Share
1,026
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,026

PostSep 09, 2005#151

I'll just throw this idea out there ....



see the "cultural building" in the rendering. .... how about putting the aquarium there.



actually - I'm not sure I like that idea .......

though tit would be cool if the curved glass outer wall could be the other side of say - a large shark tank
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostSep 09, 2005#152

markofucity wrote:tit would be cool


:oops: :lol:



I like the design's cutting-edge nature. It would definitely be an eye-opener to the area and even to the rest of the nation for our downtown. However, I do share the same concerns about not allowing a through street into this project. I still hope to see it come into fruition in one form or another.
1,391
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,391

PostSep 09, 2005#153

Those buildings are wild. It will definitely add to the skyline and will look awesome in pictures.
188
Junior MemberJunior Member
188

PostSep 09, 2005#154

can't put it into words

simply amazing

way more than I expected
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostSep 09, 2005#155

We're not in Kansas anymore! :shock:
667
Senior MemberSenior Member
667

PostSep 09, 2005#156

wow, just wow! :shock:
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostSep 09, 2005#157

This is exciting, no doubt about it. I can't wait to see the new skyline. My only fear is this thing turning out to be the St. Louis version of Detroit's Ren Center. A striking fortress is still a fortress. I really hope it is integrated into the neighorhood so that that it will encourage further development. The wall created by the Conv Center and Dome (intentional?) stopped downtown from moving north. This is our chance to change that - unless it is another fortress. I would love to see the northside neighborhoods flow naturally into downtown. Does anybody have a notion how this will work with existing developments, such as the townhouses at St. Joseph Shrine?
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostSep 09, 2005#158

I suppose superblocks are okay if they constitute a major destination. The Arch of course has awesome design though on a superblock of grounds, yet it obviously attracts many visitors. Downtown also has all of the sports venues, the convention center, major hotels, civic buildings, St. Louis Centre and Union Station also as superblocks, but each intended as a major destination.



In the context of the Bottle District, you have the existing dome and convention center to its south, the existing Columbus Square pocket neighborhood to the west, the future casino complex to the east and the future bridge complex to the north. Thus, the site for the Bottle District is already disconnected from its surrounding neighborhoods. So then, hopefully the Bottle District will at least act as a link between the dome/convention center and the landing/gaming area. Though it won't serve as a gateway to northside neighborhoods, it appears the new bridge would have cut off this connection anyway.



And though the Bottle District will be the final nail in the coffin for St. Louis Centre, the mall was already dead, so heck, it's the final shovel full of dirt. But I hope that the Bottle District is designed well enough that its popularity doesn't wear off in a few years. Afterall, St. Louis Centre was considered novel and modern for 1985, and crowded too in its first few years.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostSep 09, 2005#159

Thanks Southslider. You have put the Bottle District placement into perspective for me. I, too, hope the design is good enough to remain vital. I was around when they opened St. Louis Centre. It was very popular and had stores unique to the St. Louis market. Besides the ugly white and green bands, seemed like a go for downtown St. Louis. It was exciting back then because there were lots of new office buildings and the new mall seemed liked a good thing. Having all those stores downtown really made it easy to live in the city without a car. But, the residential factor was missing. Downtown is a different place now because of the growing residential population. People blame the demise of StL Centre on its design - and there is truth to that, but the real problem is that St. Louisians had similar places to shop near their houses. After one or two visits, they didn't need to go anymore.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostSep 09, 2005#160

Well those are some designs.



First off, regardless of St. Louis Center, I think the sucess of the bottle district will be directly tied to the sucess of St. Louis as a tourist/ convention destination. I would guess no one will go going to buy there groceries in the Bottle District.



Secondly, The large St. Louis along 70 is a nice touch and I really like the fact that the buildings seem like they will be close to the highway, making for a much more dense feeling entering downtown.



However, beyond that i am not sure I like this design one bit. Fanciful yes. Unique yes. Atractive, well I would say no, as I am not sure that these buildings will be great at atracting people into the area. The designs look fortress like regardless of any streets running through the project. Yes, supperblocks can work like the Arch grounds, but I would say there is a higher chance of this developemnt working out like the Dome. The dome is great at bringing people in when there is a sporting event, but the fact is that the whole convention center complex is a huge wall that divides downtown and any northern neighborhood. I fear this development will do the same, further disconecting the two areas. Instead of one imposing block, now there wil be two imposing bocks, one filled with glass and steal towers. Moreover, all of the glass and sharp angles only adds to the dominating and imposing nature of the project.

This design might be many things, but a good idea, it is not.
480
Full MemberFull Member
480

PostSep 09, 2005#161

I'm sorry, but comparing what is on those renderings to St. Louis Centre is ludicrous. One major fact is that people will live there, which has to increase pedestrian traffic for the residents and the suburbanites who visit them and realize the city really is better than cookie cutter suburbs. Secondly, visitors will see that from the highway, and after the standard lets check out the Arch thing they will head down there and spend hours there, and also spend money there. The fact that people live there will make it part of the neighborhood, after all that's what neighborhoods are, places where people live.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostSep 09, 2005#162

No one thinks that St. Louis Centre is anywhere close to the same level as the Bottle District development. But, I think the fear is having it go out of style. When you have seen so many big developments come and go, you recognize the cycle. It is easy to find big, comprehensive developments that were going to save the day for any given downtown in the country that eventually became big white elephants. However, having the residential is key. Anybody that wants to build new residential towers in DTSTL has my support.
729
Senior MemberSenior Member
729

PostSep 09, 2005#163

This thing is really going to be awesome and it is amazing to me that most people don't even know about it. I can't tell you how many people I talk to both at work and just friends of mine who have no idea what the Bottle District even is. In general, I would say that 90% of the people in St. Louis are going to be blown away.



Downtown grows is spurts. It gets hot, then cools for a bit. Well, get ready for the next hot hot hot cycle and it will be a long one I think.



Not sure if anyone saw the Time Magazine supplement this week but it's all about style and design. They have a section on residential buildings now being built by renowned designers. They call it "Starchitecture" and how these buildings are very successful and how much money they command. They even site upcoming projects in St. Louis by Daniel Libeskind in one little paragraph. But one example was a project in Denver (do not remember who the designer was) and the condos sold for $500 a square foot where comparable new projects were selling for an average of less than $200 a square foot. It will be interesting to see what the residential will go for within the Bottle District.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostSep 09, 2005#164

Don't worry, people at work are going to notice this thing soon. It is off charts and will become a landmark. I think it will be noticed far and wide.
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostSep 09, 2005#165

Maybe with football season about to start, the developers could advertise at the dome, with signage, an information booth, etc.



I'm sure all the hoosiers I see at the games will make Sammy Hagar's bar their main pre-game party spot.
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostSep 09, 2005#166

It may look like a fortress, but...



As long as it has plenty of pedestrian entrances and exits, thats all you need. I tell ya... St Louis and their cars....
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostSep 09, 2005#167

Yeah plenty of ways in and out don't make a damn bit of difference if it feels like you are walking into the middle of a glass and steel castle. (yeah yeah i know the American Plate Glass building in pittsburgh is cool)

Moreover, the desire for active streets through such a development is more than because people want to drive there cars. An active and intact street grid is a great way to help ensure that the development does not act as a barier to other parts of the city. An active and intact street grid gives each street more life and more action. street full of cars and sidewalks packed with people, makes me feel safe and helps with the hustle and busle feel people want in cities.



Regardless, I don't think this design is good for this type of development. Just not a good mix.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostSep 09, 2005#168

St. Louis and their cars? Don't worry, we can be sure there will be plenty of parking built into this project - fortress or not. JMedwick already explained why we are concerned about a fortress. It is because we want it to be a part of downtown St. Louis. Not just a place you drive to and then drive out of. If it is a fortress, people will drive to Bottle District and then drive home. Or drive to the BD and then drive over to Ballpark Village later. Like going from one shopping center to the other. Many of us would prefer that it be a part of the city fabric so people will walk back and forth --- therefore, be a part of the city. A fortress can suck up the energy of a neighborhood, but not send any energy back out. I hope this project will generate energy for other parts of downtown.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostSep 09, 2005#169

irocktheparty2000 wrote:This thing is really going to be awesome and it is amazing to me that most people don't even know about it. I can't tell you how many people I talk to both at work and just friends of mine who have no idea what the Bottle District even is. In general, I would say that 90% of the people in St. Louis are going to be blown away.



Downtown grows is spurts. It gets hot, then cools for a bit. Well, get ready for the next hot hot hot cycle and it will be a long one I think.



Not sure if anyone saw the Time Magazine supplement this week but it's all about style and design. They have a section on residential buildings now being built by renowned designers. They call it "Starchitecture" and how these buildings are very successful and how much money they command. They even site upcoming projects in St. Louis by Daniel Libeskind in one little paragraph. But one example was a project in Denver (do not remember who the designer was) and the condos sold for $500 a square foot where comparable new projects were selling for an average of less than $200 a square foot. It will be interesting to see what the residential will go for within the Bottle District.
Thanks for the heads on the Time magazine.



I agree with you 100%, I think the Bottle District and St. Louis Centre are different animals in different eras; St. Louis Galleria (1986) helped to decimate St. Louis Centre (1985). St. Louis Centre was connected well to the downtown street grid, was in the heart of the CBD and it still died for a number of reasons.



At the time St. Louis Centre opened, it and Frontenac, were the only upscale shopping destinations in the region. People flocked down to St. Louis Centre because it offered new-to-St. Louis stores, but when the St. Louis Galleria (formerly Westroads Shopping Center) opened in 1986, that splintered customers between three malls. Granted there are three upscale malls now, but the population has grown a bit and moved west. And naturally, as the city suffered from depopulation, so would St. Louis Centre. Crime, parking issues, lack of residential support, downtown corporate relocations, downsizings, and losses added to the demise of St. Louis Centre. It would have been nice if MetroLink had been around when St. Louis Centre first opened. Its prospects for survival could have been greater, I think.



I do think the Bottle District will wear off with some people, but not like St. Louis Centre.



The Bottle District is offering residential, commercial, entertainment, and office amenities. That is a stark contrast to St. Louis Centre, which was primarily a shopping palace. Yes, the Bottle District will be cut off from most of the grid due to the dome, interstate, and possibly the new bridge when built, but I don't think it will suffer the same fate as St. Louis Centre due to the contrasts I've noted.



Also, I strongly believe that Columbus Square and other property owners along Cole St. can expect buyouts and redevelopment. Hopefully, as this happens they'll re-grid the streets, as they are doing at the ballpark village, which could have one or two streets entering the Bottle District. The new bridge, which will happen, and the Bottle District are going to make the area north of the dome hot. ESPECIALLY, since things are on the upswing in Old North St. Louis - just north of the area. In 10-15 years, I suspect we won't recognize the area. I certainly hope that's the case.
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostSep 09, 2005#170

That's kind of what I've been worried about - the northern edge of downtown is pretty dead, and the dome cuts off direct access from the south.



If we get to the point where the vacant lots behind the Banker's Lofts, Dorsa, etc. are filled with new buildings, maybe that would help connect the Bottle District with the rest of downtown.
1,649
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
1,649

PostSep 09, 2005#171

Arch City wrote:Also, I strongly believe that Columbus Square and other property owners along Cole St. can expect buyouts and redevelopment. Hopefully, as this happens they'll re-grid the streets, as they are doing at the ballpark village, which could have one or two streets entering the Bottle District. The new bridge, which will happen, and the Bottle District are going to make the area north of the dome hot. ESPECIALLY, since things are on the upswing in Old North St. Louis - just north of the area. In 10-15 years, I suspect we won't recognize the area. I certainly hope that's the case.


Don't forget that <A HREF="http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t ... ighborhood Gardens</A> is already under redevelopment with displays planned to be ready by the end of the year and leasing starting next spring!
145
Junior MemberJunior Member
145

PostSep 09, 2005#172

TheWayoftheArch wrote:"holy tuna salad, look over there..."


Holy tuna salad INDEED!! :o



IMHO The fact that phase 1 includes "residential tower c" makes this much more likely to succeed than STL Center or Union Station which were driven by attracting non-downtown residents and tourists.



More residents downtown (in super blocks or anything else) helps build the critical mass downtown needs.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostSep 09, 2005#173

I think AC's synopsis of StL Centre is good, but not entirely on the mark.



StL Centre isn't connected well to the street grid, for its full floor plates are on the 2nd thru 4th floors with bridges over Washington (hopefully not much longer) and Locust. And there are huge blank street walls on 6th and 7th, in addition to the tunnel effects on Washington and Locust. Plus, City pop continued to fall in the 1980s and 1990s but the rates were much less than the 1970s, the worst decade of percentage loss for the City. So, StL Centre opened with the understanding that the City had already significantly lost population.



But most importantly, AC is right in that downtown lacked the residential market to help support StL Centre, and how the revamped Galleria just outside the City soon offered strong competition.



If the Bottle District is mixed use from the start including residential (StL Centre does have offices), then the BD already has better footing than the Centre. And of course, the number of residents about downtown are now skyrocketing, unlike 20 years ago.

PostSep 09, 2005#174

As long as it has plenty of pedestrian entrances and exits, thats all you need. I tell ya... St Louis and their cars....


To prove that it's not about "our" cars, I'll borrow brickandmortar's example. Surely, Times Square would not be the same without Broadway, Seventh Avenue and 42nd Street. And surely, New Yorkers cannot be called auto-dependent folks. Well, it's the same concern here even in Midwestern St. Louis.



If you want to feel the pulse of the City, you want spaces to be accessible and traversed by all modes of travel. Otherwise, they feel a little lifeless, fake, and controlled. Thus, such spaces risk feeling potentially uncomfortable, uninviting and ultimately dead.



Large spaces cut off from streets, like malls or parks, depend on a stream of outside visitors to make them feel lively or safe. But those spaces interconnected with other places benefit from permitting other activities to spill into their shared streets.



How will this fortress feel when it's not tourist season or there isn't a game or convention nearby? Hopefully, the added density in the residential towers can lend some added life to this privatized space. But who will choose to live in a gated themepark atmosphere? Surely, they choose to live there not just for the BD, but the greater downtown amenities. Then, provide both the insiders and outsides public street access and integrate this new district into its larger neighborhood.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostSep 09, 2005#175

southslider wrote:I think AC's synopsis of StL Centre is good, but not entirely on the mark.



StL Centre isn't connected well to the street grid, for its full floor plates are on the 2nd thru 4th floors with bridges over Washington (hopefully not much longer) and Locust. And there are huge blank street walls on 6th and 7th, in addition to the tunnel effects on Washington and Locust. Plus, City pop continued to fall in the 1980s and 1990s but the rates were much less than the 1970s, the worst decade of percentage loss for the City. So, StL Centre opened with the understanding that the City had already significantly lost population.



But most importantly, AC is right in that downtown lacked the residential market to help support StL Centre, and how the revamped Galleria just outside the City soon offered strong competition.
True, but when Simon Properties studied the demographics of the city, I am sure they did not consider population losses of the 70's. They likely only considered the current demographics within an incremental radius of downtown at the time of their development. If people kept moving further west, north, and south the demographics and disposable income initially measured also changed.



Also, aesthetically St. Louis Centre may not have been the best or most inviting because of the "blank walls", but it was not a "fortress" or an island unto itself. In that sense, it was connected well to the street grid.
Read more posts (1551 remaining)
Share