urbanSTL

I don't think a destination like what is being proposed in those renderings needs through traffic...as long as people have a parking space in a garage or in a lot it's a lot more enjoyable for people to be able to meander about in an environment scaled specifically for human beings and not cars.



People make these destinations successful.

I have to respectfully disagree with the statement about no need for a through street. I remember in the late 70's when State Street in Chicago was closed to all but transit traffic. This caused retail on the street to wither so rapidly that it was reopened to all traffic about a decade later. Also one of the reasons frequently mentioned when discussing the decline of the mall verses the popularity of lifestyle centers is the dead zone created because of pedestrian only access. By the way, the Chicago Sun-Times is doing a series on their downtown starting today, it is great reading.

I agree, this project should have access from as many points as practical- don't turn your back on anything. Havn't we learned that super-blocks dont really work? not for public housing, not for ped and auto traffic, and not here. especially since right next door is a big chunck of limited access- the dome and convention center.



connections= good

barriers= bad

i'll agree with both points, we need both a human scaled, pedestrian friendly environment, but we should also have access for traffic. The trick is to take care of the former before the latter, so the traffic that comes in knows it will have to slow down and watch for pedestrians, and discourage people who just want to zoom through the area. Pedestrian malls blow except in very very high density areas, keep it open to traffic, but keep the traffic slow and pedestrian friendly. If this development lives up to its potential, I think it'll only benefit surrounding blocks and streets, and if we want the surroundings to capitalize on the district as much as possible then we'll want them to be as connected as possible.

For the Record:



I have lived in St. Louis since 1962 (the year I was born). I have been an architectural/urban development fanatic since about 1974. I have clipped and saved - to this day - renderings of just about every significant project proposed in the St. Louis area since the 70's, and have eagerly followed the progress (or lack of) on every one of these developments. As has been pointed out, some projects get built, some don't.



No doubt about it, St. Louis development is booming right now, and probably will continue to for many years to come. I believe we have reached that important point of "critical mass" that assures the momentum will feed on itself, and sustain long-term growth. Arch City, I share your optimism. I believe St. Louis' glass is probably 2/3's full right now.



I just don't think the Bottle District, as proposed, is going to happen. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

i really hope this project goes through. But i'm guessing that especially with someone like Libeskind onboard there will be lots of issues in terms of design and costs. Starchitect projects don't tend to be cheap (not necessarily because of the architect fees, but the design of the buildings are far from conventional or cookie cutter, which means much higher construction costs), and if Libeskind goes for his usual flair and panache, it might just ratchet costs up considerably(especially considering what their original idea was ) which could mean refinancing and redealing contracts, or more likely, redesigning the project to fit the preconceived budget.



Anywho, Libeskind is a professional, so hopefully he's already taken this into account in his design, and is busily working towards an awesome buildable district.

JCity wrote:I saw renderings of the Bottle District today, and they look incredible.

I found these renderings of the Bottle District on the Forum Studios Website



They look distinctly Liebeskind, are these what you saw?

Holy %$&^$&^%$ - Those are friggin unbelievable! I'll donate money to see that built. Can I we start a collection?



I don't want to get too excited but - well maybe I do want to get too excited.

Again .. I know I sholdn't get too excited over a rendering that hasn't even been officially announced yet .... but good god! And it sure as hell seems like that's the bottle district. The background skiyline with the dome and what not is pretty unmistakable.



seriously can we start a raffle or something .... anything. This sort of project could really turn downtown around. I just fear that it will either: (a)be trimmed down to suburban office park architecture (b) never be built at all or (c) be built only partially (liek so many of our other past projects).



This is the sort of thing the city and state should invest 400 million in. This would do a whole hell of a lot more for the city than the new stadium ....



I mean good God - with that devlopment, the new casino and the revitalized Wahington Avenue - our convention business would skyrocket.



One more point ... think hwo cool it would look against the backdrop of the proposed bridge.

Form over function? It looks like a giant street-life-killing superblock to me. But I guess some on this forum will settle for fancy design even when the design lacks any connection to its surrounding urban fabric or context.

it looks like the design has a lot of retail and several large residential towers - plus I thought that the "stepped" design allowed for several layers of retail on the inside of the "bowl." I would think that would encourage a tremendous ammount of pedestrian traffic ....



But I guess I would rather see an actual functioing street going through the middle ... why couldn't they keep the city grid intact and build this design on top of it? How hard would it be to tunnel those streets through the buildings ....

Those designs would be a sight to see in St. Louis. I like the idea of the Bowl with the different levels of retail etc. But it does seem "fortress" like...

This design is not much different from the first renderings in regards to its relationship with the street grid. Granted I like these renderings much more than what I first saw.



I'd really like to see through streets include automobiles as well in this project. Can you imagine Times Square with no cars? I think it'd lose a lot of its hustle and bustle. The designers need to encourage as many activites as they can so that this won't be another St. Louis Centre.

I agree .... this would be much better with active streets runnng through it ....



Plus it could make for a really impressive drive

First time posting long time lurker, from the Mayor Slay Blog/Website

Bottle District



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, September 08, 2005



Printer-Friendly Version





Groundbreaking for the downtown Bottle District is currently slated for September 27. No further details.



http://www.mayorslay.com/news/display.asp?prID=167

If this thing is really happening, you guys are going to have fun watching it go up. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

If you look at one of the renderings, it has heights, and one of the phase two condo towers is 440 ft. That is quite impressive, and just what I was hoping for. Now lets see if this design can be built.

Manchester wrote:




Groundbreaking for the downtown Bottle District is currently slated for September 27.

Technically Fall 2005, not summer...I'm disappointed



Actually, I was thinking a good idea for the next forum meet would be to hold an unofficial ground breaking ceremony for the Bottle District. Guess they beat me to it. Oh well, looks like this is a pipe dream no longer!!! Huzzah!

Did anybody notice the "St. Louis" imbedded into the glass wall along the I-70 side of the 3rd picture. That would be pretty cool for all those cross country drivers and people coming over the river, and what if it was lit up? You get a big St. Louis lit up a few blocks over from the arch. Now that would be an impressive entrance to the city.

^Good eye, I didn't notice that. Then again I was no good at those hollusion pictures either.

That St. Louis in the glass is really cool. God I can't wait for this.