urbanSTL

^Yes, LoftLivin&Lovin has been posting about McGowan|Walsh projects, and only their projects, since March. So, maybe not the person to whom you gave the paper, but someone.

If they are really serious about a building this tall, they need to consider an area at or near the top for a public viewing area and an dedicated express elevator up to it.

Gary Kreie wrote:If they are really serious about a building this tall, they need to consider an area at or near the top for a public viewing area and an dedicated express elevator up to it.

^ I disagree. Why would we want to move traffic from the Arch which has a viewing room to a new tower? Let the Arch be the view of St. Louis from the top, not a new tower.

I don't know if it would take away from the Arch. It does seem a bit of a shame to have that view exclusive to those that can afford the multimillion dollar aparments/condos in the building. Or maybe it's just my own personal jealousy.



Also, regarding the transformation of the skyline...I doubt that any building, tall or not, can take away from the majestic impression that the Arch makes. It does compare with other national landmarks well noted around the world, and nothing can take away from that. The Arch is beautiful, and it's on our riverfront, which makes it the most visible structure in St. Louis no matter how much height/density we might surround it with.



Besides, considering we all seem to agree that the most likely place is south of the stadium, that sets the building back 7 blocks from the Arch. The impact in size wouldn't be as noticeable, and it would add a nice bookend to the skyline that is dominated by density north of the Arch.



But like I said, I'm most concerned with how the building interacts with the street, as opposed to how tall it is. Don't cannibalize the market, and make the building very ped-friendly and I'll be happy even if it's 1000 stories tall.

I would assume there will be some type of observation deck - a 1,000 building in StL w/o an observation deck? That would seem a waste. Of course it would probably pull some revenue from the Arch - though that would still be a unique experience.

Because some people don't like sweating in a cooped-up egg all the way to the top.

metzgda wrote:

Gary Kreie wrote:If they are really serious about a building this tall, they need to consider an area at or near the top for a public viewing area and an dedicated express elevator up to it.

^ I disagree. Why would we want to move traffic from the Arch which has a viewing room to a new tower? Let the Arch be the view of St. Louis from the top, not a new tower.

I think the Arch itself will still be a tourist draw because of its museum and theatre as well as the fact that it's the tallest freestanding monument in the world.



Other cities like Chicago and New York boast several observation decks on multiple skyscrapers. A nice open air observation deck a la the Empire State Building would be pretty cool IMO.

I see all of your arguments, but I'll stick with my initial reaction. I think New York and Chicago can pull off multiple observation decks b/c they have enough tourists to support it. Having visited the Arch this summer, I sure wished there were more people around. I can't imagine pulling a 1/3 to 1/2 of those people to a different building downtown - it would really make the Arch grounds that much quieter.



Now, what I would love to see would be something similar to the Signature room in the John Hancock. I love going up there and either having lunch/dinner, or just a few drinks looking out over the city. I think that would definately be neat.

From what I have seen - the arch grounds are always quiet. We need some people selling tourist stuff, musicians, hot dog type vendors (selling toasted ravioli and STL style Pizza). The museum is not always full, but every time I have been there - there are a bunch of people. Plus if we have two great observation points.... maybe we will increase the number of people that use them... If one is a cafe or sports bar -- and it over looks busch -- how unique would that be to be able to watch the cards game (or just see into the stadium) from 80 stories up... that would be an observation spot worth visiting for visitors.

brickandmortar wrote:I think the Arch itself will still be a tourist draw because of its museum and theatre as well as the fact that it's the tallest freestanding monument in the world.



Other cities like Chicago and New York boast several observation decks on multiple skyscrapers. A nice open air observation deck a la the Empire State Building would be pretty cool IMO.

I agree with this - The Arch has an observation area, but it's indoors only. I think It'd be kinda cool to see and take pictures of the arch from 1000' in the air.



There might be a bit of cannibalization, but the market should be able support both.



-RBB

People go up in the Arch because it is the Arch. They won't stop visiting the Arch just because they get good views elsewhere.



Mr. Smith asks, "Did you go up in the Eiffel Tower while in Paris?"

Mr. Jones replies "No, I skipped the Eiffel Tower, because there was a tall building nearby with an observation deck"



^Does that seem like a likely scenario? I don't think so. I am not worried about another viewing deck taking tourists away from the Arch.



Besides, the way to make tourists happy and eager to visit St. Louis is to offer many interesting activities downtown.

Expat wrote:People go up in the Arch because it is the Arch. They won't stop visiting the Arch just because they get good views elsewhere.



Mr. Smith asks, "Did you go up in the Eiffel Tower while in Paris?"

Mr. Jones replies "No, I skipped the Eiffel Tower, because there was a tall building nearby with an observation deck"



^Does that seem like a likely scenario? I don't think so. I am not worried about another viewing deck taking tourists away from the Arch.



Besides, the way to make tourists happy and eager to visit St. Louis is to offer many interesting activities downtown.

my thoughts EXACTLY

Guys, I love the arch. I really do. It's the symbol of St. Louis and one of the most architecturally significant pieces of the 20th Century. It's ours and it's awesome. But we can all stop worrying about hurtings its feelings now. It's not the best thing in St Louis just because it's the tallest. Let's let that myth die right here. Nobody goes to Paris because the Eifell tower is tall. We could all go to Chicago or New York if all we wanted was a tall view or to look up at a tall building. We wouldn't even have to get a passport. Tall buildings are nice but we have something special. Something unable to be duplicated. Why do we constantly worry about stealing its thunder? Must we retard the all standards in our city over such insane worries?

So what would that look like? I'm trying to think of examples. This depends where the building ends up. One thing that I think will be important is to have pedestrian connections under 40 (assuming it's south of 40) and have an open connection to any proposed greenway. A pedestrian should be able to walk 360 around the building. I'm hoping two sides would be street front and other would be facing greenway/lake. It would be great to have a large pass-through on the first floor to encourage foot traffic . . . anything else? What brings people in? What does downtown need? This could/should be a lively area.

Trent: But like I said, I'm most concerned with how the building interacts with the street, as opposed to how tall it is. Don't cannibalize the market, and make the building very ped-friendly and I'll be happy even if it's 1000 stories tall.

If my calculations are correct, one might just be able to see the top of Taum Sauk Mountain from the top of an 81 story building. That is, you might be able to see a laser shot from the top of Taum Sauk if you look South from the top floor of an 81 story building downtown, but the laser may graze the hair of tall people in Crystal City, which is near the horizon of both places.

In that case, we know who the corporation is. It's Ameren's new lookout tower for a billion gallons of water crashing down a hillside.

From what I have seen - the arch grounds are always quiet. We need some people selling tourist stuff, musicians, hot dog type vendors (selling toasted ravioli and STL style Pizza). The museum is not always full, but every time I have been there - there are a bunch of people.

It is a National Park - not Six Flags, not even a city park.

I was reading my notes today from Entrepreneurship class last Thursday, and Kevin McGowan's speech, and he also said that in the 81 story building will also be a state of the art aquarium, "which is what downtown is really, really lacking."

matguy70 wrote:

From what I have seen - the arch grounds are always quiet. We need some people selling tourist stuff, musicians, hot dog type vendors (selling toasted ravioli and STL style Pizza). The museum is not always full, but every time I have been there - there are a bunch of people.

It is a National Park - not Six Flags, not even a city park.

Not only that, it's a National Memorial to Thomas Jefferson - not an entertainment district.



Just about the only time the Park Service has allowed any type of entertainment activity like that is the VP/Fair St Louis.

Doyou think that is another office tower for us or not on MW web site.