urbanSTL

^^ a tower that tall that doesn't take up a whole block isn't what I could consider to be a full "victory"... The cost of going up that high is considerable, if you are going to undertake the costs, I would figure they might as well make it as large as possible. I haven't seen the renderings but I would love a tower similar to the Bank of America Plaza in Dallas, a glass box that is also geometrically interesting and distinctive. Also I love how it is lit at night; I think distinctive lighting on a marquee structure such as this will be important.



And I think It is important for the new towers above a reasonable height to have an observation deck/restaurant at the top. Especially if it is within one block of the gateway mall, the views would be criminal not to share.

That lot may not accomodate a huge tower, but it's certainly big enough for something bigger and better than a one-story U.S. Bank branch.

can anyone stop by the mw display after work and snap some pics... ?? I'm sure they wouldn't mind...they should love the exposure, free advertising...



I agree with you on your liking of bank of america plaze...I made a post about it on the att forum... i think lighting is a key aspect to a vibrant downtown...I wish the paul brown building was lit up like the rendering.

If I had my druthers (and I rarely do), I would prefer to see a building like this on the western edge of the Ballpark Village development. Think of the views of the ballpark from the upper level condos. It'd be like having your own personal blimp. You might need binoculars to actually see the game, but what the hell... And, think of the views of the building, on national television, over the left field wall of Busch Field.



The next best place would be just west of Busch. Yes, I said west. That is a pretty good sized lot and all you need to do is lease the air rights over the tracks from Metro. I don't know who owns those parking lots, but I suspect the Cards own at least one of them. It would be more expensive to build on such a site, but at least you could spread the costs out with the larger mixed-use building. I think a large building like this is the only way that block will be developed.



Third best place would be on Union Station's parking lot, with the base of the building designed to promote traffic between Chouteau Lake, the tower, and Union Station. It could be the shot in the arm that Union Station needs and they wouldn't need to build as much retail into the base of the new building. If you had a building of that size next to Union Station, I think it would generate quite a bit more traffic, possibly enough to fill out the empty space in the Station with a small grocery store and other service type retail, not to mention what that traffic would do for the Hyatt and the restaurants in the Station.

bpe235 wrote:can anyone stop by the mw display after work and snap some pics

The sales center is not open on Wednesdays. I'm sure one of us will grab a pic tomorrow, though.

FYI: I got a quick peek at the tower drawing at the MW sales center today. I wanted to spend more time inspecting but I was receiving negative vibes from the sales rep giving me the Packard/Motor Loft sales spiel. I saw the Forum Studio logo in lower corner.



Sorry no photos!

how big of a company would take up 300,000 sq ft? If they said 25ish floors for offices totalling 350,000 sq ft, then i guess roughly 22 floors for one company!? what local company that big would really pack up and move that large of an operation in?



and i'd be for building the tower over on the site of one of those parking garages on i think it was walnut as you go west from the stadium, i dont know downtown well so i dont know if that's what you were talking about jlblues, they make the area kinda creepy and very dead looking at night. people from the suburbs would still park there during games encouraging more retail traffic in an area that needs help and it wouldnt be too isolated from the rest of downtown.

rockintheburbsTC wrote:....i dont know downtown well so i dont know if that's what you were talking about jlblues, they make the area kinda creepy and very dead looking at night....

BOO! BOO on you.

rockintheburbsTC wrote:how big of a company would take up 300,000 sq ft? If they said 25ish floors for offices totalling 350,000 sq ft, then i guess roughly 22 floors for one company!? what local company that big would really pack up and move that large of an operation in?

Some of the biggest law firms here are getting close to that much space. There are also a few companies in Clayton that could easily expand into that much space. I suspect it is not a publicly traded company, is either relatively new or has experienced tremendous recent growth, and is a company that would stand to benefit from the increased exposure of having their offices in, and name on, such a building.

rockintheburbsTC wrote:and i'd be for building the tower over on the site of one of those parking garages on i think it was walnut as you go west from the stadium, i dont know downtown well so i dont know if that's what you were talking about jlblues, they make the area kinda creepy and very dead looking at night.

I was referring to the block directly west of Busch and just north of I64/40. There is nothing on it but parking lots and Metrolink (below grade).

At one point a few years ago a tall residential tower was proposed on the lot west of the stadium by Metro for senior citizen housing. Similar to the type of residents that live in the teacher retirement tower near Olive and Beaumont.

southcitygent wrote:At one point a few years ago a tall residential tower was proposed on the lot west of the stadium by Metro for senior citizen housing. Similar to the type of residents that live in the teacher retirement tower near Olive and Beaumont.

Yeah, I vaguely remember that. It was supposed to be a partnership between SunAmerica and McCormack Baron I think, but then SunAmerica was acquired. I knew it was in the area, but didn't know it was on that lot.

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.

I like this idea as long as it doesnt obstruct views of the Arch in any way. A building of this magnitude could spur development linking the project to the CBD as well as give St. Louis pride a shot in the arm. Breaking the perceived height restriction is important to take the skyline to the next level and this project would do it. I dont know that two 35-story towers would generate the same kind of excitement. If all the economic criteria dictate that it gets built for the right reasons, it sure would be great for businesses and residents to have something positive to wow about.

I would absolutely love this building to be built. Finally something tall!!!



The only reason i wouldnt like this is if it were out of the downtown area. Then it would be out of place

Actually, I think that the building would be good in Midtown, CWE, or in Clayton. Not all of our tallest buildings have to be downtown, and I think that building tall buildings in the central corridor will do much better for the city than just having the tallest buildings in the CBD.



BTW, about how tall is this building in feet?

^Downtown is EXACTLY where we need this. CWE already has Park East plus other projects and Clayton already has several projects and has had no problem attracting development, and such a large developent does not belong in Clayton anyway, IMO. Midtown really has nothing going on now, but priorities need to be devoted to downtown. To put a project like this in other areas besides downtown would be a mistake. It would reinforce the outdated idea that downtown is not worthy such developments.

And no, not all tall buildings should be downtown...but that's where the most and the tallest should be.

cumulonimbus wrote:BTW, about how tall is this building in feet?

I thought Kevin McGowan said between 700 and 750 feet, but that would be awfully short for a 71-story building. I would think it would have to be more in the 800 to 850 foot height range.

With the height restrictions imposed on the Bottle District, it seems as though this project will have a hard time getting off the drawing boards. Anyone been to the sales office to get a pic of the rendering yet?

appraisalman wrote:With the height restrictions imposed on the Bottle District, it seems as though this project will have a hard time getting off the drawing boards. Anyone been to the sales office to get a pic of the rendering yet?

Read page 56 of the bottle district thread...It will explain the height restrictions.

Believe me, there are definately height restrictions, especially when every project has to get cleared by city hall. They are going to make darn well sure that they preserve the monument that symbolizes our great city.

^We've already had this discussion multiple times. Read the threads. Let's not turn another thread into a height restriction debate.