ha, love that plan. buildings on the blocks east of Civil Courts!
- 1,610
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Broken record much?
Good ideas never die. Even if temporarily disguised with sculpture parks.
Framer wrote:But it's not gonna happen. Time to move on.
I guess this means all posts about a city/county merger can thankfully cease as well.
Things won't happen if people don't push for change. All that's required is an effort to build on the mall and it could happen...realistically it's not going to happen any time soon......but if somehow the urbanists of STL found a way to unite & make their voices heard in the "real" world instead of complaining on the internet, and became a force in the city, I could see lots of previously impossible ideas become reality.
- 1,517
olvidarte wrote:Framer wrote:But it's not gonna happen. Time to move on.
I guess this means all posts about a city/county merger can thankfully cease as well.
Things won't happen if people don't push for change. All that's required is an effort to build on the mall and it could happen...realistically it's not going to happen any time soon......but if somehow the urbanists of STL found a way to unite & make their voices heard in the "real" world instead of complaining on the internet, and became a force in the city, I could see lots of previously impossible ideas become reality.
A-M-E-N.
I believe in pragmatic goals as much as the next person, but it's time we see what we can accomplish if we have a whole group of citizens who cares and will invest time, money, and passion into this city on an unprecedented scale.
- 125
I think the actions or lack there of, of future and current business/residential residents will determine whether or not projects like this will happen. I know.....pretty lame observation, but its the truth. I am optimistic for the timeline of the next 5-10 years... 
McGowan still wants his monster!
link: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/buildi ... ll-around/
It would be interesting to see a tower taller than the arch, but how would that bad boy fit into our skyline at 1000 ft. That is a tower that could make a big dent in a Chicago, New York, Houston skyline......how would it look in ours? Maybe a cool design would make it worthy? Although I would prefer he build a couple 500 footers or maybe 3 attractive 400 footers......BEGGARS CANT BE CHOOSERS!
link: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/buildi ... ll-around/
It would be interesting to see a tower taller than the arch, but how would that bad boy fit into our skyline at 1000 ft. That is a tower that could make a big dent in a Chicago, New York, Houston skyline......how would it look in ours? Maybe a cool design would make it worthy? Although I would prefer he build a couple 500 footers or maybe 3 attractive 400 footers......BEGGARS CANT BE CHOOSERS!
- 11K
We should remember that buildings/projects of this size often take a decade or more from conception to execution. No reason we shouldn't be optimistic about his project. Of course I would love to see density, but a tower this big would bring a lot of benefits.
- 8,904
"McGowan said the building would combine offices, residences and a hotel. Financing seemed close about 18 months ago but then the recession hit and money pools evaporated."
Gosh that's frustrating. I've certainly flip flop'd in the horizonal vs vertical discussion but the truth is that i'd be happy with either. I do believe a building of this magnitude would bring some much needed buzz to downtown and should work as a wake up call to some those dt haters. I'd love to finally be able to log into SSP and be able to click on the "supertall" tab and see st. louis.
More importantly, I think this tower is an absolute necessity. We need this to attract new businesses downtown but also to help retain them. We need a moral booster, a shot in the arm if you will. I look forward to hearing more.
Keep your fingers crossed on the Big Idea with China.
I'm also highly interested in one of those residential units. After spending a weekend at a friends 55th story condo in Miami, I'm all for high rise condo living.
Gosh that's frustrating. I've certainly flip flop'd in the horizonal vs vertical discussion but the truth is that i'd be happy with either. I do believe a building of this magnitude would bring some much needed buzz to downtown and should work as a wake up call to some those dt haters. I'd love to finally be able to log into SSP and be able to click on the "supertall" tab and see st. louis.
More importantly, I think this tower is an absolute necessity. We need this to attract new businesses downtown but also to help retain them. We need a moral booster, a shot in the arm if you will. I look forward to hearing more.
Keep your fingers crossed on the Big Idea with China.
I'm also highly interested in one of those residential units. After spending a weekend at a friends 55th story condo in Miami, I'm all for high rise condo living.
- 11K
^ True AND it would stick a big fat development shiv in BPV's eye!
- 8,904
Also, am I the only who really doesn't care how this "fits in the skyline?" I'd be more concerned with how it interacts at the street level.
"Kevin McGowan, who has a much bigger project in mind. He wants to build a 1,000-foot, 80- to 90-story giant somewhere near the proposed Chouteau Lake development in the southwest section of downtown."
This can only be a handful of lots, anyone care to post a map with possible locations? (just east and just west of Busch 3) I must say, I'd much rather see this building in the 1100 block bounded by locust and st. charles, at convention plaza and 7th or in luie of one of the kiener garages.
"Kevin McGowan, who has a much bigger project in mind. He wants to build a 1,000-foot, 80- to 90-story giant somewhere near the proposed Chouteau Lake development in the southwest section of downtown."
This can only be a handful of lots, anyone care to post a map with possible locations? (just east and just west of Busch 3) I must say, I'd much rather see this building in the 1100 block bounded by locust and st. charles, at convention plaza and 7th or in luie of one of the kiener garages.
- 11K
Matt Drops The H wrote:Isn't this "build a giant skyscraper and they will come" mentality"borrowed" from Louisville?
I think that was build a whacked-out, freakish, wholly-crap-how-does-that-thing-standup and they will come mentality.
Looking at the footprint of the Key Tower in Cleveland (947ft, 57floors) a 1,000ft tower could be built quite a few places. It would cover 1/4 to 1/3 of a city block (depending on the design of course).
- 11K
Yeah - I don't really like that. IMO - a skyscraper should be quite a bit more symmetrical. Again, the Key Tower, maybe bland, but a more traditional tall building:
![]()
- 549
^ With all due respect... ew. IMO that building is really ugly. But that's just me.
The current discourse in Modern Architectural circles seems to conclude that skyscapers shouldn't be symmetrical and I whole-heartedly agree. The forces, views, and climatic effects are different on each side of the building. Taking such factors into consideration in the design will NEVER (and hence should never) lead to a symetrical design.
I hope if this thing ever gets built that St. Louis joins the 21st century and builds something dynamic that has a good relationship to the street at ground level.
The current discourse in Modern Architectural circles seems to conclude that skyscapers shouldn't be symmetrical and I whole-heartedly agree. The forces, views, and climatic effects are different on each side of the building. Taking such factors into consideration in the design will NEVER (and hence should never) lead to a symetrical design.
I hope if this thing ever gets built that St. Louis joins the 21st century and builds something dynamic that has a good relationship to the street at ground level.
- 8,904
I would prefer a modern glass structure (not green glass!) with a bright lighting scheme at night. Let's face it, people are attracted to light, one way to get people dt is to light up the skyline.
- 11K
UrbanPioneer wrote:^ With all due respect... ew. IMO that building is really ugly. But that's just me.
The current discourse in Modern Architectural circles seems to conclude that skyscapers shouldn't be symmetrical and I whole-heartedly agree. The forces, views, and climatic effects are different on each side of the building. Taking such factors into consideration in the design will NEVER (and hence should never) lead to a symetrical design.
I hope if this thing ever gets built that St. Louis joins the 21st century and builds something dynamic that has a good relationship to the street at ground level.
Interesting. Every iconic skyscraper that comes to my mind definitely has great symmetry. Then again, I'm just an enthusiast.
I agree with others that I'd rather have 2 new 40 story or 3 new 30 story buildings than this. There is just too much dead space downtown and creating a superblock structure like this will IMO only lengthen the amount of time it will take to develop these other lots. Let's continue to build downtown organically and minimize these massive developments (BPV, bottle district, McGowan tower) that are likely to suck life out of other areas of downtown more than breathe new life in.
I wish McGowan would build a new spec Class-A 30-40 story office tower somewhere in the heart of downtown. This is what's desperately needed at this time, more so than condos or hotel. There is obviously demand and I bet he could pre-lease 50% of it. In a couple years, building another 30-40 story combo hotel/condo tower would be realistic and in demand I would think.
Also, I don't see how building a new 90-story tower will suddenly put STL "on the map" and get people talking about it such as Kevin suggests. A densely filled downtown with 3-4 new towers under construction as opposed to 1 new tower would be much more appealing I would think.
I wish McGowan would build a new spec Class-A 30-40 story office tower somewhere in the heart of downtown. This is what's desperately needed at this time, more so than condos or hotel. There is obviously demand and I bet he could pre-lease 50% of it. In a couple years, building another 30-40 story combo hotel/condo tower would be realistic and in demand I would think.
Also, I don't see how building a new 90-story tower will suddenly put STL "on the map" and get people talking about it such as Kevin suggests. A densely filled downtown with 3-4 new towers under construction as opposed to 1 new tower would be much more appealing I would think.
- 1,517
^ Yes.
If McGowan truly wants to help downtown, he'd do best to begin the process of converting the 22nd Street Interchange and building new Class A Office Space, hotels, and especially residential right there.
It's so close to Union Station, which is isolated and needs bolstering. It is a monstrous waste of land. And Downtown West needs the activity.
I might be a little worried about creating competing office districts within downtown by utilizing this land, but overall, I think the idea of making Union Station the centerpiece of a neighborhood/business district is too tempting.
If McGowan truly wants to help downtown, he'd do best to begin the process of converting the 22nd Street Interchange and building new Class A Office Space, hotels, and especially residential right there.
It's so close to Union Station, which is isolated and needs bolstering. It is a monstrous waste of land. And Downtown West needs the activity.
I might be a little worried about creating competing office districts within downtown by utilizing this land, but overall, I think the idea of making Union Station the centerpiece of a neighborhood/business district is too tempting.
- 8,904
All 90 stories won't be office. There will be hotel/condo/parking on many of those floors. Condo on the 70th floor, yes please. I would be more than thrilled 2 500ft towers if they decide to go that route.
Moorlander wrote:I would be more than thrilled 2 500ft towers if they decide to go that route.
I believe it's Mr. McGowan's supposition that two 500' towers wouldn't 'put St. Louis on the map internationally' the way one 1000' tower would.
I agree, but in an age when 2000' towers are being built, a 1000' skyscraper also needs to differentiate itself to show up on the world scene. It should be different, not just tall. A few examples:
-RBB
- 549
Grover wrote:UrbanPioneer wrote:^ With all due respect... ew. IMO that building is really ugly. But that's just me.
The current discourse in Modern Architectural circles seems to conclude that skyscapers shouldn't be symmetrical and I whole-heartedly agree. The forces, views, and climatic effects are different on each side of the building. Taking such factors into consideration in the design will NEVER (and hence should never) lead to a symetrical design.
I hope if this thing ever gets built that St. Louis joins the 21st century and builds something dynamic that has a good relationship to the street at ground level.
Interesting. Every iconic skyscraper that comes to my mind definitely has great symmetry. Then again, I'm just an enthusiast.
Symmetric design in skyscrapers had its time and place, but we've moved beyond that. The iconic buildings you are likely referring to are from an era in which we physically couldn't build a high rise that wasn't symmetrical. With great imporvements in technology, in terms of both design and construction capabilities, we can now build asymmetric skyscrapers with relative ease.
And especially in an era of enivironmentally consious building, it makes zero sense to treat all sides of the building the same because each side has different climatic needs. The south facade shouldn't be treated the same as the north facade because the way sunlight enters the building and wind patterens hit the structure dictate significant differences...that is if the building even has a typical facade with four sides at all.
...
The buildings shown by RBB are a good indication of what I'd personally like to see of McGowan's project.
- 2,928
Richard Ward: StL has an immediate need for 500,000 sq.ft. Class A office space.
Kevin McGowan: I want to build 500,000 sq.ft. of Class A office space.
Focus: From reviewing the schematics of Choteau Lake, there is one with a view northeast from an elevated position around Choteau south of the Blanke Building. Included in this picture is the new Busch Stadium and Ballpark Village. The image is available at HOK's website, and I'm sure on this forum. Within this image, a new tower is shown just north of Highway 40 (I-64, whatever it is), south of the Westin, West of Busch Stadium, and East of McGowan's Cupples buildings. It's a tall, thin building, with garage parking directly behind it.
Double the size of the building in this picture, and you've got McGowan's Tower.
Eighth and Clark, to the west of the Metrolink line.
*Note: I self-admittedly suck at computer stuff, such as plugging in pictures. If someone else could plug it in, I'l appreciate it.
Kevin McGowan: I want to build 500,000 sq.ft. of Class A office space.
Focus: From reviewing the schematics of Choteau Lake, there is one with a view northeast from an elevated position around Choteau south of the Blanke Building. Included in this picture is the new Busch Stadium and Ballpark Village. The image is available at HOK's website, and I'm sure on this forum. Within this image, a new tower is shown just north of Highway 40 (I-64, whatever it is), south of the Westin, West of Busch Stadium, and East of McGowan's Cupples buildings. It's a tall, thin building, with garage parking directly behind it.
Double the size of the building in this picture, and you've got McGowan's Tower.
Eighth and Clark, to the west of the Metrolink line.
*Note: I self-admittedly suck at computer stuff, such as plugging in pictures. If someone else could plug it in, I'l appreciate it.
Huh? :-sUrbanPioneer wrote:Symmetric design in skyscrapers had its time and place, but we've moved beyond that. The iconic buildings you are likely referring to are from an era in which we physically couldn't build a high rise that wasn't symmetrical. With great imporvements in technology, in terms of both design and construction capabilities, we can now build asymmetric skyscrapers with relative ease.Grover wrote:Interesting. Every iconic skyscraper that comes to my mind definitely has great symmetry. Then again, I'm just an enthusiast.
And especially in an era of enivironmentally consious building, it makes zero sense to treat all sides of the building the same because each side has different climatic needs. The south facade shouldn't be treated the same as the north facade because the way sunlight enters the building and wind patterens hit the structure dictate significant differences...that is if the building even has a typical facade with four sides at all.
Flatiron Building, New York
30 St Mary Axe, London
Taipei 101, Taipei
