urbanSTL

Guy Legend wrote:Supertall buildings define a city's skyline and IMO would be tremendous source of excitement and pride for St. Louis. I truly hope this project is legit and we see something that breaks the unofficial height limit established by the arch. It's extremely possible to have much taller buildings while keeping the signifigance and visual stature of the arch. I'm hoping we get one tower out of the bottledistrict that is near the arch's height as well.



Even Nashville is a getting a 1000+ ft tower (Signature tower)....

I disagree. This logic only applies in new cities that have not already established other cultural landmarks. Old cities are defined by the historic, which provides a much stronger sense of identity, continuity, and heritage than the new. What about Paris, London, or Berlin? None have the tallest buildings in the world, yet they are all known as cosmopolitan cities. Building taller for it's own sake -- and not for density necessity -- is a symptom of envy, not pride.



That said, I'm all for as tall of buildings in St. Louis that the market demands. But I couldn't care less about height bragging rights with KC, Nashville, Minneapolis, or wherever. Does Paris care about this with London? No. They have the Eiffel tower. For that matter, can you imagine it if it were surrounded by 700+ foot buildings? It would be lost.

Sustainability vs. Masculine ego



+ Consider what the market dictates

+ Build more buildings of quality at lower heights

2 35 stories or 4 20 stories

+ Build a mini district on two/three blocks instead of one and blighting

three

+ Consider environmental standards, it's easier to supply electricity from

solar panels to a shorter building than a tall one

+ Consider more than one's ego and what's good for the whole

democracy vs. dictatorship

+ Consider what Metro station is closest and can be capitalized on

+ Consider that in the future that newer office space may be needed and

this building will be old and less usable and thus be a blighted tower

+ Less lives are lost from a bombing of a shorter building and it's easier

to escape in case of fire

+ Have Leed standards been considered?

We all know there are plenty of vacant lots around DT...but for the sake of discussion...if there were to be a 70+ story building built, where is the optimal location.. I have been looking at the other topics as well as google earth for answers?



-what lots are available?

-What lots have a large enough footprint?

-Where would there be enough parking? LOL

- Which lots are in close proximity to the link? present and future lines?

- Where would it fit asthetically into our skyline the best?

- Is the land stable enought for such height? weight? (I know there were quicksand issues with the arcade, granted that was 80+ years ago?



feel free to add on to/answer these questions... Anyone wanna add an arial.... U know we love pics.

SMSPlanstu wrote:Sustainability vs. Masculine ego



+ Consider what the market dictates

+ Build more buildings of quality at lower heights

2 35 stories or 4 20 stories

+ Build a mini district on two/three blocks instead of one and blighting

three

+ Consider environmental standards, it's easier to supply electricity from

solar panels to a shorter building than a tall one

+ Consider more than one's ego and what's good for the whole

democracy vs. dictatorship

+ Consider what Metro station is closest and can be capitalized on

+ Consider that in the future that newer office space may be needed and

this building will be old and less usable and thus be a blighted tower

+ Less lives are lost from a bombing of a shorter building and it's easier

to escape in case of fire

+ Have Leed standards been considered?

One of the great things about mixed-use buildings is that most types of space in the building can be relatively easily converted into other types of space, based on demand. The only limitation is in converting any space to office space (which I can't imagine ever being necessary) - unless you added the necessary elevator, MEPFP, and structural capacity up front.



Re: The height of the building. You do have to consider the significantly higher rates per square foot that you could charge for both the office and condo spaces. Every condo unit in this building would be like the penthouse in any other building, so I am sure the price range would start at $1 million. You'd never be able to achieve that in a 35-story condo building. Office space rates I'd imagine would be 50-75% higher than Met Square space at the same level, because of the high profile of the building and the views, but also because the building would be cutting-edge technologically speaking. So, whether or not there is market demand comes down to a comparison between the increased cost of building higher vs. the increased value of the space.

bpe235 wrote:- Is the land stable enought for such height? weight?

There may be some groundwater issues around downtown, but that has no impact on the height of the building. It would be supported on drilled piers down to bedrock.



Two things Kevin McGowan said that I forgot to mention. The office space tenant would put their name on the building ($$$$). And, there would be an HDTV tower at the top leased to some local broadcaster (also $$$$).

MattnSTL wrote:^He was only stating that there is kind of an unwritten rule, and it will take an adventurous developer to go higher. But once someone does, everyone will want to.

This is exactly what I was saying. Philly had an unwritten rule that was broken by a building some 400 + feet taller than the "unwritten rule". A 700'+ tower would not be as dramatic- since our "unwritten rule" is at 630' but I think as long as this is 750' or taller - it will prove a big point.



I think unless you make an new high-rise district south of 40, it will look out of place. Even a couple of 30 story towers (which by themselves would make this forum as excited as heck) would look out of place next to a 70 story building. You would really need several buildings along the lines of what Downtown already has to make the tower look at home.



Because of this I think downtown in the CDB is the only real option. Building the infrastructure to the other side of the highway would be a mammoth undertaking. Downtown has the infrastructure, and the Metrolink system already there, plus a lot of the workers moving from Chicago or New York to their companies new World Headquarters would definitely consider living downtown, with in walking distance of their tower.



A "medium" project like Met Square or Eagleton may hurt or helped the CDB office market (that?s for another). But look at another project and its affect on its struggling office market: Petronius towers Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. I am sure your all familiar with the project/towers. Before the building boom in the mid 90s, the tallest building was sub 500' Now they 17 towers tall than that - with the catalyst being the announcement in the early 90s of the plans to build the two worlds tallest buildings. The basically non-existent office market of Kuala Lumpur was sparked by the announcement of a huge project.



Obviously this 700'+ tower wont be that huge, but a big "pie in the sky" project that happens CAN / MAY have an awesome effect on the office market in a region. Look at the growth of midtown NYC after the Empire State and Chrysler building. Downtown NYC after World Trade Center. Downtown/Loop Chicago after Hancock and Sears. This is a gross simplification of market demand, economics etc etc etc? and its not always for sure (downtown STL after numerous projects meant to spark redevelopment - Arch and Busch or in mid 80s after ATT <ONE> and Met Square.) But it is something to think about. "If you build it - they will come" You have to get on the Radar to get huge companies..... just an idea. This super project along with BV and BD as well as any / all plans might put STL back on the radar. No one ever said "hey that city is building another 20 story building - they are going big time"



It would really help downtown if Clayton?s buildings would be supplanted to the downtown CDB, imagine having another 40+ tall buildings including 4 more above 300 feet. [/rant]

Has MW released any sort of info online about this?

^west downtown.... on which side of tucker?

Tysalpha wrote:

Guy Legend wrote:Supertall buildings define a city's skyline and IMO would be tremendous source of excitement and pride for St. Louis. I truly hope this project is legit and we see something that breaks the unofficial height limit established by the arch. It's extremely possible to have much taller buildings while keeping the signifigance and visual stature of the arch. I'm hoping we get one tower out of the bottledistrict that is near the arch's height as well.



Even Nashville is a getting a 1000+ ft tower (Signature tower)....

I disagree. This logic only applies in new cities that have not already established other cultural landmarks. Old cities are defined by the historic, which provides a much stronger sense of identity, continuity, and heritage than the new. What about Paris, London, or Berlin? None have the tallest buildings in the world, yet they are all known as cosmopolitan cities. Building taller for it's own sake -- and not for density necessity -- is a symptom of envy, not pride.



That said, I'm all for as tall of buildings in St. Louis that the market demands. But I couldn't care less about height bragging rights with KC, Nashville, Minneapolis, or wherever. Does Paris care about this with London? No. They have the Eiffel tower. For that matter, can you imagine it if it were surrounded by 700+ foot buildings? It would be lost.

I see your point, but I disagree with your reasoning.



You brought up cities like London, Paris, and Berlin, yet when you do so you compare them to St. Louis. Let's be real here, those are "alpha tier" cities - economic, political, commercial, and cultural hubs for their respective countries. To put it bluntly, those type of cities are out of St. Louis' league.



While building newer and taller buildings, it is still very possible to keep St. Louis' own historic/traditional character. At the same time, it's important to keep in mind that St. Louis has been a city on the decline for decades. It's vital for any American city to expand with invigorating re developments. I'm hopeful and ecstatic to see projects like the BD, BV, river front plan, etc. being planned for eventual construction. A 70+ story building - the tallest in the city by far, would be yet another major development for the city - one that could be yet another source of pride and satisfaction as St. Louis makes its comeback after years of decline.

Boy, where WOULD you put a 70 story tower in St. Louis?



I agree with Xing's reasoning that it should be west of Tucker, so as not to throw our "Postcard" view from the East Side out of whack. But then, you've got a huge tower standing completely isolated, when viewed from any other angle. Kinda awkward.



I'm not crazy about Chouteau Lake either, for the same reason. And it shouldn't be in line with The Arch, because then you'd have the "giant croquet wicket" issue.



Interesting question, but let's face it...this is all just wishful thinking at this point. McGowan's just throwing ideas out there. Let's not get carried away.

An interesting point was made that was sort of overlooked, and I'd like to reinterate in regards to the guy who was talking about the towers downtown being a detriment for the surrounding areas. Basically, those towers opened up some great spaces that are now being converted into residential. That has been the single biggest issue in the resurgance of St. Louis. So do you give credit to those who built the met and new courthouse for spurring the eventual redevelopment of downtown St. Louis? It's a fair question. Would the addition of more Class A office space do more for downtown in the same manner? Perhaps, it's hard to say. Where is the business demand for new office space downtown? Does it exist?



That being said, the question of where would you build a tower has been broached here before. And I wouldn't have a problem with a tower going up south of 64/40. So long as it was closer to the highway than not. If it were on Chouteau, well that might look a little off. But abutting the highway, that might be sort of cool.



When are we gonna get the rendering of this? Surely somebody saw this building.

Framer wrote:Boy, where WOULD you put a 70 story tower in St. Louis?

I think this tower should be located West of tucker, but not in Midtown or CWE. I DO like the ?giant croquet wicket? idea - put it in one of the "worthless" spots on the gateway mall between Market and Chestnut near 15th or 17th street. This could bring together several of the things being discussed in this forum. Huge serge of people near union station year round would be great for it, you place the building not more than 5 blocks from Civil courts and 6 from Eagleton so it doesn?t look completely out of place as far as height goes, and it would help with the Gateway Mall ?issue? having too much park with out enough usage. I think an awesome glass walled behemoth with an observation deck at top could be awesome looking back at the arch over the old court house. From the arch you could get cool reflections of the Civil Courts building, and if it isn't perfectly square also the solders memorial etc. And from our postcard view ? we don?t loose any love because it looks shorter than the arch as is partially hidden by civil courts (386 ft already) I think a "capital" building in this location could be as superb as the arch itself.

I'd be fine with the lot between the Pet and Busch. I'd say that as long as it isn't directly behind the Arch, I'm fine with it.

The gateway mall east of Tucker and the Ballpark Village area (including the lot next to the Pet Building) would probably be my top choices.

stlmike wrote:I'd be fine with the lot between the Pet and Busch. I'd say that as long as it isn't directly behind the Arch, I'm fine with it.

I agree... you guys talk about regognition... then maybe we should be able to see it in our "postcard" view... I've seen in other forums, about bv and BD, how people want a symetrical skyline...IMHO i don't think one tall building will negatively effect the veiw from the east.

bpe235 wrote:if there were to be a 70+ story building built, where is the optimal location

The 900 block of Chestnut.

Xing wrote:Where's the sales office that has the rendering? I'll try and check it out soon.

Packard/Motor Lofts - 22nd & Washington



At least that was where it was on the loft tour...

I agree with you. That should be a prime site for something like this proposal. If not there, I think the Gateway Mall west of Tucker would be a good site. I also would not be opposed to somewhere south around the highway.

Jeff wrote:I'd like to see a big tower go up on the West side of Tucker on the lot where that branch bank now sits. Just think of what that section of downtown would look like-the new loft building on Washington & Tucker, the Park Pacific project next door, the Meridian across the street, and a new 50+ story tower on Tucker. That would be one impressive stretch of Tucker Downtown.



Edit-not to mention the stately refurbished Jefferson Arms, complete with movie theater!

do you mean the bank at tuck and olive on the nw corner...in that same block is a church...i think a tower that talll would need a whold block... how about one block west on that empty greenspace between the library and the memorial..?