urbanSTL

I don't like the idea of St. Louis' biggest buildings moving farther West, even if it's only to Kingshighway. I also think with all the metro east growth DT will again be the center of the region and it'll make the most sense to be the CBD, etc.

bpe235 wrote:REALLY...What? I don't get it and definately not my first choice but for the sake of convo... how would you all feel if this somehow came to fruition in the next couple years?

Like you, I don't get it, and it isn't my first choice either. I don't think we have to worry about the next couple of years, because Koplar speaks of this as a long-term goal. Here's the exact quote from SLM, in reference to the surface lot at Lindell Boulevard and North Kingshighway:



Sam Koplar: "That's my goal. I'm going to build the tallest building in the Midwest right there. I'm going to hire the best architect of our generation."



I'm not usually a pessimist, but I'm not sure who the best architect of our generation is, and I'm afraid that he or she (or you or me) may be dead by the time that a lofty vision like this one is realized. (I'm not trying to be hyperbolic, but keep in mind the length of time it took to redevelop Maryland Plaza. If it took that long to renovate a row of former department stores and shops, who knows how long it would take to develop what would be Koplar's signature property?)



What irks me is that we're stuck with this parking lot for the foreseeable future, when the SE corner of that important intersection could be so much more. Perhaps given the ripe demand for high-rise living and infill construction in the CWE, Koplar will pare his dreams down to reality and build (in the short term) one or two (shorter) high-rise buildings there. IMHO at least, that would make more sense.



And, FWIW, I'd like to see the tallest of the tall buildings built exclusively in or adjacent to downtown, preferably at the north (Bottle District and/or Lumiere Place) and south ends (Ballpark Village and/or Chouteau's Pond) to serve as bookends to the skyline with the Gateway Arch in the center.

The tallest building in the midwest is going to be tough because of Chicago.



The Sears Tower at 1400+ feet will soon be joined by the 1300 foot tall Trump Tower under construction. Plus it's been stumbling along but Chicago could have a 2000 foot tall building pretty soon.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Spire







So is Ted wanting to build a 2100 foot tall building in the CWE?

^I'm sure Koplar meant outside of Chicago. Otherwise, why not just say within the US, since the tallest building in the Midwest will be the tallest building in the entire US.

ThreeOneFour wrote:What irks me is that we're stuck with this parking lot for the foreseeable future, when the SE corner of that important intersection could be so much more. Perhaps given the ripe demand for high-rise living and infill construction in the CWE, Koplar will pare his dreams down to reality and build (in the short term) one or two (shorter) high-rise buildings there. IMHO at least, that would make more sense.

I agree. I kind of like having the Park Plaza as the focal point anyway. I'd probably prefer to see something along the lines of the St. Regis building (which is next to the parking lot) built there instead.

^ I agree, and I'd like to see more buildings similar to what is surrounding Central Park in NYC. Or more specifically High density directly surrounding the park..

That's funny. I read Koplar's quote repeatedly thinking that he must've meant the tallest building in the Midwest outside Chicago. I admire the guy's ambition, but I automatically assumed he wouldn't be that ambitious.



Although I wouldn't necessarily say that a CWE highrise cannot be taller than the Park Plaza, I agree with DeBaliviere about its value as the focal point of the area. And I would think that its extensive renovation into luxury condominiums and suites will fuel the already strong demand for highrise living in the CWE, making Koplar's vision possible (albeit probably on a somewhat smaller scale than his ultimate vision).

don't hold your breath on Koplar. It only took them 30 years to develop the Sak's Building. As for the vacant lot in front of the Chase, I wish the city would just blight it and give it to Opus or a REAL developer. What's with all the press about the Koplars anyway? SLM is all over their **** for NO reason. They should be chastised for the Sak's building, rather than getting credit for it. Like great, it only took you 30 years. I hope ALL developers fall in their shoes! That lot in front of the Chase should have a 40 story tower, but, hey, I'd settle for almost ANYTHING over that vacant lot... At least Sam is a lot more likeable than his father. He seems to be one, if not THE, least popular guy in town, besides Jerry Rice.

^ That was my point exactly about the Koplars.



Unlike his father, Sam certainly has the vision, passion, and strong interest in urban development. He lacks experience, though, and he's essentially learning the business of urban development as he goes. Hopefully he's looking at building upon the Kingshighway/Lindell corner in the short-term, or selling the site to a proven developer in the not-so-distant future. Lest I seem too critical of him, I only wish I could've been in that position when I was 25...



BTW, I think you're referring to Rev. Larry Rice, director of the New Life Evangelistic Center- not Jerry Rice, the former wide receiver (and future Hall of Famer) of the San Francicso 49ers.

Thanks. Some of your discussion here is fodder for the questions on this week's Skyscraper Mini-Poll on MayorSlay.com.



The results of these things, while neither predictive nor scientific, are always interesting.

publiceye wrote:Thanks. Some of your discussion here is fodder for the questions on this week's Skyscraper Mini-Poll on MayorSlay.com.



The results of these things, while neither predictive nor scientific, are always interesting.

Is there any weight to this? Is the city concidering issueing an RFP for another marque structure to grace our skyline? Is this just for fun or is the city testing the waters? What do you guys think?

Thanks Publiceye, I enjoyed poll. Generally, I am for density over height, but St. Louis needs the sparkle that a few new skyscrapers could add.

Split Thread.



This is MW Tower information Thread.



Forest Park Development Thread: http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t ... d1eb9e5160



Thanks.

matguy70 wrote:Split Thread.

Thanks!



I noticed after I posted, but I had just clicked on "latest post" and replied without knowing it was an unrelated thread!

bpe235 wrote:

publiceye wrote:Thanks. Some of your discussion here is fodder for the questions on this week's Skyscraper Mini-Poll on MayorSlay.com.



The results of these things, while neither predictive nor scientific, are always interesting.

Is there any weight to this? Is the city concidering issueing an RFP for another marque structure to grace our skyline? Is this just for fun or is the city testing the waters? What do you guys think?

I'm reposting because My question got lost in the split...

City testing waters?



"Maybe we won't let them build a new highrise anywhere if 'the people' don't want it."



I think that it has more to do with what they should encourage the design to be.



Are we going to let HOK classify us as a "Brick Town" and not design us anything but faux crappy knockoffs like the plaza in Clayton. I don't know when "Being sensitive to the suroundings" meant barfing mash potatoes on top a pile of bricks and then fashioning it into a 3rd grader's interpretation of the parthenon with a butter knife. But in the mean time I fiond it ironic that a leading GLOBAL architecture firm would typify the city they are based in, rather than using it as there personal Gallery.



But thats just me.



To the point-I think its a ph test for the city fathers after the bizarre resistance to new construction in the CWE.



I think the most telling question was where you wanted them. after that its which was your favorite building. I just wish they had a better example of modern architecture other than the Eagleton federal courthouse. Blah. Continental-classic tall and sleek. City Hall-ornate and low. Thats what they wanted to know. What do you want where. That way they don;t have freak show civic groups suing them to stop construction of modern buildings.



But we all understand the difference b/w Park East/4545 modern and Residence Inn modern. Some others don't.

But thats just me.

And me.

^ you can count me in on that group. In fact I've told people almost the exact thing in past arguments with friends and fam.

Are we going to let HOK classify us as a "Brick Town" and not design us anything but faux crappy knockoffs like the plaza in Clayton. I don't know when "Being sensitive to the suroundings" meant barfing mash potatoes on top a pile of bricks and then fashioning it into a 3rd grader's interpretation of the parthenon with a butter knife. But in the mean time I fiond it ironic that a leading GLOBAL architecture firm would typify the city they are based in, rather than using it as there personal Gallery.

crbswiss wrote:^ you can count me in on that group. In fact I've told people almost the exact thing in past arguments with friends and fam.

Are we going to let HOK classify us as a "Brick Town" and not design us anything but faux crappy knockoffs like the plaza in Clayton.

Yep, it makes me sad to see what they do in other countries vs. the US. I have told friends and family as well...you need to educate people somehow. Otherwise they will go their whole lives thinking Pruitt-Igoe is the only argument for "Modern" residential construction!



Although I don't agree that Eagleton is Modern Architecture, it aligns with my theory that the public generally know 3 types of design: old, modern and eclectic. Throw in "tuscan" for TV design shows...

I am all for more modern looking buildings, but The Plaza in Clayton is one recently built building that I happen to really like. Would I have rather it been all glass and a little more daring. Absolutely. But i still think it's an attractive building. More attractive than the 60's/70's/80's buildings elsewhere in dt clayton. (IMO)

I think it's attractive but also think that it looks like a cake decoration. I don't know if the style matches with the height.

Dont want to get us too far off-topic, but do you think the top was influenced by the Civil Courts Building?

Sorry this isn't more than a rumor, but I did hear again today (from someone who is more connected than I) that Kevin McGowan has a site west of Busch and wants to build something very tall. It was encouraging to hear this from another source. Hopefully something comes along soon.