urbanSTL

SoulardD wrote:

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.

And developers aren't going to want to build in E St Louis until we get off our @ss and create the demand for it...

[Edited by Moderator]

How exactly does naming rights work with highrise towers? My impression is that the building is named for the tenant who signs the largest long-term lease, thereby providing a forward commitment used to secure financing for construction. If this is true, then what company in St. Louis needs to pony up and occupy the most prestigous address in the midwest? Busch Tower? BC Tower (Bryan Cave)?

My guess would either be a law firm or a bank.

cumulonimbus wrote: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.

New York doesn't look at the SoL in the same way we look at the arch. Most New Yorkers don't see it as THE SYMBOL of their city.... Seattle is the same way - most think of the Space Needle more as we would think of the art museum or the zoo (maybe those aren't the best parallels). It is an important landmark, it has some value, BUT the city doesn't identify itself with the space needle. St. Louis is different - we identify with the arch. Arch City, the gateway city (the arch being the gate itself). Also our monument has a MUCH more prominent position at the forefront of the CBD.



As for those who said "market demand should dictate height, not the arch" who said it hasn’t Look at most other cities similar in size to St. Louis. They might have a 700' building, but nothing drastically more than the 600'-ish Met Square. We also have another major Class A business District (Clayton) that most cities our size don't have... so I think that market HAS dictated size. The other cities with a 1000' - NYC, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, Houston... we are about 1/2 the size of ATL or Houston (both 5.3 million).



As for the location of the tower: I prefer the "bookends" approach but the east bookend should be the arch and the west bookend should be this tower. Putting it in one of the park parcels in front of the Soldiers Memorial would be awesome. A visitors viewing floor would have awesome views of the arch, looking straight on- Right over the top of Civil Courts (beautiful historic building), over the parks, with the Old Courthouse and the arch. (Not to mention all the business it would bring to west downtown and union station) Also there should be room within 2 or so blocks around the tower for more super buildings to go in (700’ +) so that it may be a loner now, but the potential is easy down the road to make this a super cluster (similar to Toronto)



Where ever the placement - this is a working building, not a monument - it shouldn't compete with the arch, but being such a prominent building, it should complement it. The view should be one where - from the arch you can see it clearly, and from the top of the tower you can see the arch head on, and the rest of the city clearly. Also IT NEEDS TO BE ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT in some fashion....

tbspqr wrote:We also have another major Class A business District (Clayton) that most cities our size don't have...

Very important point of clarification: clayton is not in "our city"...the city of saint louis. it is in saint louis county.



The CITY is Alive...Are YOU?

I say try to keep it close to the CBD...the stronger the core the better...I don't think we are ready to push the boundaries yet... Not until we can reach the density we all desire near the heart of DT. Let AG Edwards be our eventual second book end...

bpe235 wrote:I say try to keep it close to the CBD...the stronger the core the better...I don't think we are ready to push the boundaries yet... Not until we can reach the density we all desire near the heart of DT. Let AG Edwards be our eventual second book end...

speaking of that ag edwards building. i think people earlier might have been mentioning that this new building might be replacing a current building. if there is one building i would love the new tower to replace, it would be the ag edwards building. hands down the ugliest building in the city. the whole complex is terrible. build there just to get rid of that "thing."

I think in many ways to our detriment. I love the arch, but would prefer for St. Louis to be known for more things then the arch; or any skyscraper for that matter. It's almost to me, and it's only my opinion; is grossly run into the ground to a point of almost being cheesy.

tbspqr wrote:

cumulonimbus wrote: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.

New York doesn't look at the SoL in the same way we look at the arch. Most New Yorkers don't see it as THE SYMBOL of their city.... Seattle is the same way - most think of the Space Needle more as we would think of the art museum or the zoo (maybe those aren't the best parallels). It is an important landmark, it has some value, BUT the city doesn't identify itself with the space needle. St. Louis is different - we identify with the arch. Arch City, the gateway city (the arch being the gate itself). Also our monument has a MUCH more prominent position at the forefront of the CBD.



As for those who said "market demand should dictate height, not the arch" who said it hasn’t Look at most other cities similar in size to St. Louis. They might have a 700' building, but nothing drastically more than the 600'-ish Met Square. We also have another major Class A business District (Clayton) that most cities our size don't have... so I think that market HAS dictated size. The other cities with a 1000' - NYC, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, Houston... we are about 1/2 the size of ATL or Houston (both 5.3 million).



As for the location of the tower: I prefer the "bookends" approach but the east bookend should be the arch and the west bookend should be this tower. Putting it in one of the park parcels in front of the Soldiers Memorial would be awesome. A visitors viewing floor would have awesome views of the arch, looking straight on- Right over the top of Civil Courts (beautiful historic building), over the parks, with the Old Courthouse and the arch. (Not to mention all the business it would bring to west downtown and union station) Also there should be room within 2 or so blocks around the tower for more super buildings to go in (700’ +) so that it may be a loner now, but the potential is easy down the road to make this a super cluster (similar to Toronto)



Where ever the placement - this is a working building, not a monument - it shouldn't compete with the arch, but being such a prominent building, it should complement it. The view should be one where - from the arch you can see it clearly, and from the top of the tower you can see the arch head on, and the rest of the city clearly. Also IT NEEDS TO BE ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT in some fashion....

I don't think you could make a building of this size work on the site, but I'd love to see something replace the ugly KMOX building (plus I'm sure people would be all up in arms over the "ruining" of the Arch).



However, I believe that, way back when the Fur Exchange building was to be demolished, before Drury stepped in to save the day, there was a proposal to do just that. The developer wanted to tear down everything on that site and put in a surface parking lot, in preparation for the eventual demolition and development of the KMOX site. I will see if I can dig up the article, but I believe that it said that KMOX felt that it had outgrown that building and was looking for someone to develop a new building for them. And, that was what, 6 to 8 years ago? And, the developer thought they might do a 40 to 50 story building where the KMOX building stands, with parking garage and ground level retail on the rest of the site.



I wonder if you could fit enough parking under the park next door, possibly combining the construction of the underground parking garage with construction of the new lid over I-70. Hmm...food for thought.

jfknet wrote:I think in many ways to our detriment. I love the arch, but would prefer for St. Louis to be known for more things then the arch; or any skyscraper for that matter. It's almost to me, and it's only my opinion; is grossly run into the ground to a point of almost being cheesy.

I ABSOLUTELY agree. It has turned into a cheesy monument because it is all we're seen as. A lot of outsiders see it as the only "cool" (i use that term extremely loosely) we have. We need more taller buildings and possibly other monuments ASAP. Here's how I see it. The rules should be that nothing can be taller than the Arch, directly east of the Arch. Anything to the west, north and south of it should be FAIR game!





The CITY is Alive! Are YOU?

^A good idea, but not likely to happen. As I understand it, when Fred Kummer was developing his (ahem) beautiful hotel his inital plan was to have underground parking beneath the park. The feds eighty-sixed that idea though.

Speaking of...what is the real story on the A.G. Edwards group of buildings? The entire campus is very underwelming. The design and construction is akin to prefabricated homes or barns. The interiors I've been in are really stark.

The single most important viewpoint of this proposed tower (should it get built) is not how it looks from across the river, or PSB, or Hwy 40, it's from the street. I don't like going West of Tucker because that doesn't really capitalize on density. I'd like to see it focus on being near mass transit, and within an already positive neighborhood, so as to attract investors into the upper, very expensive floors. Would you want to spend a few million on a penthouse and walk out of your building and be surrounded by City Hall, Tucker, and the post office? Why when you could be close to Busch Stadium, or in the heart of the CBD. Perhaps just north of Wash Ave.



You can't think about where it would look nice in filling out the skyline. You have to think about the best place to put that density feasibly in the downtown neighborhood.

Matt wrote:Speaking of...what is the real story on the A.G. Edwards group of buildings? The entire campus is very underwelming. The design and construction is akin to prefabricated homes or barns. The interiors I've been in are really stark.

I am building a scale model of the A.G. Edward's campus. I have almost everything I need, and it should only take about ten minutes, except...does anyone know where I can get black Lego blocks?

jlblues wrote:

Matt wrote:Speaking of...what is the real story on the A.G. Edwards group of buildings? The entire campus is very underwelming. The design and construction is akin to prefabricated homes or barns. The interiors I've been in are really stark.

I am building a scale model of the A.G. Edward's campus. I have almost everything I need, and it should only take about ten minutes, except...does anyone know where I can get black Lego blocks?

Let's not take this thread that far off topic. There are already many other threads that talk about A.G. Edward's midtown campus. Let's not make this another. Thanks!

trent wrote:
You can't think about where it would look nice in filling out the skyline. You have to think about the best place to put that density feasibly in the downtown neighborhood.

I agree.

tbspqr wrote:
We also have another major Class A business District (Clayton) that most cities our size don't have.

I don't know how everyone else feels, but I think it's kind of a disgrace that we 'gave up' on our real DT and CBD and instead moved it out a few miles west and tried to start over. Thank God DT is back! -Clayton should never get this project or anything to challenge DT... it should always play 2nd fiddle.

Maybe the new tower could replace that awful USBank branch on Tucker between Olive and Locust.

SoulardD wrote:

tbspqr wrote:
We also have another major Class A business District (Clayton) that most cities our size don't have.

** I had a 3 page rant about the possible long term ramifications (positive and negative) that this tower may pose BUT I decided to spare you guys **



My whole point for mentioning Clayton wasn't to downgrade downtown. And YES, Alonzo P Hawk, WE have Clayton. I don’t know if you are in denial, but Clayton does exist and it does have an influence on downtown (most of you being you will say negative.. i wont say one way or another) Do you wish Clayton wasn’t here: obviously – is it here: yes. We all MUST DEAL WITH THAT. In any case to succeed as a metro area, we must embrace both of them, not pit them against each other. This gives St. Louis a unique opportunity that most cities our size don’t have.... Two distinct central business districts. Downtown SHOULD be (and still is) considerably larger, more vibrant and the heart of everything; but for survival, we need not to close the door on anyone.



Like it or not - people see us as the arch. It could be worse - we could be not seen. St. Louis had, in a recent survey, the second most recognized skyline (behind New York) and I would say that its due ONLY to the fact that the arch is where it is and how well known it is. Unless we get a tower like some of the ones Dubai is building, we will never be known for commercial buildings. Is it a cheesy symbol: yes. So is Mickey Mouse, yet Disney World is the single most visited tourist attraction on the planet (I would say DW is doing all right). We should work with what we got.



I am not saying the arch is the essence of St. Louis to people who know us, but it is what most people think of when they think of St. Louis - therefore its a symbol.

^The thing is, a CBD should NEVER be moved from its original place. Why? Uh...hint..."all roads lead to Rome". All one need do is look at any map showing the interstates. Where do they converge? This is where the CBD needs to be. I don't care if its Clayton, South Grand Avenue or Farview Heights, Il. These were originally secondary, tertiary etc. business districts and should remain so.

We have suburbs that are growing, but just because they're growing doesn't mean we need to move the CBD to accomodate that growth. If you disagree, please tell me, I'd like to know of any other sucessful city that has done this. I can think of none. All the cities that have passed us by have their CBD's exactly where they were from the start. There are reasons for that...my second sentence is one, another follows.

I don't know how many times people have to be told that downtown St. Louis is our front door to the world. You just can not change that fact, even by moving the CBD elsewhere. Our civic leaders and elected officials have neglected this fact for far too long...and where has St. Louis' image gone along with this? Granted, downtown St. Louis is still the largest, but is has lost so much for so long that the "handwriting is on the wall"..."if your successful, you won't want your new office building downtown St. Louis." Hopefully, seemingly, this outdated and detrimental sentiment is finally begining to die.

And, anytime a major new office tower (or one such as the proposed mixed use tower) goes somewhere other than downtown, yes, it is detrimental to downtown (and ultimately to the whole metro area)...because it shows the developers are reinforcing the fact that downtown is not worthy of such projects.

I don't know about you, but I'd like for our front door to be impressive, and locating projects like this downtown is one way to achieve this. Otherwise, perhaps we should move the CBD to O'Fallon, Illinois in 15 or 20 years to accomodate all those who will have moved there.

And, no, I don't wish Clayton wasn't here...I simply wish Clayton would assume it's role as St. Louis' upper middle class business district. I remember the old downtown Clayton, and miss it terribly.

jlblues wrote:
I am building a scale model of the A.G. Edward's campus. I have almost everything I need, and it should only take about ten minutes, except...does anyone know where I can get black Lego blocks?

Brilliant.





First, on Clayton...Clayton should never get a development like this. It's really overgrown as it is, since it really doesn't connect to any major highways, it's a traffic nightmare. That being said, I like having Clayton. I want Clayton to succeed as long as it is not at the expense of St. Louis City. At the expense of the outer burbs, yes, because it's already a nice dense inner burb. Our central corridor is really cool because Clayton bookends the western edge. They you hit Wash U, Forest Park, CWE, Midtown, and Downtown, it's really great.



But downtown is where this building should be built. If you are going to build a 71 story tower, it needs to impact your skyline, which is the downtown CBD.

I fully expect that Kevin McGowan wants this tower along the Chouteau Greenway. Personally, though, I think 1001 Lucas would be an excellent address for it.

^Not sure exactly where you mean. Do you mean the block that contains a couple of just-completed loft buildings, (don't remember the names of them or the name of the developer, but they were on the loft tour) as well as a city-owned parking lot, the old Creepy Crawl and Dapper Dan's? If that is what you mean that would be a good site if the tower is built along Tucker, and the parking garage with ground level retail is built to the east of the tower, around the existing lofts buildings. Of course, you would be destroying the north views of those loft dwellers, the only views they would have left would be out the front and between the buildings.

AGAIN, please keep this thread on subject of the MW Tower proposal.

jlblues wrote:^Not sure exactly where you mean.

My bad, I misaddressed that post. I've corrected it; what I intended was the surface lots behind Dorsa. Lucas has great potential to the west of America's Center, this is close to the convention center and hence Metrolink, and there's even a neighboring empty lot for halo development.

matguy70 wrote:AGAIN, please keep this thread on subject of the MW Tower proposal.

Isn't potential location for the only such supertower proposed for StL appropriate at this point in the discussion's life?