urbanSTL

BT wrote:I keep wanting a super tower on the lot west of the new stadium that has a cut allowing the metro line to run through it. Or perhaps a building that allows some other city infrastructure, perhaps the highway offramps, to run through it, and to mold it. I keep looking at the southern edge of downtown and thinking it has been dilapitated by highway infrastructure, but feel like it could be repaired simply by building around what exists. Now that would be both original (I think) and awesome.

I like the MW Tower, but I also like your way of thinking, especially the idea about building around (or above) the Metrolink route.

ya that would be pretty awesome if the highway ran right through the middle of it. inda like the Monorail running through that one mall in Disney World.

Please, Doug, just give it up. They're not building anything on the Gateway Mall.

^^not until all those surface lots are taken up and/or a couple dozen new high-rises (on top of those already proposed) actually come to life and then the real-estate becomes so sparse that the only place to build downtown is in the mall.



I could honestly care less where this is build... just as long as when it's built the anchor tenant brings NEW jobs with it (not just musical chairs as was the case with Met Square)

Yeah, if you're going to have to be a broken record about it, please don't subject us to the "building on the gateway mall" commentary in more than one thread.

Ok, I put this up over in the Centene thread but I'm gonna go ahead and post this over here too, regarding Centene's announcement that it has dropped plans for a new facility in Clayton and is "agressively persuing other options.":



OH, and I have no idea if I'm the first person to bring this up or not...I went back down the thread a bit and didn't see anything but...SOMEONE PUT MCGOWAN WALSH IN A ROOM WITH THEIR MW TOWER AND CENTENE CORP. IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!! What better opportunity for them to get that building finished than now! If I'm right remembering the numbers from the MW thread I believe they were looking at needing to sign a client for the office space needing 300,000 plus sf of grade A office space.....THIS IS A PERFECT FIT! GET THAT TOGETHER IMMEDIATELY PLEASE! McGowan Walsh could offer them prime grade A office space in a new tower bound to get tons of nationwide publicity, and they could get signage rights to the top of the tallest building in St. Louis! I don't know exactly how much office space Centene was looking to build, but for God sakes at least get them together to talk it over. I'LL PAY FOR A DAMN DINNER! GO WHEREVER U WANT!



If there has ever been a chance for MW tower to ever cross over from a pipe-dream into a serious possibility, by God this is it!

reading about the signature tower in nashville last night made me really jealous. Even though I think ten 100ft buildings would do DT better than one 1000 ft building, I'd love a new addition to the skyline (something taller than 630ft). Unfortunately skyhouse and Roberts Tower will not be seen from the east.

or better yet, 2 500 footers! Although I would be for the thousand footer way before any other combination.

Yeah it's at olive and tucker next to park-pacific where the u.s. bank branch is now. Only problem is that it goes into the church behind the U.S. bank a little bit ! Oh well. I like that site the best. And I have a very rudimentary version of google earth (didn't feel like paying), and they outlying neighborhoods are not drawn by people in the 3d version that I have. Obviously this would look much cooler if the whole city was in 3D! This is missing almost every building in the city! just the few majors that people have drawn are there.

Can we see a view from the west or the south?

Those from above are NOT the MW tower, just me playing around with an ideal building in my mind. I will gladly show views from the west, north, and south though if you are still interested though Mike.

I am, I don't know... just curious to see how a building that tall would effect the skyline from the west and south, north as well.

I am curious as to how evryone feels about having a building taller than the arch (630 ft).....would that not take away from our signature landmark?

If a building taller than the Arch were far enough west from the Arch, it shouldn't affect our signature views from the east with the Arch in front. For example, look at newstl2020's last image.

Ok here ya go guys. One thing of note...the building I have drawn is 1277' not 1287'. Also, the height is 1077' to the roof, with a 200' spire (4 50' segments). I am in the VERY early stages of design on this building, and the back (facing West) has barely been touched yet. I'm designing it specifically for our downtown, and I think it fits in terrifically with the existing structures, while adding a bit of a architectural and modern prowess for the city.



View from the South (North on 55)





View from the West (East on 44)





View from the West





View from the North (South on 70)





View from the West (Close-up)





Close-up from Downtown looking East





It's been said many times here on this forum, we can either keep the arch's height as tops and head the way of cities of the past...or we can keep building higher and progress as a city. I'm in favor of the latter personally. The arch will always stand out, as I am hoping these images illustrate. It's a great landmark and they did a terrific job of marking sure it was set far enough east of downtown to always have a dominant presence. I'm sure the engineers of the arch would want us to keep building higher behind it. Plus, it's only gonna get better as the city shoots up behind it.

I dig, and I really appreciate your time and passion to do this. But personally, I'd rather have two 500' towers(or a 600'/400'), one on your site, and one on the parking lot just west of Busch stadium.



Your building does look pretty tight though.

Sorry to the admins for getting off topic. Back on topic. No news.

Ha, the MW tower is total speculation anyway! Don't see how speculating possible locations for the speculative project can be off-topic.

newstl2020 wrote:Sorry to the admins for getting off topic. Back on topic. No news.

I don't see how you were off topic... Your graphics are appropriate for demonstrating how a supertall would look inserted into our skyline.

We would have nudged you back on topic if you were off.