Proposed Kevin McGowan 1000' Skyscraper

threeonefour · PostApr 21, 2009#8262009-04-21T18:51+00:00

^ Thanks for posting the link. I remembered reading about this the other day, and I even posted a comment, but I forgot all about it.

#-o

I'm at home with the flu today, so I'm blaming my brain fart on the meds.

Anyway, it's nice to see that building a Class A office tower in the not-so-distant future might be more than just a pipe dream on this forum.

debaliviere · PostApr 21, 2009#8272009-04-21T18:53+00:00

RBB wrote: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

Getting it built will be hard; getting it occupied might be even harder. I think there are other ways of getting St. Louis on the map that don't involve a massive office building.

rbb · PostApr 21, 2009#8282009-04-21T19:11+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:
RBB wrote: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

Getting it built will be hard; getting it occupied might be even harder. I think there are other ways of getting St. Louis on the map that don't involve a massive office building.

It might indeed be hard - that's a lot of square footage to fill. Then again, having a large amount of contiguous class-A office space in a signature building that will (potentially) be gaining national or international acclaim might attract tenants downtown that wouldn't have considered St. Louis proper otherwise. Isn't one of the issues with office space downtown that there's not a large chunk of Class-A space available?

-RBB

DogtownBnR · PostApr 21, 2009#8292009-04-21T19:41+00:00

I agree with some of the previous posters. I think most of us are all for modern 'stand out' skyscrapers in STL. However, adding one very modern, unique tower, may stick out like a sore thumb, if only one large tower is built. (Don't get me wrong, I'll take anything but,) Downtown does not have any stand out, super modern buildings. Most fit in with the brick city, historical city image. Obviously the glass buildings are more modern, but the Fed building, SBC Tower and Met Square building are not super modern looking. It will take multiple 'modern' towers for those types of buildings to fit in. I'd love to see some towers where the Bottle District was and Near Purina. That would really extend the skyline north and south. Maybe the proposed Lake District will allow for towers south of HWY 40, if it ever comes to fruition. It would be very cool to enter the city on 40 and have towers on both sides. It would feel like cutting through a large pass. I can only dream at this point!

moorlander · PostApr 21, 2009#8302009-04-21T19:52+00:00

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:I agree with some of the previous posters. I think most of us are all for modern 'stand out' skyscrapers in STL. However, adding one very modern, unique tower, may stick out like a sore thumb, if only one large tower is built. (Don't get me wrong, I'll take anything but,) Downtown does not have any stand out, super modern buildings. Most fit in with the brick city, historical city image. Obviously the glass buildings are more modern, but the Fed building, SBC Tower and Met Square building are not super modern looking. It will take multiple 'modern' towers for those types of buildings to fit in. I'd love to see some towers where the Bottle District was and Near Purina. That would really extend the skyline north and south. Maybe the proposed Lake District will allow for towers south of HWY 40, if it ever comes to fruition. It would be very cool to enter the city on 40 and have towers on both sides. It would feel like cutting through a large pass. I can only dream at this point!

I still don't think the "don't build it too tall cause it will look funny" arguement has much weight.

urbanpioneer · PostApr 21, 2009#8312009-04-21T20:00+00:00

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:I agree with some of the previous posters. I think most of us are all for modern 'stand out' skyscrapers in STL. However, adding one very modern, unique tower, may stick out like a sore thumb, if only one large tower is built. (Don't get me wrong, I'll take anything but,) Downtown does not have any stand out, super modern buildings. Most fit in with the brick city, historical city image. Obviously the glass buildings are more modern, but the Fed building, SBC Tower and Met Square building are not super modern looking. It will take multiple 'modern' towers for those types of buildings to fit in. I'd love to see some towers where the Bottle District was and Near Purina. That would really extend the skyline north and south. Maybe the proposed Lake District will allow for towers south of HWY 40, if it ever comes to fruition. It would be very cool to enter the city on 40 and have towers on both sides. It would feel like cutting through a large pass. I can only dream at this point!

The Roberts Tower is the first step to what you are saying and will certainly be tall enough to have an impact on modernizing the skyline. It may not be "super-modern", but it will definitely be the closest thing in downtown to qualify for the term.

gone corporate · PostApr 21, 2009#8322009-04-21T20:06+00:00

Moorlander wrote:I still don't think the "don't build it too tall cause it will look funny" arguement has much weight.

Seconded.

I also don't think that, when a building is proposed, it should necessarily be compared to every building out there as a substitute. In contrast, I believe it would be better to:

1. Respect the initiative taken by the few who aim to accomplish new construction, and

2. Encourage such other designs to be built in StL independent of projects already envisioned, and not necessarily in its stead.

We finally have a real chance for significant growth in Downtown - for new construction; new business, residential, & retail occupants; for new heighth; for development (probably) on an undeveloped site. Why does the conversation have to focus on what is wrong with the proposal according strictly to individualized style tastes?

If interested, perhaps a new thread should be started on buildings outside the StL area and where you'd like to see them (i.e. I want to see a variation on the Beijing Bumps complex on the parking lot east of Busch III). Otherwise, let's refocus on this proposal for what it is.

urbanpioneer · PostApr 21, 2009#8332009-04-21T20:07+00:00

Moorlander wrote:
I still don't think the "don't build it too tall cause it will look funny" arguement has much weight.[/quote wrote:

Not saying I disagree, but the city of Paris does:

http://paris-architecture.info/PA-074.htm

This is not a bad tower. It is simply in a bad place. In building this skyscraper, the first of its kind in Paris, Beaudouin and company destroyed the fabric of Montparnasse. Was this intentional? Opinions differ, but the area was impoverished, filled with rebellious artists, and as such was undesirable in President Pompidou’s vision for a modern city. The French could stick the blame for this tower on its American developer, Wylie Tuttle, but they usually take full responsibility for the unfortunate and lonely building. It’s possible that the tower would have been more attractive had Raymond Lopez lived to work on the result. Modernist urban planner Lopez contributed to the initial 1959 plan, which casts the tower in less aggressive pale concrete with transparent glass. What we ended up with is a 56-storey black tower that seems to have landed from another planet, blasting tiny historic streets and artists’ studios into oblivion. Hated when it was completed, the tower forced the French into awareness of their skyline. The government rushed to protect downtown Paris, forbidding other turrets in the city center. Contemporary architecture was forced to go horizontal, as seen in the Centre Pompidou or more recently with the Quai Branly museum project. Looking at this tower, New Yorkers might be reminded of Midtown’s more successful Pan Am Building (whose consulting architects were Walter Gropius & Pietro Belluschi—Europeans out for revenge?) The Tour Montparnasse is best admired from afar, from the other side of the river. At the corner of the Rue du Louvre and Rivoli, you can just see the tower looming at twilight, a Modernist brontosaurus glittering beyond the Neo-classic turrets of Saint-Sulpice

This is also why we shouldn't settle for a bland skyscraper.

gone corporate · PostApr 21, 2009#8342009-04-21T20:11+00:00

UrbanPioneer wrote:
Moorlander wrote:
I still don't think the "don't build it too tall cause it will look funny" arguement has much weight.[/quote wrote:

Not saying I disagree, but the city of Paris does:

http://paris-architecture.info/PA-074.htm

(the important info is near the bottom of the page)
Most common response: "Then build it in Clayton."

DogtownBnR · PostApr 21, 2009#8352009-04-21T20:28+00:00

Moorlander wrote:

I still don't think the "don't build it too tall cause it will look funny" arguement has much weight.

Agree 100%. The hope is that one unique building will lead to many more. I will take anything 'stand out' at this point. The more 'modern' buildings, the better. The potential is awesome, let's hope it is realized someday.

urbanpioneer · PostApr 21, 2009#8362009-04-21T20:31+00:00

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:Moorlander wrote:

I still don't think the "don't build it too tall cause it will look funny" arguement has much weight.

Agree 100%. The hope is that one unique building will lead to many more. I will take anything 'stand out' at this point. The more 'modern' buildings, the better. The potential is awesome, let's hope it is realized someday.

You're exactly right. If however, such a huge skyscraper looks like sh*t (i.e. a bland monstrous box with no personality), then our skyline will likely look sh*tty for decades.

Tall buildings are great. Tall buildings that dominate the skyline when they are of poor quality are not great.

Here's to hoping for a great design.

DogtownBnR · PostApr 21, 2009#8372009-04-21T20:37+00:00

^I'd like to start with a tower such as the Bank of America Corporate tower in Charlotte NC. I really like how it looks at night. It is a powerful tower. Then from there, start building more and more unique towers. I also love the Gherkin in London. I would not want that exact tower, but something that architectually unique.

moorlander · PostApr 21, 2009#8382009-04-21T20:42+00:00

What's exciting is that we will be entering into a new era of new construction soon as we are finally nearing the end of the historic rehabs dowtown.

PostApr 21, 2009#8392009-04-21T20:50+00:00

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167899

You can also join in the fun on SSP. Seems some folks don't like the idea of surpassing the arch. L-A-M-E

goat314 · PostApr 21, 2009#8402009-04-21T21:04+00:00

Moorlander wrote:What's exciting is that we will be entering into a new era of new construction soon as we are finally nearing the end of the historic rehabs dowtown.

That's what excites me the most! The article that was posted a couple of days ago about downtown's development grade said that there were less than a dozen buildings left to be rehabbed in downtown, 10 years ago there was more than 70. Meaning that the next step for development in downtown will be building on vacant lots. Everybody can be reassured that we will see new modern towers starting to rise from the ashes in downtown very soon, the Roberts Tower is just the beginning.

urbanpioneer · PostApr 21, 2009#8412009-04-21T21:13+00:00

Moorlander wrote:What's exciting is that we will be entering into a new era of new construction soon as we are finally nearing the end of the historic rehabs dowtown.

Having the mix of ultra-modern and historic structures is absolutely critical to making St. Louis a world-class city again (Barcelona is the perfect example of how to do it right).

I can't wait for the new era of construction you mentioned to really start up... it'll happen, it's only a matter of time. And the potential for St. Louis to have such a great mix of new and old is exactly why I moved here.

gone corporate · PostApr 21, 2009#8422009-04-21T21:21+00:00

For a new construction renaissance to really kick off, we will need three things:

1. The economy to turn around, including commercial real estate stabilized.

2. An influx of new companies rather than corporate relocation within the metro area.

3. An impetus for new business in the StL area.

Focus: If the "Big Idea" becomes a reality, the feasibility of this project jumps by an order of magnitude. It would reflect all of these issues, as well as an immediate need for new Class A office space in the StL area. From there, continued economic development would continue to spread, from companies relocating to, or establishing new operations in, StL from around the US to Chinese firms establishing bases of operation in the US.

This is not the only way, but one way.

Still, should these things happen, McGowan Tower will be funded, no doubt.

c2city · PostApr 21, 2009#8432009-04-21T21:24+00:00

Contemporary not modern. Modern is a specific style of architecture, contemporary is architecture which is in the newest styles.

james · PostApr 21, 2009#8442009-04-21T21:28+00:00

No matter what I wouldn't want to see a tall stainless steel catenary shaped building built... unless we built two of them, built it shorter or used brick because otherwise it would stick out like a sore thumb.

stlcardsblues1989 · PostApr 21, 2009#8452009-04-21T21:29+00:00

I have no problem with building a tower taller than the Arch.

But I still wouldn't want it to completely overshadow the arch. Maybe complement it. Draw attention to both the new tower and the arch.

urbanpioneer · PostApr 21, 2009#8462009-04-21T21:30+00:00

clellchatman wrote:Contemporary not modern. Modern is a specific style of architecture, contemporary is architecture which is in the newest styles.

The current "Contemporary Style" you allude to is still under the vast umbrella of Modernism. It is definitely different from the International Style, MidCentury Modern, Post-Modernism, Deconstructivism, etc... but it is still Modernism. (The new contemporary style doesn't really have an agreed upon name(if it even needs a name), but I tend to like Neo-Modernism.)

We aren't leaving the Age of Modernism in its varied and evolving forms anytime soon.

newstl2020 · PostApr 22, 2009#8472009-04-22T01:24+00:00

^It's interesting that people are bringing up Robert's tower for its modernity, I would enter it into the discussion for a different reason.

We need to remember that at this point, proposed new condo construction and historic rehab condos amount to what is basically a previously unseen real estate market in downtown St. Louis. I would venture a guess that there may be a small but significant portion of life-long St. Louis residents who would buy a condo downtown, but don't want to play the pre-construction sales game (This is the show-me-state...correct?). I would also venture a guess that the people who would fall into this category would not be interested in renovated condos, but rather new and therefore fully modern construction. Robert's Tower will be the first such product to enter the St. Louis market.

I believe that sales at Robert's tower will have a significant impact on the future of high-rise development in St. Louis by setting the basis for an economic model for the region, and by (HOPEFULLY!!) establishing the fact that new modern downtown high-rise construction can and will be successfully developed in downtown St. Louis.

(Not to overexagerate) There is a hell of a lot on the line here for the future of St. Louis development.

I for one am hoping that, after cutting through all the anti-st. louis bull that is thrown around this city, the Roberts will discover and begin the sourcing of the absolutely untapped market that is downtown St. Louis.

PostApr 22, 2009#8482009-04-22T01:27+00:00

^Sorry if that goes to OT. I think it works into the convo about McGowan's proposed building...

Alex Ihnen · PostApr 22, 2009#8492009-04-22T02:19+00:00

^ I think that this is a great point. Of course I'm not the one throwing my money around, but I believe that new markets need to be found to change the game in St. Louis. It's incredible that so many condo projects have been completed downtown on the basis of regional surveys asking "would you consider living downtown?" I believe that traffic and transit surveys are horribly skewed in a similar way. If you ask someone if they would ride Metrolink if it were located near their home/work. You are relying on those people to understand what it's like to ride Metrolink, evaluate costs of alternatives, etc. The surveys are helpful and can highlight existing issues, but new expectations and opportunities can be created.

c2city · PostApr 22, 2009#8502009-04-22T03:32+00:00

UrbanPioneer wrote:
clellchatman wrote:Contemporary not modern. Modern is a specific style of architecture, contemporary is architecture which is in the newest styles.

The current "Contemporary Style" you allude to is still under the vast umbrella of Modernism. It is definitely different from the International Style, MidCentury Modern, Post-Modernism, Deconstructivism, etc... but it is still Modernism. (The new contemporary style doesn't really have an agreed upon name(if it even needs a name), but I tend to like Neo-Modernism.)

We aren't leaving the Age of Modernism in its varied and evolving forms anytime soon.

As I said above, contemporary is not a style, but a description of it being whatever style is in recent use at the present time. Contemporary architecture now will be different than contemporary architecture in 30 years.

Proposed Kevin McGowan 1000' Skyscraper

Choose Display Mode