^^ That's real?
- 1,364
A new tower would be nice, but I don't really care for that building above. It looks like it's going to collapse any minute.
- 11K
The tower's cool, but StL can't charge rents high enough to support such a building. There will be a 20-story Jenga building in Clayton before this one is built downtown! 
- 549
^ 
Damn, with all due respect to everyone on here, the opinions in above posts are really disappointing to me. No wonder St. Louis can't get much of anything significant and modern built lately, most people in the region wouldn't like it. The building (which, due to the economy may or may never be built) is an entirely innovative piece of architecture and deserves to be commended as such...
http://emirateseconomist.blogspot.com/2 ... tower.html
This is a rhetorical question that probably doesn't belong in this thread, but why does St. Louis seem to have such a distaste for Modern Architecture?
I'm not trying to single anyone out for not liking the revolving tower, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's just that I've noticed a general pattern since I've moved here. Not only on this forum, but mostly within the general population, there seems to be far less enthusiasm for Modernism than in other large cities. (The Arch is certainly an exception).
Damn, with all due respect to everyone on here, the opinions in above posts are really disappointing to me. No wonder St. Louis can't get much of anything significant and modern built lately, most people in the region wouldn't like it. The building (which, due to the economy may or may never be built) is an entirely innovative piece of architecture and deserves to be commended as such... http://emirateseconomist.blogspot.com/2 ... tower.html
This is a rhetorical question that probably doesn't belong in this thread, but why does St. Louis seem to have such a distaste for Modern Architecture?
I'm not trying to single anyone out for not liking the revolving tower, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's just that I've noticed a general pattern since I've moved here. Not only on this forum, but mostly within the general population, there seems to be far less enthusiasm for Modernism than in other large cities. (The Arch is certainly an exception).
- 1,364
Modern architecture can be very good.
I just don't care for that particular tower myself.
I think a lot of city lovers have to find some balance between modern and historical. We've lost too much of our city to mid-century modern buildings. Obviously these would not be mid-century.
I like things to be built on empty lots. And I have no problem with modern architecture. I just don't care for that particular kind of tower.
And for some reason (I guess Skyhouse and the Chicago Spire), when I see a big, modern tower being planned, I think it won't work. That's probably my flaw, though.
I just don't care for that particular tower myself.
I think a lot of city lovers have to find some balance between modern and historical. We've lost too much of our city to mid-century modern buildings. Obviously these would not be mid-century.
I like things to be built on empty lots. And I have no problem with modern architecture. I just don't care for that particular kind of tower.
And for some reason (I guess Skyhouse and the Chicago Spire), when I see a big, modern tower being planned, I think it won't work. That's probably my flaw, though.
- 11K
I sometimes do not like these types of towers because I think they're the product of megalomaniacal architects and developers. It's become art and I think that can be great, but I tend to be a bit more utilitarian and favor the austere.
- 549
Grover wrote:I sometimes do not like these types of towers because I think they're the product of megalomaniacal architects and developers. It's become art and I think that can be great, but I tend to be a bit more utilitarian and favor the austere.
Well, it's often said that Architecture is the mother of all arts. If a building doesn't have some artistic characteristics then it likely isn't Architecture. The inclusion of "art" is what separates Architecture from mere building.
Arch_Genesis wrote:^^....you want a building modeled after Jenga?
again, I don’t want the rotating skyscraper, I want the equivalence of its uniqueness. My point was, I don't want to look toward another city for an idea.
And yes, the rotating skyscraper is real building planned for Dubai. Again, I'm not saying I want that building. People are so use to looking toward other cities for specific inspiration they see a picture and assume it's yet another building we can copy. In this case, the only inspiration is an original idea.
- 1,610
A much smaller version just broke ground last week here in Charlotte. Though inspired by stacked books (a college building), I guess Jenga is all the rage these days.
- 597
^ I have no problem with that, it looks kind of funky kind of coo, I like it. Xing, I have no problem with modern development, I was just making a joke, Central Scrutinizer does it.
Arch_Genesis wrote:^ I have no problem with that, it looks kind of funky kind of coo, I like it. Xing, I have no problem with modern development, I was just making a joke, Central Scrutinizer does it.
Apparently the shape is adjustable to the content of whoever has the authority to change it.
The first image was meant to show the building in it's default position, while the 2nd and 3rd were meant to show the building in movement. The jenga appearence was only meant to show the building's flexibility.
the building in motion:
^watch that, and you'll see how impressive it is in motion.
information:
- 362
I think we can do modern without the motion sickness.
I personally don't care if they build the squarest, boxiest, blandest building of all time. If it is really that tall ... it will make a very positive statement for our city. Beggars and choosers and whatnot.
I personally don't care if they build the squarest, boxiest, blandest building of all time. If it is really that tall ... it will make a very positive statement for our city. Beggars and choosers and whatnot.
- 2,386
^You make an interesting point. I would love to see something modern (google Waldorff=astoria chicago renderings....droooooooool) but it is important to note than it doesnt have to be groundbreaking design (aesthetically) to make a statement. Sears Tower is Chicago and the WTC were both in their bare essence enormous boxes. The reason why the attained their status was that they made a statement for their city, and if this tower can do that I think that eventually it will be loved by all in the city regardless of design.
- 1,364
Is that rotating tower difficult/expensive to maintain, though?
I'd want a stable building that will last a long time and that will make a statement. I don't really care to be the Dubai of the Midwest. I'm not against a rotating building, it just seems like a lot of expense we don't need.
I'd want a stable building that will last a long time and that will make a statement. I don't really care to be the Dubai of the Midwest. I'm not against a rotating building, it just seems like a lot of expense we don't need.
STLCardsBlues1989 wrote:Is that rotating tower difficult/expensive to maintain, though?
I'd want a stable building that will last a long time and that will make a statement. I don't really care to be the Dubai of the Midwest. I'm not against a rotating building, it just seems like a lot of expense we don't need.
It's probably ungodly to maintain. Hence, it is being built in Dubai, where it is now essentially worthless. Oh, and you have an army of indian / southeast asian neoslaves to take care of everything.
It'd never happen anywhere else in the world where profit was a motive. No one is going to spend that kind of money on "features" like this unless there is a massive property bubble involved.
- 597
I'd love to have this canceled building. Rockefeller Plaza West.
http://www.gmarch.com/KPF%20Projects/RPW.html
Modern buildings to me are starting to look like rocket ships. I wouldn't object to one though, but I just haven't found one that I'd kill to have.
Neo China Top City -- I like this but its already up. Anywho, whatever goes up I'm thankful for it, the more density the better.
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg64 ... 1240289245
http://www.gmarch.com/KPF%20Projects/RPW.html
Modern buildings to me are starting to look like rocket ships. I wouldn't object to one though, but I just haven't found one that I'd kill to have.
Neo China Top City -- I like this but its already up. Anywho, whatever goes up I'm thankful for it, the more density the better.
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg64 ... 1240289245
Moorlander wrote: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.
Amen.
UrbanPioneer wrote:^
http://emirateseconomist.blogspot.com/2 ... tower.html
This is a rhetorical question that probably doesn't belong in this thread, but why does St. Louis seem to have such a distaste for Modern Architecture?
I'm not trying to single anyone out for not liking the revolving tower, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's just that I've noticed a general pattern since I've moved here. Not only on this forum, but mostly within the general population, there seems to be far less enthusiasm for Modernism than in other large cities. (The Arch is certainly an exception).
Read some of my posts. I think it's easy to answer, and the idea has to be behind a culture of scrutiny and humbleness. Not everyone, but a good chunk. To be bold takes a certain personality, and whether "cities" have personalities is arguable, cities DO have cultures. And being bold is not one of them and the concept or ways of being bold are foreign. Fashion in St. Louis is a good example of this (people on the streets not fashion shows). Going all out is not usually a st. louis thing, that's why I guess so many people are shocked that the arch actually got built.
You could show "st. louis" the meaning of life, after demanding it for a lifetime, and upon seeing the answer most would scoff and continue as is.
On a side note. If the image from Goat was for the McGowan tower, and the mcgowan tower in the supposed location were true and 1000+ feet, I think the rendering would be more than 2 the size on the picture, but more of something like this:
[/img]- 10K
Grover wrote:Just because it's possible doesn't mean we should build it!
That reminds me of a line from Patton Oswalt, who was referring to science, but the same could be said about architecture: It's all about the coulda, not about the shoulda.
- 5,433
DeBaliviere wrote:Grover wrote:Just because it's possible doesn't mean we should build it!
That reminds me of a line from Patton Oswalt, who was referring to science, but the same could be said about architecture: It's all about the coulda, not about the shoulda.
Yeah, I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, but I think this is one of those rare cases where size doesn't actually matter.
Don't get me wrong, as I appreciate McGowan's vision, but St. Louis could use Class A office space ASAP. I could get a lot more excited about a phallic symbol for the skyline if I thought we'd wind up with several buildings of this magnitude. By itself, it's going to look a little lonely and out of touch with its surroundings. (I know that's probably a minority opinion, but I'm just sayin'.)
(Now, if multiple towers were built like this on the north and south edges of town to create bookends for the skyline, I'd be all for that as they could also help to tie downtown better with near north and south side neighborhoods. To me that would be a great way to exceed the Gateway Arch in height without diminishing its status as our skyline's focal point, but now I'm really dreaming.)
ThreeOneFour wrote:DeBaliviere wrote:Grover wrote:Just because it's possible doesn't mean we should build it!
That reminds me of a line from Patton Oswalt, who was referring to science, but the same could be said about architecture: It's all about the coulda, not about the shoulda.
Yeah, I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, but I think this is one of those rare cases where size doesn't actually matter.
Don't get me wrong, as I appreciate McGowan's vision, but St. Louis could use Class A office space ASAP. I could get a lot more excited about a phallic symbol for the skyline if I thought we'd wind up with several buildings of this magnitude. By itself, it's going to look a little lonely and out of touch with its surroundings. (I know that's probably a minority opinion, but I'm just sayin'.)
(Now, if multiple towers were built like this on the north and south edges of town to create bookends for the skyline, I'd be all for that as they could also help to tie downtown better with near north and south side neighborhoods. To me that would be a great way to exceed the Gateway Arch in height without diminishing its status as our skyline's focal point, but now I'm really dreaming.)
Yeah, but you've got to start somewhere. If McGowan's tower is built and occupied, it could drive demand for another like tower in downtown. In the St. Louis magazine article linked to upthread, he spoke of breaking the 600' barrier. I think his (admittedly idealized) dream is for a tower like this to inspire other people to build supertall structures here.
-RBB
- 5,433
RBB wrote:If McGowan's tower is built and occupied, it could drive demand for another like tower in downtown. In the St. Louis magazine article linked to upthread, he spoke of breaking the 600' barrier. I think his (admittedly idealized) dream is for a tower like this to inspire other people to build supertall structures here.
-RBB
I think most of us would agree that's a worthy goal. It would be nice, though, to see the city start talking with developers about building a Class A office tower (regardless of height) downtown once the economy rebounds. I'm not sure what could be done in terms of incentives, but I'd much rather see tax breaks devoted to something like this instead of Coyote Ugly and Toby Keith's at Ballpark Village.
- 8,904
314, check out the area in bold at the bottom of the article I posted. There maybe a new class A office tower in the works.
http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=7028&start=0
http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=7028&start=0