Refering to the cost of living in STL vs Chicago, I have discovered that bars and groceries are about the same as in St. Louis if you know where to go (and you're not downtown). Restaurants are only slightly more expensive. The big difference in the cost of living is rent. I pay about twice as much in Lakeview (an area with average rent prices) as I did in University City for the same size apartment 6 months ago. Add to that transportation costs (CTA or higher gas prices + parking) and you come to a significant increase in cost of living expenditures over those in St. Louis.
^ Exactly, its the same deal in New Jersey. When housing costs idealy take up no more than a thrid of your budget, that has a major impact on the amount you are spending.
crbswiss wrote:The big difference in the cost of living is rent. I pay about twice as much in Lakeview (an area with average rent prices) as I did in University City for the same size apartment 6 months ago. Add to that transportation costs (CTA or higher gas prices + parking) and you come to a significant increase in cost of living expenditures over those in St. Louis.
I found rent to be not all that much different, if you are willing to give up a few things, like central air, which you only need in Chicago a few weeks a year anyway (Buying a home is a much different story). The problem is that you are comparing rent in U City to Lakeview. To find a comparable to U City in the Chicago area you would probably have to look at Evanston or Oak Park. Lakeview is much more desirable in its relative proximity to entertainment and downtown, and its access to public transit. Sell your car and ride the CTA to work everyday and then compare the costs of living. You can do that in Chicago, not so much in St. Louis, yet.
Anyway, back on topic...which was what again?
Maybe McGowan knows more than we do about Chouteau Lake and is banking on it being completed in the next couple of years. If this tower is going to be on the lake, what better place to put an aquarium? He might be following the success of Baltimore's innerharbor and aquarium.
I don't think this guy is an idiot. He seems to know what is good for an urban environment. Maybe there are grander schemes in place that will include the tower, the aquarium and other stuff along the lake...
I don't think this guy is an idiot. He seems to know what is good for an urban environment. Maybe there are grander schemes in place that will include the tower, the aquarium and other stuff along the lake...
This thread has taken some interesting twists and turns today. And Bastiat brought it all back full circle. Nice going, Bastiat. 
- 923
In light of the above (and all) discussions on aquariums, I propose the following URBAN ST. LOUIS Resolution #1 (it's just like a UN resolution - sounds impressive but totally unenforceable 
)
Whereas - There are not one but TWO aquariums in the city (brentwood industrial and city museum) in the St. Louis area, not including any aquatic exhibits at the zoo and
Whereas every single time a building becomes vacant within the first few responses people jump on the 'it's perfect for an aquarium' bandwagon, and
whereas retrofitting an old building for aquarium purposes would likely be cost-prohibitive and likely ruin any intrinsic interior beauty, and
whereas if some people had their druthers every vacant building in STL would be rehabbed into an aquarium
Therefore be it resolved that any and all discussions as to future locations of aquariums be halted until there is credible evidence that there is movement on the aquarium front.
All in favor?
)Whereas - There are not one but TWO aquariums in the city (brentwood industrial and city museum) in the St. Louis area, not including any aquatic exhibits at the zoo and
Whereas every single time a building becomes vacant within the first few responses people jump on the 'it's perfect for an aquarium' bandwagon, and
whereas retrofitting an old building for aquarium purposes would likely be cost-prohibitive and likely ruin any intrinsic interior beauty, and
whereas if some people had their druthers every vacant building in STL would be rehabbed into an aquarium
Therefore be it resolved that any and all discussions as to future locations of aquariums be halted until there is credible evidence that there is movement on the aquarium front.
All in favor?
- 6,775
Bastiat wrote:Maybe McGowan knows more than we do about Chouteau Lake and is banking on it being completed in the next couple of years. If this tower is going to be on the lake, what better place to put an aquarium? He might be following the success of Baltimore's innerharbor and aquarium.
I don't think this guy is an idiot. He seems to know what is good for an urban environment. Maybe there are grander schemes in place that will include the tower, the aquarium and other stuff along the lake...
You can be certain that KM knows a lot more about Chouteau Lake than anyone on this board.
- 8,908
just a thought...but KM supposedly said that his mystery 81 story high rise would be announced in the next 60 days... and now dewitt claims BPV will be ironed out in the next 30.... and with all the density needed to fit those 1000+ residential units the only way to go is up. Not to mention there is now rumor of an aquarium going into this 81 story high rise and there were plans to have an aquarium in the BPV... I think that MW tower is headed for BPV
- 11K
Sounds right to me. At this point, without a lake 
, BPV would seem a more logical place to build the tower. The pricetag on BPV recently doubled, rumors of an aquarium, people 'blown away' by the model . . . I can't imagine anyone being 'blown away' by a spectacularly designed six-block mass of 5-storey retail and 20-storey residential towers.
BTW - maybe MW is on here - where are those promised pics of the model? That was cruel.
, BPV would seem a more logical place to build the tower. The pricetag on BPV recently doubled, rumors of an aquarium, people 'blown away' by the model . . . I can't imagine anyone being 'blown away' by a spectacularly designed six-block mass of 5-storey retail and 20-storey residential towers. BTW - maybe MW is on here - where are those promised pics of the model? That was cruel.
^No, no, no. You are all confused. The 71-story tower, sans aquarium, is going into Ballpark Village, while the 81-story tower is going next to Chouteau's Pond.
Here's hoping the Cards play the Mets in the playoffs. We can revive the whole Mets Are Pond Scum thing, and sell t-shirts. All proceeds go to the purchase of the first couple gallons of water and a few Koi for our new pond. Stl-style boys, where you at? Or, we use the proceeds to buy several kegs of beer, line up along Cerre St., and...well you get the idea. Hey, somebody has to get it started...every flood starts with a trickle.
Here's hoping the Cards play the Mets in the playoffs. We can revive the whole Mets Are Pond Scum thing, and sell t-shirts. All proceeds go to the purchase of the first couple gallons of water and a few Koi for our new pond. Stl-style boys, where you at? Or, we use the proceeds to buy several kegs of beer, line up along Cerre St., and...well you get the idea. Hey, somebody has to get it started...every flood starts with a trickle.
As an aside, The UN doesn't enforce their resolutions either.
migueltejada wrote:In light of the above (and all) discussions on aquariums, I propose the following URBAN ST. LOUIS Resolution #1 (it's just like a UN resolution - sounds impressive but totally unenforceable
- 1,493
I was under the impression that the 71 story tower is the same building as the 81 story tower, 10 stories just got added since the project was innitially concieved. We're not getting Two ultra tall skyscrapers that both magically have 85% funding by some mystery corporation are we? I don't think that is too likely.jlblues wrote:^No, no, no. You are all confused. The 71-story tower, sans aquarium, is going into Ballpark Village, while the 81-story tower is going next to Chouteau's Pond.
Urban Elitist wrote:I was under the impression that the 71 story tower is the same building as the 81 story tower, 10 stories just got added since the project was innitially concieved. We're not getting Two ultra tall skyscrapers that both magically have 85% funding by some mystery corporation are we? I don't think that is too likely.jlblues wrote:^No, no, no. You are all confused. The 71-story tower, sans aquarium, is going into Ballpark Village, while the 81-story tower is going next to Chouteau's Pond.
Typical St. Louis pessimistic attitude. J/K.
- 1,493
SoulardD wrote:Urban Elitist wrote:I was under the impression that the 71 story tower is the same building as the 81 story tower, 10 stories just got added since the project was innitially concieved. We're not getting Two ultra tall skyscrapers that both magically have 85% funding by some mystery corporation are we? I don't think that is too likely.jlblues wrote:^No, no, no. You are all confused. The 71-story tower, sans aquarium, is going into Ballpark Village, while the 81-story tower is going next to Chouteau's Pond.
Typical St. Louis pessimistic attitude. J/K.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'd love for us to be getting two ultra talls and for them both to be 85% financed. Oh well, maybe someday.- 10K
migueltejada wrote:Whereas - There are not one but TWO aquariums in the city (brentwood industrial and city museum) in the St. Louis area
I'm pretty sure that the aquarium that used to be located off Brentwood Industrial Court is now part of the City Museum.
No, no, no. You are all confused. The 71-story tower, sans aquarium, is going into Ballpark Village, while the 81-story tower is going next to Chouteau's Pond. = joke. haha.
^^^ SWIM WITH THE DOLPHINS!!!!! (it would need to be deeper than 10 feet)
- 8,908
in general...approx. how long (construction wise) would it take to build a typical 70-80 story high rise?
- 11K
My guess is 3 years.
The Empire State building broke ground and was open in 16 months (labor was cheap). The new Hyatt building in Chicago was completed in ~3 years. The Park East will be at 20 months or more before it's done.
The Empire State building broke ground and was open in 16 months (labor was cheap). The new Hyatt building in Chicago was completed in ~3 years. The Park East will be at 20 months or more before it's done.
With the unveiling of the BPV model photos thanks to Radio Rich and company, more discussion has been fueled regarding the placement of this tower. It is supposed to be the catalyst/foundation of Chouteau Lake, however, looking at the following picture....
http://imageevent.com/kcphotos/aerialss ... =4&s=0&z=9
Wouldn't make sense to build on the lot south of the Westin (west of the stadium) or west of Pointe 400? (east of the stadium). Perhaps it could be argued that the development of the Lake will spur the inevitable development of these lots eventually, but it is tough to watch such prime real estate sit while projects like this are brewing.
The spot south of Westin would be amazing. The views from the ballpark (in person as well as the TV spans) would be incredible, and although it has been said that views from the building in to the park would be blocked by the structure of the stadium, I think it would be tall enough to evade that issue. If residential is slated for the top floors, it seems you could still take in the action......
http://imageevent.com/kcphotos/aerialss ... =4&s=0&z=9
That ground level would be great as well. Proximity to metro/ Cupples/BPV? Imagine an indoor/outdoor sports bar at the southeast corner of the building. Hugged by the metro tracks below one could take in the game with the roar of the crowd and the hum of the trains. Better stop now as my heart rate is rising too quickly at possibilities. Just crazy dreaming but something to ponder.
http://imageevent.com/kcphotos/aerialss ... =4&s=0&z=9
Wouldn't make sense to build on the lot south of the Westin (west of the stadium) or west of Pointe 400? (east of the stadium). Perhaps it could be argued that the development of the Lake will spur the inevitable development of these lots eventually, but it is tough to watch such prime real estate sit while projects like this are brewing.
The spot south of Westin would be amazing. The views from the ballpark (in person as well as the TV spans) would be incredible, and although it has been said that views from the building in to the park would be blocked by the structure of the stadium, I think it would be tall enough to evade that issue. If residential is slated for the top floors, it seems you could still take in the action......
http://imageevent.com/kcphotos/aerialss ... =4&s=0&z=9
That ground level would be great as well. Proximity to metro/ Cupples/BPV? Imagine an indoor/outdoor sports bar at the southeast corner of the building. Hugged by the metro tracks below one could take in the game with the roar of the crowd and the hum of the trains. Better stop now as my heart rate is rising too quickly at possibilities. Just crazy dreaming but something to ponder.
Busch would probably try to pull a wrigley and put up fencing or a larger black roof or something so all they could see was the balls flying into the outfield.... remember the Cardinals partners will have thier own competing project that they will be wanting to sell units of.... they will make sure their units have better visuals into the stadium than this tower would get... its unfortunate but i dont put it past the owners of the cards / ballpark village
While I agree the spot adjacent to the Westin would be great, especially perceived density folks would get when existing from 40 using the Last MO Exit and swinging around to take 8th into downtown, I am not sure it is a realistic choice for one big reason.
McGowan Walsh is developing the Cupples building due west of the open lot. Have pre-sales started for the project? Isn't MW supposed to be releasing public info about this project in 60 days (and I will be positive for the moment and say that this happens)?
I just don't see MW proposing a tower for that spot before they even start on selling lofts in the Cupples building. Why announce a project that could likely make it harder to sell your lofts, as you are guaranteeing those buying units on the eastern side would NOT have ballpark views in the near future, which is a huge selling point for those units. I just do not see MW throwing such an idea out there. The lots due east of the stadium or southwest of the stadium (on the other side of 40) are much more likely because they won’t interfere with their own development.
McGowan Walsh is developing the Cupples building due west of the open lot. Have pre-sales started for the project? Isn't MW supposed to be releasing public info about this project in 60 days (and I will be positive for the moment and say that this happens)?
I just don't see MW proposing a tower for that spot before they even start on selling lofts in the Cupples building. Why announce a project that could likely make it harder to sell your lofts, as you are guaranteeing those buying units on the eastern side would NOT have ballpark views in the near future, which is a huge selling point for those units. I just do not see MW throwing such an idea out there. The lots due east of the stadium or southwest of the stadium (on the other side of 40) are much more likely because they won’t interfere with their own development.
I'd like to see the new tower go up on the block just east of the Eagleton Courthouse. You know, the one with that ridiculous "park" thingy. I doubt the feds would go for it, though.
I also mentioned on the Ballpark Village thread the posibility of building on the site of the new Mike Shannon's on Market. Put Shannon's in BPV, then tear down the building.
I also mentioned on the Ballpark Village thread the posibility of building on the site of the new Mike Shannon's on Market. Put Shannon's in BPV, then tear down the building.
- 1,610
Cupples warehouses aren't tall enough to look into the ballpark, so I'm not sure what views MW would be worried about blocking with a tower south of the Westin.