urbanSTL

dweebe wrote:...The biggest problem is the Dome and the convention center cut the area off from the rest of downtown. If it was only the Dome I would say no big deal: but the rest of the convention center really creates a barrier.



To the east and north you've got I-70 and to the west you're got public housing.



It just doesn't have the feeling like Cupples Station and the Ballpark Village. I just have this horrible feeling we would end up with another St. Louis Center or Union Station situation.



Somebody talk me out of these feelings.

Sorry, as I posted above, I agree. The city needs to work areas slowly back to health.



But rather than talk you out of those feelings, how about look forward to other developing areas? We can't redevelop the whole city overnight, now can we?

As an aside, I was in Cabo San Lucas for work this week, but was unable to visit this "Cabo Wabo" that people speak of. Oh well, I'm sure the one here will be about the same.

I want your job.

Gary Kreie wrote:I want your job.

I would like to think that they really needed ME to go, but I think it was because I have a passport and was willing to leave in four days

It is a shame you did not make it over to the original Cabo Wabo Cantina during the month of October - Sammy Hagar is usually down there the entire month to celebrate his birthday and there is a certain light that is posted on the lighthouse entrance that will let you know if Sammy will be in the club that night. See if you can make it back down there in the next week.

I was scrolling through the messages and saw that (as I suspected) there was a problem with the Bottle District Project.



So I did some searching and confirmed that the project has either fallen through or is being shelved and reworked (hoping for the latter).



I knew something was wrong when there had been no activity after the initial opening ceremony....



Here is one of the articles that I located:



http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... %5E1352324



I noticed that the guy behind the whole thing is some amateur developer....which explains why nothing much has been done. Investors are probably thinking that this guy isn't serious (as suggested by the 1 or 2 collapses and changes in the General Contractors that already occurred).



This McGuire guy is now looking at some company out of New Orleans to do the planning and General Contracting.... I went to their website and yuck! I mean....what they seem to do as a company is probably good for a place like New Orleans (renovating old properties & old neighborhoods)....or some other similar city.... but there was nothing on their website that indicated that they would be good for a progressive type development like what the Bottle District or Gateway Village was going to be... So we can probably say goodbye to the Bottle District.



And we can probably say goodbye to the skyscrapers for sure.... (the most disappointing for me).



The landholder, the city, and the investors/developers all seemed to be shuffling their feet on this one all along.... especially the city and the landholder.... St. Louis needs to assign point people to move these projects along.... That was a lot of tax revenue that the city just let walk out of the door....so it would be in the City's interests to pay more attention to development and revitalization...esp. of its downtown. These urban development & growth organizations (RCGA, etc) are just not getting the job done IMO...so the city government should take more of a primary role. There should be ONE organization in charge of pushing, organizing, and monitoring all of the mega projects for the city and for attracting major companies and revenue sources to the city (and the metro area).



St. Louis has a history of projects either falling through or being severely downgraded from their original plan. That has become a tradition in this town. It's just frustrating to see this stuff still going on.... You can't revitalize a city this way.... St. Louis should take lessons from cities like Atlanta, Las Vegas, Seattle, Miami, Charlotte, & others (St. Louis was once larger and more vibrant that most of these towns at one time or another). These cities have exploded over the last 10-15 years in terms of development.



Let's see.... projects that started out big (in the planning) but were scrapped or downgraded:



1. The Dome (original plans...if I recall correctly... would have made it bigger....and a Superbowl contender.... now it can't even bid for a Superbowl...it's too small).



2. The original Ballpark and Village (thank goodness that this recovered before it fell through, lol).



3. The bridge across the Mississippi



4. Metrolink



5. Airport Expansion (the original plans were more ambitious...) 9/11 made it unnecessary though.



6. The Hwy 40 project... (started out big....then fizzled...now they aren't sure that it will even happen...and if it does.... they won't be adding to its capacity...there will be no new lanes....so what's the point?? They will be creating a mess for nothing IMO.)



---I know there are other projects that fit this category...but I can't recall them all...but you get the point.



St. Louis has to break out of this tradition.



Luckily all is not lost....



**The Ballpark village seems to be off and running.... after flirting with that big hole in the floor, lol. (they played around the edges of the hole, dangled their legs over the side...but didn't fall through). lol





**The Pinnacle project is being built



**The Admiral has been taken over (I think) and is on more sound financial footing now.



**There are plans to develop the riverfront.



**McGowen/Walsh Tower.....(still a ghost...but you never know.... sounds too good to be true...and in the spirit of this States Motto.... I want to see it before I believe it... I want to see or hear about a cornerstone being laid or something...lol).



**The New Ballpark was actually built... (although I can't afford to go to a game).



so all is not lost....



I have gotten to a point where I don't believe anything about this town in terms of development until I see some construction workers, lol. Because you can't bet anything on the speculation that you hear....if you do...you'll lose your shirt. It seems like...more often than not...things don't go through.



I'm a skyscraper/architecture-phile... so I want to see St. Louis looking like other modern big cities. The downtown area often defines your city.

And the Skylines are really statements and trademarks that cities become known by around the world.



And can we end this 630ft limit nonsense???? That's annoying as hell to me.... all of this self-stifling behavior that St. Louis engages in is terrible.

Again....one of those St. Louis traditions.



Now if something could be done with the rest of downtown...

(St. Louis still hasn't learned how to deal with the lack of parking and to stop charging folks to come downtown).





And Congrats to the Cardinals!!!!



ESPN, FOX Sports....all the writers...the rest of the National media....yeah.... they have egg on their faces right now. St. Louis has been disrespected by these folks for a long time.









Delmar-Skinker

I think you are being way too harsh and hard on yourself and St. Louis,



St. Louis has had great accomplishments and unlike the cities you listed (most in the south where biz and population trends are highest) older cities are recreating themselves and becoming meccas in their own essence.



Yes, St. Louis does get things built (and moreso than some cities I have lived in) and yet somethings do get downscaled (this unformtunately happens everywhere not just STL). To pump up a specific project, the grnadest and most elaborate scale must be presented to excite and entice - not just the public but the funding/backing. This is just like politics. IT IS RARE that any project in this country ever is built or completed as "hoped" or "wished" to be.



Everything you listed above HAS been built. Scaled down or built differently - yes - - but BUILT! And this is better progress than more cities can hail.



Metrolink you mentioned. Actually Metrolink has been growing quite nicely and the original plans )which appeared in the PD in 1988) were much more small scale plans overall for the system, stations and trains.

I couldn't help myself but just for the record on the Super Bowl venue requirements (from Wikipedia.com):

A potential venue currently must meet these qualifications in order to be a Super Bowl host:



* Average high temperature of at least 50 degrees Fahrenheit in February. (Unless the game is being played in an indoor arena)

* Stadium with 70,000 seats or more.

* Space for 10 photo trailers and 40 television trucks.

* 600,000 square feet of exhibit space for fan events.

* Large, high-end hotel for teams and NFL.

* 50,000 square feet of space for news media ("Radio Row").

* Enough "quality" hotel rooms within a one-hour drive for 35% of the stadium's capacity.

* Separate practice facilities for each team.

The Jones Dome is designed for 70,000 seating. The Rams requested that it be reduced for easier sellouts.



From http://www.edwardjonesdome.org/domeInfo.htm

The Edward Jones Dome provides multiple stadium configurations that can seat up to 70,000 people.

St Louie Cardinals - World Champs

. . . because I remember that this board serves to promote the good that's happening/happend in our city:

Let's see.... projects that started out big (in the planning) but were scrapped or downgraded:



1. The Dome (original plans...if I recall correctly... would have made it bigger....and a Superbowl contender.... now it can't even bid for a Superbowl...it's too small).



2. The original Ballpark and Village (thank goodness that this recovered before it fell through, lol).



3. The bridge across the Mississippi



4. Metrolink



5. Airport Expansion (the original plans were more ambitious...) 9/11 made it unnecessary though.



6. The Hwy 40 project... (started out big....then fizzled...now they aren't sure that it will even happen...and if it does.... they won't be adding to its capacity...there will be no new lanes....so what's the point?? They will be creating a mess for nothing IMO.)

1. somewhat debunked above - possible it could be temporarily reconfiguered for 70,000 seats. I will admit that the dome itself is disappointing and probably the last dome of its kind to be built - though I don't know what the original plans were.



2. as was said - thank goodness this seems to be going forward as planned.



3. this project is still being planned - I'll consider this failed if nothing's being built 10 years from now.



4. ??? I think the current system is great and further expansion is being planned. Did anyone think the entire dreamed-of network would be build at once?



5. ??? if anything the focus here should be that something grand was built when it wasn't really needed. How was this downgraded - and if it was it's still overbuilt.



6. 40/64 needs new bridges and interchanges - this is the purpose of the project and it is sorely needed. If this project is done within $50M and 6mos as planned it will be a success.

I believe it was disscussed long ago in this post, but actually there is no 630ft constrution limit in the city. It is a myth! In fact Saarinen's original plans for the city called for large towers on either side of the arch in the skyline

^^Yes but the stigma (of the 630' limit) is still very much there. Look at the greatest proposals for the bottle distirct... the tallest building was to top at at 630'... Met Square was proposed at a higher level, but was scaled down to be just under 630'... So most people on here (I think because its been said MANY times) know there isn't an actual rule saying "dont go above 630' " but the rule might as well have been in place, as I have seen one proposal to break thru that barrier (71 / 81 story tower).

crbswiss wrote:I believe it was disscussed long ago in this post, but actually there is no 630ft constrution limit in the city. It is a myth! In fact Saarinen's original plans for the city called for large towers on either side of the arch in the skyline

Not exactly. There is a restriction in the L Jefferson Memorial District. This area includes Laclede's Landing and blocks east of broadway so it wouldn't affect most of downtown or the bottle district. However to say it is a myth is incorrect. The limit in this zoning category is 751 feet above sea level.



You can view the city code here-

http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/t2664.htm

^^ I beleive that most cities have that type of rule inplace, and when you build larger you just have to get a special exemption from the FAA and city council/board...

There was a letter to the editor following up on the WEW article noting the height restriction above (751 feet above sea level) and adding that the Arch grounds are 433 feet above sea level, so that the top of the Arch is 963 feet above sea level.



There's also a height restriction within the CBD that's almost impossible to translate:



26.52.040 Height regulations.



Buildings may be erected to such height that the cubic contents of said building above the established grade shall not exceed the volume of a prism having a base equal to the projected horizontal area of the building and a height of two hundred (200) feet. In the case of buildings occupying a lot having frontage on intersecting streets and which buildings are so designed as to provide a setback or open space at one (1) corner or corners where such street intersections occur, or when such setback begins below the two hundred (200) foot height above the established grade, the volume determined by the above rule may be exceeded by an amount equal to the volume so taken out of the reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height; provided, however, that the total volume of the actual building shall not exceed by more than twenty-five percent (25%) the volume of said reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height. (Ord. 59979 § 14 (part), 1986.)



In other words, it may be hard to understand, but the height restriction ain't no myth.

Wow - this seems odd. It sounds as though there's basically a 200' limit and that a small exception can be made for a setback - especially on a corner (why that doesn't make since probably belongs in another topic).



So, either exceptions beyond the stated exception are routinely given, or what's been posted has been obsolete for some time.

The 751' mark was in a development agreement for that particular parcel. It was supposedly just a preliminary agreement, and approval for taller height was given. That zoning classification is on the books, but if it is actually followed with no variances, how did we get several of the buildings in this city?

bonwich wrote:There was a letter to the editor following up on the WEW article noting the height restriction above (751 feet above sea level) and adding that the Arch grounds are 433 feet above sea level, so that the top of the Arch is 963 feet above sea level.



There's also a height restriction within the CBD that's almost impossible to translate:



26.52.040 Height regulations.



Buildings may be erected to such height that the cubic contents of said building above the established grade shall not exceed the volume of a prism having a base equal to the projected horizontal area of the building and a height of two hundred (200) feet. In the case of buildings occupying a lot having frontage on intersecting streets and which buildings are so designed as to provide a setback or open space at one (1) corner or corners where such street intersections occur, or when such setback begins below the two hundred (200) foot height above the established grade, the volume determined by the above rule may be exceeded by an amount equal to the volume so taken out of the reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height; provided, however, that the total volume of the actual building shall not exceed by more than twenty-five percent (25%) the volume of said reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height. (Ord. 59979 § 14 (part), 1986.)



In other words, it may be hard to understand, but the height restriction ain't no myth.

There's nothing hard to understand about that code. Just read it.



It isn't a height limit, it's a volume limit. The building can be a tall as you want, so long as its volume is no greater than the area of base of the building multiplied by 200'.....I've explained this before. The height restriction is a total myth, other that the small "historic district" down by the landing that is zoned L.



http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?p=32936

^^^751 feet is specifically for the Jefferson Memorial District. I can't find a link to the City of St. Louis District Map, but if memory serves, the Jefferson Memorial District stops at Broadway.



And I added wrong in the above post; the top of the Arch is 1063 feet above sea level. My math major has been revoked by SLU, I'm sure.

^Yes we already know there is a restriction in the Memorial District, I acknowledged that in my post. That restriction ends at brodway as you stated. but there is no height restriction in the CBD. I want that to be perfectly clear because this whole myth has gotten a little old. The codes and not hard to understand if you make an effort to read them clearly.

There's nothing hard to understand about that code. Just read it.

Please provide the legal definition of "prism."

It isn't a height limit, it's a volume limit.

Even if we stipulate for the easiest possible case that "prism" = "cube", that volume then = length x width x height, so there is an upper limit on height, depending upon the building's footprint. And sure, you can taper, but how many tapered buildings do you see on our current skyline?

I've explained this before. {snip}

http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?p=32936

Again, I'm fairly new to this forum. I didn't realize its protocols dictate that posters must read at least six months of prior posts before attempting to add anything to the discussion.

Personally, I prefer all new members read everything that has ever been posted. Makes my job easier.

bonwich wrote: volume then = length x width x height, so there is an upper limit on height, depending upon the building's footprint. And sure, you can taper, but how many tapered buildings do you see on our current skyline?

It means rectangular prizm. You could taper, or more commonly stair the building. This is common among skyscrapers.

bonwich wrote:Again, I'm fairly new to this forum. I didn't realize its protocols dictate that posters must read at least six months of prior posts before attempting to add anything to the discussion.

You have a point here. I'm sorry for being harsh on a new guy, but this ha sbeen discussed ad nausium. Every once in a while boom again with the high restrictingon thing.

bonwich wrote:

There's nothing hard to understand about that code. Just read it.

Please provide the legal definition of "prism."

It isn't a height limit, it's a volume limit.

Even if we stipulate for the easiest possible case that "prism" = "cube", that volume then = length x width x height, so there is an upper limit on height, depending upon the building's footprint. And sure, you can taper, but how many tapered buildings do you see on our current skyline?

I've explained this before. {snip}

http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?p=32936

Again, I'm fairly new to this forum. I didn't realize its protocols dictate that posters must read at least six months of prior posts before attempting to add anything to the discussion.

First of all...welcome to the forum bonwich.



Some times posters come off a little harsh...sometimes they mean it, and many times they're just misunderstood ...



Also, it can sometimes get frustrating when the same questions arise over and over again, but don't let that discourage you from asking. Just expect someone might be a little short with you, but hey UE did the research for you and gave you the link...



It also doesn't hurt to scroll back a few threads...