I believe that would probably happen anyway.
- 396
WOW, This is awesome, Where will it be built is the question?
I think this tower is different from Met Square in that it is a mixed use tower. A substantial part of the tower is allotted for hotel and condos, unlike Met Square which was and is 100% commercial. Additionally, 50% of the space will be leased (or it won't be built), leaving only 300,000sqft. of space, which isn't a huge amount.
I think if they line up the company for 50% of the space, and also sign up the W, we should be in good shape. I still wouldn't be surprised to see the number of floors scaled down to 40 - 50, maybe reducing the size of the hotel and condo space.
I think if they line up the company for 50% of the space, and also sign up the W, we should be in good shape. I still wouldn't be surprised to see the number of floors scaled down to 40 - 50, maybe reducing the size of the hotel and condo space.
Metzgda, Good points. Your points help put things into perspective.
I wonder how many condo's they are planning?
I wonder how many condo's they are planning?
- 622
I don't think that McGowan is stupid enough, with all the projects they're doing DT and all the stuff they can potentially do DT to just pull an existing company from the neighborhood like SBC and just move them up a few blocks. It wouldn't help the neighborhood and all their invested properties around the ballpark would take a huge hit if SBC left.
For this reason, I think they've gotta be bringing someone from the County, or from out fo town. Just my opinion, but I think it'd hurt them in the long run if they did anything else.
For this reason, I think they've gotta be bringing someone from the County, or from out fo town. Just my opinion, but I think it'd hurt them in the long run if they did anything else.
I think if this project gets off the ground, it very well may signal that DT is poised to take on new and exciting office space/projects. Allbeit this is a mixed use structure, this may be the very thing needed, similar to the impact John Hancock tower had on N. Michigan Ave. in Chicago. And, I think we need to think about drawing in corporate offices to St. Louis, far more important than worrying about draining older office buildings. An impressive, actively growing skyline would do far more good for St. Louis than harm.
Not too long ago, who would have thought that living downtown would become so popular? It's only a matter of time before office (and more impressive retail) follow, and this would be an excellent beginning.
Not too long ago, who would have thought that living downtown would become so popular? It's only a matter of time before office (and more impressive retail) follow, and this would be an excellent beginning.
- 1,026
does anyone else think that this simply MUST be slated for the parking lot south of the westin? Perfect views of busch. Perfect spot for a hotel. Hopefully whoever builds there will build over the metrolink and bring their building up to Broadway - filling in the street front ...
and yes - just think how DT will look if all these projects get off the groud. MW tower ... BPV ... BD ... C lake and accompanying midrises ...
of course I doubt ALL of those projects will move forward but just think what DT would look like if they did.
and yes - just think how DT will look if all these projects get off the groud. MW tower ... BPV ... BD ... C lake and accompanying midrises ...
of course I doubt ALL of those projects will move forward but just think what DT would look like if they did.
- 10K
markofucity wrote:does anyone else think that this simply MUST be slated for the parking lot south of the westin? Perfect views of busch. Perfect spot for a hotel. Hopefully whoever builds there will build over the metrolink and bring their building up to Broadway - filling in the street front ...
Either that or on the lot just across Broadway from the ballpark. I was at the game the other day and viewed the lot from above - it's huge!
- 209
I'd like to see it on the lot to the east of the old Savis Center.
- 1,026
good point ... i wish i owned those lots - one could retire. Of course I'd have to pull a David Jump and hide from you guys lest you find me and kick my a$$$
- 8,912
Personally I'd like to see it in a more central location DT...One that isn't adjacent to barriers like hw40....possibly on that parcel of land where we hold motocross and monster truck rallies...you know that one just north of the new Busch 
... or in that damn mall just west of gateway one. any thoughts?
... or in that damn mall just west of gateway one. any thoughts?I wouldn't want anything on the mall that size. I'm in favor of building on the mall, but I'd rather go for low to midrise buildings (similar to gateway one in size). I personally like the idea to put this around the stadium. The lot just east of the stadium desperately needs some new life/construction. $25 parking spots is just a waste of space.
But one thing I think is essential, is that this is very close to a MetroLink stop. I wouldn't mind if it was south of 64/40, but I think it would form better in the CBD.
BTW, I really like the design. It's sleek, and newage looking, yet it's not over the top. Very nice rendering.
But one thing I think is essential, is that this is very close to a MetroLink stop. I wouldn't mind if it was south of 64/40, but I think it would form better in the CBD.
BTW, I really like the design. It's sleek, and newage looking, yet it's not over the top. Very nice rendering.
I would like to see this south of Busch or west of 10th. Maybe north near the Bottle District. It does need to be near a Metro station.
I wish the tower had a more stepped-back roofline. As it is, it's just too massive. Think Pan Am Building in NY. If, for example, this tower went up on the lot between Busch and Pointe 400, and faced it's flat side parallel to the river, the skyline would be ruined. In my opinion, anyway.
- 1,026
uuhhh .. are we even sure that the building on McGowen's website IS the proposed building?
- 43
markofucity wrote:uuhhh .. are we even sure that the building on McGowen's website IS the proposed building?
I was hoping so mark...I saw the skyline in the background, and the new tower, and just assumed. I really like it!
I was thinking though - coming into the city going eastbound on 70, completely assuming it was built on the parking lot directly east of Busch, would it look like the AT&T building and this tower were kind of "merged?" Like one big fat building? I could be wrong, maybe the lot is too far east, but at certain points from 70 East it could like like that. Not a big deal by any means, just a thought.
I wouldn' worry so much about the skyline implications, as I am sure it would look great. Given the layout shown there, it looks like the tower portion would only take up half a block anyway. Do I prefer steped back buildings. yes. Would it be nice for STL to have a distinctive modern steped back? yes. but the tower they propose looks fine.
- 1,026
so I guess we're all in agreement that the unnanounced and unfunded tower would make a good fit in the skyline .... I suppose I concur. But aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves?
Today in the ballpark village thread - they mentioned a doubling of the price tag to $600 million... could this be included in the BV? This project alone could be the difference in $300 million...... i suppose. If it were - that would be great. Every time on ESPN they show Busch - you would see front and center the 71 story tower....
- 359
tbspqr wrote:Today in the ballpark village thread - they mentioned a doubling of the price tag to $600 million... could this be included in the BV? This project alone could be the difference in $300 million...... i suppose. If it were - that would be great. Every time on ESPN they show Busch - you would see front and center the 71 story tower....
If that became reality I would probably wet myself.
^ I would actualy be disipointed if the MW tower became part of the Ballpark Village. I mean, don't get me wrong, if the tower is built, great. But given the choice between a currently vacant or under developed lot and having this as part of the larger BV, then there is no doubt it would be better for downtown to have them as seperate projects.
- 359
JMedwick wrote:^ I would actualy be disipointed if the MW tower became part of the Ballpark Village. I mean, don't get me wrong, if the tower is built, great. But given the choice between a currently vacant or under developed lot and having this as part of the larger BV, then there is no doubt it would be better for downtown to have them as seperate projects.
You're probably right. However it would look even taller than what it actually is (from inside the lower sections of the stadium) since the stadium is built below grade
- 3,429
