The Bottle District

Alex Ihnen · PostNov 02, 2006#11262006-11-02T22:08+00:00

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.

UE - you haven't really provided an explanation. I understand the requirement, and how this can translate into a building taller than 200'. For example, the Chase Park Plaze limestone building is stepped back and therefore is higher than 200', but may have the volume of a 200' tall cube with the same footprint.

HOWEVER, Met Square and One US Bank aren't stepped back and are ~600ft and ~500ft respectively. Obviously their volume is greater than a building with the same foot print that is 200' tall. The building's cross sections are the same at the top and bottom. What gives? I'm guessing they just issue variances each time . . .

bonwich · PostNov 02, 2006#11272006-11-02T22:10+00:00

OK, but...

Urban Elitist wrote:there is no height restriction in the CBD.

However, the very ordinance Urban Elitist cites headlines the same paragraph as "Height Regulations." So what was the intent of the BofA in writing such an ordinance, and in titling it that way? And why did they state the theoretical restraint on height based on the volume of a prism? Is that standard language in other cities' ordinances, or did it come from some preconceived notion of a building's maximum height?

And has anyone ever worked out the math? Sure, theoretically you could have an infinitely high needle extending from the top of the building, but the practical restriction is the size of the footprint (are there any buildings downtown that exceed a one-square-block footprint?), as well as the minimum upper-floor area needed to result in occupiable (and leasable) space.

Seems pretty weird that we'd have an ordinance regulating height that doesn't actually regulate height.

urban elitist · PostNov 02, 2006#11282006-11-02T22:25+00:00

Ihnen wrote:HOWEVER, Met Square and One US Bank aren't stepped back and are ~600ft and ~500ft respectively. Obviously their volume is greater than a building with the same foot print that is 200' tall. The building's cross sections are the same at the top and bottom. What gives? I'm guessing they just issue variances each time . . .

I don't know and I'm not calling the city to find out. It if breaks the volume restriction, then they recieved a variance. Plain and simple.

However, the very ordinance Urban Elitist cites headlines the same paragraph as "Height Regulations." So what was the intent of the BofA in writing such an ordinance, and in titling it that way? And why did they state the theoretical restraint on height based on the volume of a prism? Is that standard language in other cities' ordinances, or did it come from some preconceived notion of a building's maximum height?

Seems pretty weird that we'd have an ordinance regulating height that doesn't actually regulate height.

You've missed my point. The ordinance does restrict height(which is why is is named Height Restrictions"), but it is based on the volume of the building NOT the height of the Arch. You can in fact build higher than the Arch.

eitherway, this has been discussed to death before. If you want more info, use the forum search feature. in this very thread earlier, this discussion took place. Search for it.

If you still have questions about variances and what not, do some research, call the city, I'm not doing it for you.

bonwich · PostNov 02, 2006#11292006-11-02T22:40+00:00

The Urban Elitist needs to work a bit on his/her expository prose. As noted, his/her quote said

there is no height restriction in the CBD.

And yet, in the follow-up post, s/he says

The ordinance does restrict height.

So which is it? (I didn't bring up the height of the Arch. I just stated that there was, in fact, a height restriction -- and I wondered what the intent of said restriction is. I'm sorry if you're tired of talking about it, but you haven't provided any evidence other than a bunch of circular arguments.)

call the city

Oooh, yes, this frequently gets results. I think I'll call my pal Esley instead. Esley always knows these kinds of things.

Alex Ihnen · PostNov 02, 2006#11302006-11-02T22:57+00:00

In all fairness UE is an engineer, not a writer!

urban elitist · PostNov 03, 2006#11312006-11-03T00:16+00:00

bonwich wrote:So which is it? (I didn't bring up the height of the Arch. I just stated that there was, in fact, a height restriction -- and I wondered what the intent of said restriction is. I'm sorry if you're tired of talking about it, but you haven't provided any evidence other than a bunch of circular arguments.)

Nice way to cherry pick peices of my statments.

This entire conversasion started two pages ago when Delabiver-skinker said there was a 630' height restiction, aka that Mysterious Arch height restriction. I assumed you were still talking about that restriction......

Aslo there isn't a hard height restriction (630 ft, the Arch ect), there is a limit based on volume. If you would have quoted my entire statements, that would be clear. If there is no Sea level height restriction, I don't considewr that a true height restriction. As for why they defined it that way(based on volume), damned if iI know, call them up and ask.

wheelscomp · PostNov 03, 2006#11322006-11-03T04:18+00:00

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

well im a new member and i just read all that and it amounted to a few fuming forumers and alot of wasted time and effort. haha, i kid. ive been reading this forum for a very long time and find the bickering to be the most entertaining. personally i like the "doug vs. the rest of the forum" battle about the TIFs for ballpark village.

soulardd · PostNov 03, 2006#11332006-11-03T04:51+00:00

So about the Bottle District... Is anyone else out there still pulling for this thing? I hope they get their act together and put something decent in with plenty of residential. All the naysayers have had good points, but I think proximity to the new casino, the dome, the landing, and washinton avenue are some definite positive points. Anyone think downtown momentum could save it?

MattnSTL · PostNov 03, 2006#11342006-11-03T04:55+00:00

^It can be a little annoying to read sometimes, but I wouldn't give up my power just to avoid reading something I would probably still read anyway. I'm always amazed at the staying power the height topic has. It seems to come up every two months or so.

PostNov 03, 2006#11352006-11-03T04:56+00:00

To the next post. Yes, I'm still pulling for it. I know that it will probably not look like the renderings thus far, but I am still hoping that future plans will still contain highrises.

rbb · PostNov 03, 2006#11362006-11-03T13:19+00:00

Re: height limits, mean height above sea level, et al

I believe this was posted many pages back in this thread (one of the many times this has been argued in the 6 mos or so I've been reading this board), and thought it relevant enough to reference again:

Mayor Slay's blog - June 20, 2006

The Bottle District, a mixed-use development planned for an area immediately north of the Jones Dome, has taken a couple steps forward. At its meeting on June 7, the City’s Planning Commission voted to recommend both Planned Unit Development legislation and zoning change legislation for the 15-acre District for passage by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. When completed in several phases, the development is expected to include “Times Square” signage (the details of which are still being negotiated), as well as hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail, entertainment, office, and residential space. Bottle District developers have been working with traffic planners, the CVC, and the Regional Convention and Sports Authority to improve access to the District. Building heights in the District will be limited to 751 feet above mean sea level.

and a clarification of "mean sea level" posted the next day

A couple of you have emailed or asked about a phrase I noted in the draft PUD ordinance for the Bottle District.

The "751 feet above mean sea level" language in the draft of the PUD ordinance would permit building heights of approximately 306 feet. That’s boiler plate language limiting heights for areas close to the Arch, but it is in the draft PUD ordinance for the Bottle District (which is further away from the Arch) both by inadvertence — and by caution. The Arch is the dominant landmark in the City’s skyline. It is everyone’s intent that some new buildings in the Bottle District will be taller than 306 feet.

Here’s how we will handle it: We’ll consider the impact of any new tall buildings added to the skyline very, very carefully. The “751 feet AMSL” language will be modified when the developers let us know exactly what they are planning to do — and when we’ve looked at the effect such buildings would have on the Arch.

FYI: Barb Geisman thinks the height limitation in the final PUD ordinance will probably be 50-60 stories. Somebody with a GPS will have to figure what that is in XXX feet AMSL.

-RBB

urban elitist · PostNov 03, 2006#11372006-11-03T13:58+00:00

^That's nice, but that's not what we were talking about. Actually I wish we were talking about the height of BD buildings because that would have been on topic.

stlbiggestfan · PostNov 03, 2006#11382006-11-03T17:50+00:00

I hope something will happen with TBD. Given its prominent location, especially if I-70 is moved, the site will serve as an important gateway to the city. It might also encourage other tall buildings in the area, thereby providing a wider skyline.

innov8ion · PostNov 22, 2006#11392006-11-22T03:36+00:00

No big deal. It looks like everything that was talked about for the Bottle District will now be at the Pinnacle location. This makes much more sense and St. Louis will be better off for it.

stlmike · PostNov 22, 2006#11402006-11-22T08:29+00:00

Was anything good knocked down for this space? It's a big dirt hole now, right?

innov8ion · PostNov 22, 2006#11412006-11-22T13:36+00:00

stlmike wrote:Was anything good knocked down for this space? It's a big dirt hole now, right?

Nothing was knocked down that I know of. I think it's more of an open space as opposed to a big dirt hole unlike the hole outside Busch. Perhaps they could beautify it in the near term until it's ready for some kind of development. At least the tailgaters will be happy!

moorlander · PostNov 22, 2006#11422006-11-22T15:27+00:00

innov8ion wrote:No big deal. It looks like everything that was talked about for the Bottle District will now be at the Pinnacle location. This makes much more sense and St. Louis will be better off for it.

I seriously doubt this... I think it strengthens TBD!!!

Alex Ihnen · PostNov 22, 2006#11432006-11-22T16:26+00:00

I seriously doubt this... I think it strengthens TBD!!!

If only it would strengthen their website!

http://www.thebottledistrict.com/newsvi ... headerID=5

jambalaya · PostNov 22, 2006#11442006-11-22T21:42+00:00

bpe235 wrote:
innov8ion wrote:No big deal. It looks like everything that was talked about for the Bottle District will now be at the Pinnacle location. This makes much more sense and St. Louis will be better off for it.

I seriously doubt this... I think it strengthens TBD!!!

Typically casino developments are not very friendly to their neighbors - they are like my spoiled nephew - they don't share very well. Once they have you inside the casino campus they would like to keep you there until you spend all your money. I seriously doubt that the Pinnacle announcement does anything to strengthen TBD - it would only tend to cause substantial tenant drift over to their development because things are actually happening on the Pinnacle site. I still think the Pinnacle announcement was dangling a phase 2 carrot out there to posture for some future TIF opportunities (IMO). I think if anything happens at TBD it will be radically scaled back and have a reduced tenant mix (mostly if not entirely residential - which is not a bad thing for DT). If TBD truly wanted to be a mixed-use urban entertainment district they missed their development window.

loftlover · PostNov 22, 2006#11452006-11-22T23:39+00:00

jambalaya wrote:
bpe235 wrote:
innov8ion wrote:No big deal. It looks like everything that was talked about for the Bottle District will now be at the Pinnacle location. This makes much more sense and St. Louis will be better off for it.

I seriously doubt this... I think it strengthens TBD!!!

Typically casino developments are not very friendly to their neighbors - they are like my spoiled nephew - they don't share very well. Once they have you inside the casino campus they would like to keep you there until you spend all your money. I seriously doubt that the Pinnacle announcement does anything to strengthen TBD - it would only tend to cause substantial tenant drift over to their development because things are actually happening on the Pinnacle site. I still think the Pinnacle announcement was dangling a phase 2 carrot out there to posture for some future TIF opportunities (IMO). I think if anything happens at TBD it will be radically scaled back and have a reduced tenant mix (mostly if not entirely residential - which is not a bad thing for DT). If TBD truly wanted to be a mixed-use urban entertainment district they missed their development window.

^, J, you and I talked a while back and I must say you had this development pegged from the start. My fingers are still crossed but there's enough going on DT that I'm content with or without this project.

stldtfan · PostNov 23, 2006#11462006-11-23T01:53+00:00

You are right on about the casino's trying to keep people on their premises as much as possible. The only benefit (and this is a major one) is the tax revenue (low as it may be for a few years). I do not see other developments benefiting too much from this, apart from the exposure from people coming DT to Pinnacle.

moorlander · PostNov 23, 2006#11472006-11-23T02:59+00:00

bpe235 wrote:
innov8ion wrote:No big deal. It looks like everything that was talked about for the Bottle District will now be at the Pinnacle location. This makes much more sense and St. Louis will be better off for it.

I seriously doubt this... I think it strengthens TBD!!!

Yes boyz and girls i'm quote'n myself but i thought i would clairify... I think this "phase 2" of the casino development will be beneficial to TBD in the long run. Whether it is McGuire who builds it or if it is sold to another developer, I think the concentration of residential and retail to the north of the casino will in turn spur further development to the west...ie TBD

jambalaya · PostNov 23, 2006#11482006-11-23T05:00+00:00

I hope you're right....but I doubt it.

innov8ion · PostNov 23, 2006#11492006-11-23T16:48+00:00

bpe235 wrote:
bpe235 wrote:
innov8ion wrote:No big deal. It looks like everything that was talked about for the Bottle District will now be at the Pinnacle location. This makes much more sense and St. Louis will be better off for it.

I seriously doubt this... I think it strengthens TBD!!!

Yes boyz and girls i'm quote'n myself but i thought i would clairify... I think this "phase 2" of the casino development will be beneficial to TBD in the long run. Whether it is McGuire who builds it or if it is sold to another developer, I think the concentration of residential and retail to the north of the casino will in turn spur further development to the west...ie TBD

Perhaps, but it may take 5 years or more. TBD & McGuire missed the boat and lost out in the near term. The problem of residential next to the projects would still need to be dealt with.

tb1000 · PostNov 23, 2006#11502006-11-23T19:48+00:00

They should turn TBD site into a tailgating park.

The Bottle District

Choose Display Mode