549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostApr 16, 2009#776

^ And your point is what exactly? Showing three pictures with no explanation after your "huh?" statement doesn't add much to the discussion. :wink:



By the way, two of those pics are of very nice buildings and the other is abosolutely hideous. I'll let you decide which is which.



I wan't trying to derail the thread with this whole symmetric discussion. My point was that I'd like to see St. Louis get an iconic 21st century skyscraper. And if it is to be iconic and have appeal beyond the region, it will likely need to be asymmetrical and dynamic.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostApr 16, 2009#777

#1 - iconic skyscraper that isn't symmetrical

#2 - new skyscraper that is symmetrical

#3 - new skyscraper that is symmetrical



UP, I think you have a great point regarding technology and the treatment of skyscrapers pertaining to their environment (wind, sun, etc.), but I do think there will always be a place for the symmetrical skyscraper. I view some of the new shapes as a "look what we can do with a computer" exercise.

549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostApr 16, 2009#778

Grover wrote:#1 - iconic skyscraper that isn't symmetrical

#2 - new skyscraper that is symmetrical

#3 - new skyscraper that is symmetrical.


All three are symmetrical. The Flatiron is just symmetrical in one direction.


UP, I think you have a great point regarding technology and the treatment of skyscrapers pertaining to their environment (wind, sun, etc.), but I do think there will always be a place for the symmetrical skyscraper. I view some of the new shapes as a "look what we can do with a computer" exercise.


What's wrong with that? :wink: While that may be somewhat true, I think we should build buildings that speak of our time and place in history. And that means designing such so-called "computer exercises".

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostApr 16, 2009#779

Not to be the pessimist in the bunch, but he is out of his damn mind if he thinks he is building a 1000 ft + building with 300 million.



That being said, I would love to see the skyline extended southward. Keeping in mind that, practically, as far as buildings are concerned, our skyline could be argued to be actually viewed from the north/south as opposed to the east/west, a building like this to the South could really refocus our skyline to the best (imo) east/west view highlighting the arch.

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostApr 16, 2009#780

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this be the tallest building west of the mighty miss? I think the US Bank tower in L.A. is right at 1000ft.

1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostApr 16, 2009#781

Moorlander wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this be the tallest building west of the mighty miss? I think the US Bank tower in L.A. is right at 1000ft.
Like you said, the tallest building west of the Mississippi is the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles rising to a height of 1,018 ft. San Francisco has plans to build multiple skyscrapers around the Transbay Terminal, possibly to a height of 1,200 ft.

237
Junior MemberJunior Member
237

PostApr 16, 2009#782

metzgda wrote: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 don't really care how tall the building is, just needs to stand out aesthetically IMO. speaking of "organically" integrating new buildings, here's a literal application...







The Japan Organic Building, located in downtown Osaka, Japan, is an unusual example of a vertical garden incorporated into a commercial building. The nine-story concrete structure is encased in a steel outer skin with pockets that serve as enormous flower pots. More than 80 various plants and trees were specially selected for the particular environment. The plants are irrigated by a complex computer-controlled system.

3,541
Life MemberLife Member
3,541

PostApr 16, 2009#783

Gone Corporate wrote: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.


hmmmm interesting




2,928
Life MemberLife Member
2,928

PostApr 16, 2009#784

^ Thanks, Goat. That's the pic.



Here, McGowan's Tower is located at the corner of Eighth and Clark.



There is a more updated version of this picture by HOK on their website (Flash-based; go Work: Planning: Districts, Corridors, + Streetscapes, Choteau Lake and Greenway). In this version, the new tower south of 64/40 has been removed while the McGowanesque Tower remains, garage and all, even if not shown as a thousand footer. Additionally, Lumiere is visible to the north, while it wasn't in the previous version.



The thousand footer. Right across from Stan the Man.

3,541
Life MemberLife Member
3,541

PostApr 16, 2009#785

I see it, but since it is flash I can't copy and paste it.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostApr 17, 2009#786

^ If you want to save it just hit the Print Screen (PrtSc) button.

3,541
Life MemberLife Member
3,541

PostApr 17, 2009#787

^^^ I got It!







I believe Gone Corporate is referring to the tower next to Busch Stadium, only twice as large!

241
Junior MemberJunior Member
241

PostApr 17, 2009#788

There are three 1000+ foot towers west of the Mississippi:

Stratosphere Tower, L.V., 1149'

US Bank Tower, L.A., 1018'

JP Morgan Chase Tower, Houston, 1002'

258
Full MemberFull Member
258

PostApr 17, 2009#789

By the way, structurally symmetric towers tend to be more effective due to the ability to deal with the effect of wind resistance and vortex formation on the building.



It has been shown that buildings that follow gradual profile size change from top to bottom are more stable in wind patterns. Also non symmetric buildings out drastically varying stress loads on the structural components of the tower when the direction of the wind changes.



Hence why even the soon to be/currently depending on interpretation tallest building in the world being built in Dubai is still primarily symmetric allowing for only alternation between section termination heights. In addition, usually the use of a symmetric building with a receding footprint toward the top of the tower allows for the effect of the structure appearing even taller due to perspective effects.



I am attaching an illustration of the major towers floor plans as can be found for ones own further exploration on wikipedia.




70
New MemberNew Member
70

PostApr 17, 2009#790

It sounds to me like McGowan really wants to promote Stl and put it on the map which is fine. We shouldn't be critizing somebody who wants to build a 1,000 ft tower in Stl. I don't care if its neon pink build it and you might as well bump it up a couple stories to make it tallest west of the mississippi.

125
Junior MemberJunior Member
125

PostApr 18, 2009#791

stl1991 wrote:It sounds to me like McGowan really wants to promote Stl and put it on the map which is fine. We shouldn't be critizing somebody who wants to build a 1,000 ft tower in Stl. I don't care if its neon pink build it and you might as well bump it up a couple stories to make it tallest west of the mississippi.


Agree! 8)

1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostApr 18, 2009#792

Isn't the tower at 8th and Spruce as 8th and Clark is where the Westin is.



Between visualizing how cool Chouteau's Pond could as well as modern towers nestled among a rehabed Chouteau's Landing those pictures are painful to lookout seeing how little progress has been made over the lsat few years.

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostApr 18, 2009#793

Gone Corporate wrote:^ Thanks, Goat. That's the pic.



Here, McGowan's Tower is located at the corner of Eighth and Clark.



The thousand footer. Right across from Stan the Man.


Sorry guy, I believe these sketches are a whole lot of wishful thinking and have no real connection to McGowan's alleged proposed tower. They are pretty things to look at though, i'll give you that.



And you guys do realize this mama will have a MASSIVE parking structure, right?



Also, can anyone determine who owns the land at 8th and spruce using the assessors website? I don't know the address. Or does anyone know what land McGowan owns in that area? It seems like that would be the easiest route in determining the proposed site.

http://stlcin.missouri.org/assessor/lookup.cfm

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostApr 18, 2009#794

Southwest corner of 8th/Spruce is C&S Properties - 6767 N. Hanley Road.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostApr 18, 2009#795

^^Parking would likely be a non-issue with a tower like this, as it will be big enough to have self-contained underground parking and would likely have parking on the first above ground floors above the retail.

5,703
Life MemberLife Member
5,703

PostApr 18, 2009#796

Would the new Trump tower in Chicago be a good example of parking being incorporated into the above ground floors and thus giving a boost in height?



A second thought, would Stifel Nichols being interested in putting their name on this tower? As far as I'm concerned its game on with DeWitt and Cordish.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostApr 19, 2009#797

^That's basically exactly what I was thinking of.



As for your second point, I'm sure stifel didn't sign a lease with no time point for delivery, and as far as BPV is concerned, they will more than likely have plenty of time to move before anything happens on that front. However, in a tower of this magnitude, it would usually take a larger commitment of office space (in sq ft) to gain signage on this tower than what they have been shopping for. (speculation)

3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostApr 20, 2009#798

so, did the bank foreclose on mcGowan's house? just a rumor?

2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostApr 20, 2009#799





I want something new, something no other city has. I want something that has people thinking, "eh?" I want the equivalence of that new, to parallel the nuance of this rotating skyscraper. I don’t want the rotating skyscraper, I want the equivalence of its, "holy fu#$ness."



I want other cities to get their ideas from St. Louis.

549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostApr 20, 2009#800

Xing wrote:



I want something new, something no other city has. I want something that has people thinking, "eh?" I want the equivalence of that new, to parallel the nuance of this rotating skyscraper. I don’t want the rotating skyscraper, I want the equivalence of its, "holy fu#$ness."



I want other cities to get their ideas from St. Louis.




...... =D> .... =D> .. =D> . =D> =D>



(with the cliche slow clap)



In all seriousness, YES! Well said.

Read more posts (101 remaining)