So how many employees do we think these 4 new buildings would house, assuming a healthy occupancy rate?
@STLRainbow
I am definitely in the build more shorter towers camp. It protects the Arch's deserved prominence and would assist with filling city blocks. We gots the room to spread out...
"Only a moral and virtuous people are capable of freedom; the more corrupt and vicious a society becomes, the more it has need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin
- 8,155
Curious... how many employees would something like these 4 new towers house? I've also been interested in trying to visualize what different parts of the city would have to look like to get 400 or 500K in population again, let alone our peak 850.arch city wrote:
@STLRainbow
Last spec office building in downtown... Met Sq. - 1989 - 24 years and counting - right now we have a vacancy rate about 16% something dramatic would have to happen pretty quick if we want even 1 additional office high rise in the next 10 years, we are pretty much set on hotels, the only real option is residential, but I think the rest of the historic stock will get soaked up first. I don't see any new high rises, office, residential, or hotel for the next 5 years, of course I would be more than happy to be wrongroger wyoming II wrote:Curious... how many employees would something like these 4 new towers house? I've also been interested in trying to visualize what different parts of the city would have to look like to get 400 or 500K in population again, let alone our peak 850.arch city wrote:
- 11K
It would be cool to see new towers, but putting even two-story buildings on all the downtown vacant lots would be much, much better for the city.
A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, but one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.
Sad thing is the last time I was reading this site with regularity it was full of all sorts of projects representing new downtown construction of all the ranges listed on this thread. Nadira Place= new lowrise infill commercial/office space with modern/glassy touches. Skyhouse= midrise residential, glass, "edgy" design (by conservative STL standards. Port St Louis= low to midrise glass residential on the Landing. Bottle district had a little of everything including 3 pointed giants that would have topped the Arch. Chouteau's Pond and Landing had undergone various renderings including residential, commerical, and educational buildings. This developmemt would have particularly helped solve the problem of expanding downtown's funcational footprint into the quagmire of neighborhoods to its near south and connecting better to Soulard/Laf Square/Benton Park as mentioned above. I won't even mention the Judas move by Centene and the downsizing of Ballpark Village's Skyline altering towers (sidenote: now that I'm out of town, my glimpses of downtown are coming from Cards' broadcasts and the beams going up point to an enhanced stadium experience in and out of Busch. No matter what it "could have been" between the metrolink access and increased perimeter entertainment with rooftop viewing, this puts Busch into a category that most parks in baseball can't claim). I can't speak as to why all the above projects flopped. Most would blame the 2008 econonmy. One of the projects that did slip through the cracks-our one new sleek residential Roberts Tower, sits totally vacant and can't sustain a ground floor chain steakhouse.
The biggest issue with blaming the ecomony alone is projects like the Great American Tower in Cincinnati. If the economy was really so poor, things like that shouldn't have been happening in similar tier cities. Comparisons to Chicago seem unfair to both STL and Chicago given its resources, popuation, and amenities. Cincinnati, however, is our twin with the exception of having a strong corporate presence in its downtown core. Cincy really brings our shortcomings in this arena into high definition, in my opinion. Their big players are at the front lines of the postcard shots: Kroger, Macy's, P&G, Great American, and PNC are well represented in the height and density of their downtown. As much as we quibble about small firms (architectural, law, CPA, etc) coming and going from the city to the county (certainly valuable on a different scale), until our Fortune 500 companies make their presence known, I don't see how large scale construction or even vacancy filling can occur. The power players with the most influence sit from an office park perched beyond 270 watching the plight of the city through binoculars. Meanwhile their waiting rooms, board rooms and hallways are lined with sleek black and white shots of Busch Stadium, the Arch, Forest Park and Bevo Mill (it would be a little too "real" for those shots to be out their windows). Our downtown should be represented by ABI, Edward Jones, Scottrade, Energizer, Scottrade, Monsanto, Express Scripts, Panera (Starbucks is a "Seattle thing" why can't Panera be a "St Louis" thing), even Scnhucks and Dierbergs. I realize this will likely not happen for a number of reasons, but is a symptoms of the overall culture of our region.
On the metrolink issue, I think that the zone between the airport and Forest Park is an accurate slice of that area of the city. I agree that we need to work on making stations safe for the average rider, but just because they are not shiny, flashy, or oozing with indicators of young and progressive development doesn't mean that they aren't serving a purpose. When I've ridden in from the airport I usually see college students, airport employees, old folks as well as teenagers using the metrolink for its intended purpose; namely getting around their neighborhood. It was very similar to the glimpse into the realities of a city that I experieced traveling around the airport on bus or train in Atlanta, Philadelphia or Boston. These are cities that are large enough to have the requisite diverse experience of demographics. I would rather have the luxury of mass transit and have it show what life in certain areas of the city is really like rather than not have it at all. I've ridden into plenty of places and after passing homogenous development after homeogenous deveolopment after vanilla residential area felt like turning around and going home. And if visitors saw Clayton right out of the gate and that is attractive, then we should be discussing moving downtown to Clayton; I thought the efforts and opinion of this site was the other way around.
The biggest issue with blaming the ecomony alone is projects like the Great American Tower in Cincinnati. If the economy was really so poor, things like that shouldn't have been happening in similar tier cities. Comparisons to Chicago seem unfair to both STL and Chicago given its resources, popuation, and amenities. Cincinnati, however, is our twin with the exception of having a strong corporate presence in its downtown core. Cincy really brings our shortcomings in this arena into high definition, in my opinion. Their big players are at the front lines of the postcard shots: Kroger, Macy's, P&G, Great American, and PNC are well represented in the height and density of their downtown. As much as we quibble about small firms (architectural, law, CPA, etc) coming and going from the city to the county (certainly valuable on a different scale), until our Fortune 500 companies make their presence known, I don't see how large scale construction or even vacancy filling can occur. The power players with the most influence sit from an office park perched beyond 270 watching the plight of the city through binoculars. Meanwhile their waiting rooms, board rooms and hallways are lined with sleek black and white shots of Busch Stadium, the Arch, Forest Park and Bevo Mill (it would be a little too "real" for those shots to be out their windows). Our downtown should be represented by ABI, Edward Jones, Scottrade, Energizer, Scottrade, Monsanto, Express Scripts, Panera (Starbucks is a "Seattle thing" why can't Panera be a "St Louis" thing), even Scnhucks and Dierbergs. I realize this will likely not happen for a number of reasons, but is a symptoms of the overall culture of our region.
On the metrolink issue, I think that the zone between the airport and Forest Park is an accurate slice of that area of the city. I agree that we need to work on making stations safe for the average rider, but just because they are not shiny, flashy, or oozing with indicators of young and progressive development doesn't mean that they aren't serving a purpose. When I've ridden in from the airport I usually see college students, airport employees, old folks as well as teenagers using the metrolink for its intended purpose; namely getting around their neighborhood. It was very similar to the glimpse into the realities of a city that I experieced traveling around the airport on bus or train in Atlanta, Philadelphia or Boston. These are cities that are large enough to have the requisite diverse experience of demographics. I would rather have the luxury of mass transit and have it show what life in certain areas of the city is really like rather than not have it at all. I've ridden into plenty of places and after passing homogenous development after homeogenous deveolopment after vanilla residential area felt like turning around and going home. And if visitors saw Clayton right out of the gate and that is attractive, then we should be discussing moving downtown to Clayton; I thought the efforts and opinion of this site was the other way around.
And, who says there is no development or attempted development around the Forest Park, CWE, or Delmar Stations? The CWE station alone spawned a design competition for local architects a few years ago and BJC is booming with development. The CWE seems to be relatively healthy with progress unless I am missing something (certainly possible). Delmar seems to be making the most efforts in TOD with the streetcar efforts and attempts to expand Delmar ever-eastward and link two metro stations in a creative way. The Forest Park station is surrounded by residential in DeBaliviere. There were all sorts of plans to rebuild the whole retail zone around DeBaliviere and Pershing all the way north to Delmar bringing buildings closer to the street and cleaning up exteriors to reflect a more historical context (brick, iron, nods to World's Fair). The Grand Avenue Bridge project centers on the Metro Station.
Also I have to disagree that the problem is lack of creative ideas. We all have creative ideas. The above failed projects I listed didn't necessarily show a lack of creativity. The problem is lack of people with money and an urban centered mind. Cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and probably more and more Austin, have people (and more importantly a growning demographic of younger people) with money and ideas; or just money and pay people to create the ideas. Its reasonable to have vacancies in buildings but continue to build when a nidus of rich investors and developers think they can outdo what is there. STL is notorious for having people with lots of money and no desire to share, spend, or risk it. THE PEOPLE WITH VISION HAVE NO MONEY AND THE PEOPLE WITH MONEY HAVE NO VISION. This is the plague my untrained eye has observed over the laset decade; another malady that will take generations to fix.
Also I have to disagree that the problem is lack of creative ideas. We all have creative ideas. The above failed projects I listed didn't necessarily show a lack of creativity. The problem is lack of people with money and an urban centered mind. Cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and probably more and more Austin, have people (and more importantly a growning demographic of younger people) with money and ideas; or just money and pay people to create the ideas. Its reasonable to have vacancies in buildings but continue to build when a nidus of rich investors and developers think they can outdo what is there. STL is notorious for having people with lots of money and no desire to share, spend, or risk it. THE PEOPLE WITH VISION HAVE NO MONEY AND THE PEOPLE WITH MONEY HAVE NO VISION. This is the plague my untrained eye has observed over the laset decade; another malady that will take generations to fix.
STL CITY IN PERPETUITY
I think to make the skyline look amazing and centralized. Is to not have buildings taller than the arch directly behind it but around it tall buildings. To centralize the skyline is to make it wider and connect downtown, central west end, and Clayton by sky scrapers in between and around.
Well this post is old, but I did like the renders of the 630+ ft. blue tower. Its now almost 2020, and the cities of the world are building so many supertalls, and residential towers that easily would hover over the Arch. If the city's 1960's iron clad height restrictions are foolish and time to let the damn dust be swiffered. The Arch grounds that was a huge awesome change for us locals...visitors still come see it and go up, see a small underdeveloped city. The court house is right behing the Arch and we should make NEW Zoning for behind the Arch and some distance around it. The Arch is only recognized for what it is , and nowhere else has it, but the height is just a portion of its prowess. The south side of downtown is a sad empty large plot of land, as well as Midtown. One multi-use 800 ft. tower, or 1000ft. with several shorter skyscrapers surrounding a new business, shopping and entertainment will not obstruct our precious steel Arch. NY, Chicago, or others stopped at some landmark. Unlike all the other cities we are similar to, have nothing close to STL pride, and business HQs, that would love to have a new 2020s tower cbd. Purina. Monsanto. Bayer. Busch. Cortex. and many more global giants that are big and boring...we have History. And it shocks a dying city.
- 3,290
I think it is smart to keep putting sports and entertainment downtown. There are only a few cities where the downtown is so far from major crossroads across the metro. Our downtown is like Detroit — against a barrier on a peninsula out of the metro center crossing. Compare to Boston or Chicago where the downtowns are at the focus of an acute angle, and transit north south has to go thru downtown. So business still see downtown as a central access center.
We are a little better off than Detroit. We just have another state across our large barrier. Not another country. Cities like New York kept Manhattan central to the region with lots of bridges and subways. We can do the same. Now we need the East Side to become attractive. It used to flood right across the river, but suburbs are pretty attractive and close to downtown. What else would make the East side as attractive as St Charles? I used to think new cheaper houses. Too bad we didn’t build a new airport there in the late 70’s as planned.
There is a lot of beautiful rolling farmland on the East side. It would be great for new housing and would pull downtown back to the center crossroads of the metro which would make downtown more attractive for central business towers.
Downtown and Illinois should work together to help both expand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We are a little better off than Detroit. We just have another state across our large barrier. Not another country. Cities like New York kept Manhattan central to the region with lots of bridges and subways. We can do the same. Now we need the East Side to become attractive. It used to flood right across the river, but suburbs are pretty attractive and close to downtown. What else would make the East side as attractive as St Charles? I used to think new cheaper houses. Too bad we didn’t build a new airport there in the late 70’s as planned.
There is a lot of beautiful rolling farmland on the East side. It would be great for new housing and would pull downtown back to the center crossroads of the metro which would make downtown more attractive for central business towers.
Downtown and Illinois should work together to help both expand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
donations
Support urbanSTL by making a donation.
Display mode
Font Size
