making it seem taller, when the Met Square and One Bell (AT&T) are very similar in size, but still smaller. And then look at how much smaller the Eagleton building looks in comparison as well. If you put a 70 story tower in the first few blocks from the Arch, it will affect the skyline in that way, but the farther away you go, the less imposing it gets.

I want to see a rendering also.

moorlander · PostJul 14, 2006#1712006-07-14T01:09+00:00

who really cares about preserving the skyline... top priority will be finding an economical, sensible location near plenty of parking and hopefully a metro stop. I understand leaving a buffer area near the arch..but I think seven blocks is quite excessive IMHO. But i am also a strong candidate for building on gateway mall..

I'm salivating over this suppossed rendering..

cumulonimbus · PostJul 14, 2006#1722006-07-14T03:32+00:00

New York City has a monument too (Statue of Liberty), but it is less than 300 feet high. All of NYC's major buildings are far taller than it. Yet, it does not take away from the importance of the Statue of Liberty.

stlmike · PostJul 14, 2006#1732006-07-14T03:36+00:00

Hey, maybe when St. Louis really takes off and enough buildings block the western arch views, Downtown East St. Louis will finally get off its @ss and start rehabilitating, cleaning up its riverfront, and building condo and office towers with views of, potentially, the best damn skyline view America will be able to offer.

soulardd · PostJul 14, 2006#1742006-07-14T12:17+00:00

stlmike wrote:Hey, maybe when St. Louis really takes off and enough buildings block the western arch views, Downtown East St. Louis will finally get off its @ss and start rehabilitating, cleaning up its riverfront, and building condo and office towers with views of, potentially, the best damn skyline view America will be able to offer.

I'd love to see that, too. More importantly than blocking the western view of the arch, banks will have to get off their @ss and start approving developers' loans who want to build in E. St. Louis.

southslider · PostJul 14, 2006#1752006-07-14T13:36+00:00

New York City has a monument too (Statue of Liberty), but it is less than 300 feet high. All of NYC's major buildings are far taller than it. Yet, it does not take away from the importance of the Statue of Liberty.

Well sure, Lady Liberty stands across the bay from Manhattan, sitting technically in New Jersey. So then, if the Arch were across the river in Illinois, then I can imagine taller buildings on this side not diminishing its stature. But since reality is that Met Square is only four blocks west of our 630' monument, many are concerned if a 71-story tower were built too close to the Arch or within Gateway Mall east of Tucker. The City itself limits height in its zoning code on buildings east of Broadway, so maybe that's a good starting point.

Proposed Kevin McGowan 1000' Skyscraper

Choose Display Mode