urbanSTL

man, i was really pumped and excited about Libeskind turning something cool out. I like the dramatic shape, and the texture and what not, but i'm going to echo Jmedwick's sentiment about the connectivity and southslider's observations of what looks to be a pretty dismal streetscape along 7th street. This is way too inward looking, it's a fortress of retail and parking with residential look out towers. The skins and shapes are dramatic but i fear they'll only look cool the first couple of times you drive by it on I-70, it won't make up for the pitfalls of it's mall style layout in what should be an urban neighborhood.



Looking at the plans for each level, it seems to have an insane amount of parking, it's basically a huge funky parking complex with retail on the groundlevel. Wasn't this targeted at conventioneers and nearby tourists? Will people in West County drive downtown to go to what is shaping up to be nothing but an updated version of a mall?(then again, maybe they're gearing for the Illinois side) The problem isn't with the architectural style the problem is with the concept. If they wanted to build a DISTRICT, they should have done so, created the funky blocks and spaces but integrated it into the street grid as well, tried to space out all of those service and access entrances and exits so as to minimize their impact, not concentrate them along one street. Tried to create a real thriving neighborhood that would hopefully expand into its surroundings and spark development, not concentrate everything inside.



Is it a disaster? I don't think so, i'm sure it'll be a unique experience for the first couple of years, and it will certainly make people curious when they see this crazy cool structure. However, i fear that once the novelty has faded, and starchitect lifestyle centers become the rage in St. Chuck or any number of burbs we'll be back at square one. I think the idea could have been pulled off in a more integrated an thoughtful manner that would maximize the potential for spin off development, as it stands i fear it might go the way of the St. Louis centre.....and i'll agree, regardless of trite architecture and recycled style i'm guessing the Ballpark Village will be a bigger hit both in terms of attracting St. Louisans and tourists, but also in sparking spin off development around it.



Let's hope i'm proven wrong though I think the Bottle District could work as the center of a high density residential district, but chances of that developing from where we are today seem kind of slim......

There's a huge supply of confidence among the commercial real estate developers in St. Louis that several major projects will be completed. Along with Chouteau's Pond, the Bottle District will position St. Louis as a city of the future. Although I like HOK, the designs are relatively conservative - probably to match their client's requests.



Something Dan McGuire did reveral at last week's breakfast was that Leibeskind went to the top of the Arch on his honeymoon. As any decent architect, I think it's likely that he understands the culture of St. Louis and has designed something that will advance the city.



Visionary. Could the Arch be built today? Probably not. Folks rejected the Forest Park Gates hands down. Swift judgement is too common in this city.

I liked the first rendering's res towers a little more. However, the second go-round seemed to be much more practical. I love the cutting edge design, it's something new and fresh that St. Louis needs, to quit being afraid of designing something new and different looking.



That said, I can understand the skeptics, as well as those with the concerns over it's setup. I'm also a little concerned about the street level on the outside of the structure. But I have a feeling that, as most projects, they evolve over time, and I think we could see that the project modifies itself to be more inviting from the outside, while still keeping the majestic and fortress like feeling. I personally like the fact that it looks like a fortress, it's a little itimidating, but some of the best structures are.



I just want people to be able to drive through the structure. I don't think that will happen, but if pedestrian entry ways are built all around the structure, I'll be find with that.

To expand on what Matt mentioned,



I loved those Forest Park "gates" which were not gates but entry posts and ornamental signage.



Does anyone have a link or renderings and news stories links about those Forest Park "gates" that were shot down because they did not represent the park's formalness and use of brick, stone, and other masonry?

I would like a thread on those "gates" as a missed opportunity.



Back to topic, there needs to be more housing than 500units at the Bottle District.

I'm not pessimistic that the BD will be built, but rather I worry about its longterm sustainability.



In 1985, St. Louis followed national trends, opening both a festival marketplace akin to Baltimore's Harbor Place in our Union Station as well as a large multi-level indoor mall akin to Philly's East Market Place in our St. Louis Centre. The idea of an outdoor lifestyle center seems more novel right now, but even San Diego opened its outdoor mall of closed streets with eye-catching architecture, Horton Plaza, in 1985.



Even in St. Louis, the Boulevard is opening in Richmond Heights prior to our Bottle District. Though it would somewhat be poetic justice if the Bottle District hurt the Boulevard akin to how the Galleria killed StL Centre, I would hope each could be successful mixed-use developments in the long-term. Ironically, though, The Boulevard actually allows through-streets, despite being along pedestrian-intimidating Brentwood as well as Interstates 64 and 170.



So I'm brought back to Horton Plaza in San Diego as the best comparison of a downtown outdoor shopping mall with some mixed use, mostly retail, on-site parking and closed streets. Like BD's proximity to our Laclede's Landing, Horton Plaza is close to San Diego's Gaslight Quarter. Like BD's super-modernist design, HP has a fake European look (think a taller less replica Country Club Plaza of KC's). Ultimately, though, each product is an amusement park styled place with unique architecture in a larger downtown setting with outdoor, carless common areas. However, since we don't have San Diego's year-round resort weather, I'm seriously worried about how the Bottle District's pedestrian mall will function at off-peak times for foot traffic.[/quote]

I hope they decide to reverse the side in which the residential towers will be built. I'd like to see them built closer to the current skyline to avoid a Detroit-skyline from happening.



As for the design, I do think it needs to open better - how many times must urban designers learn this! Look at STL Centre, the Landing, the Arch grounds - segregating areas is NOT the answer.

Looks like everybody has the same concern. It isn't the bold design, but the way it integrates with the surrounding neighborhood.

We must really be "show me state". I hope a few years from now phase 3 will complete and we'll be "shown".



Speaking of thinking big



The three towers will be three of the six tallest towers downtown.

1) Tower D 198m (or 192m since the pdf gives two heights)

2) The Arch 192m

3) Metropolitan 181m

4) SBC 179m

5) Tower C 173m

6) US Bank 147m

7) Tower E 137m



Differing heights for tower D:

Page 4,5 650ft

Page 3,6 630ft



I wonder if the reason for listing two heights for tower D might be either be a mistake or perhaps because the desire to wait for some sort of approval before building it taller than The Arch. Although, I've heard that there is no building codes limiting height but only tradition.



Speaking of thinking "pratically"



I liked the layered amptheatre design in the prior renderings better. I could imagine eating outside at some new restaurant and being able to enjoy some entertainment being provided in the central plaza below.

Arch City, I just want to clarify that I am not in the camp that believes it won't be built or will be half built or that St. Louis cannot pull it off. I said that JMedwick is pragmatic, because he tends to be (that is my opinion anyway) and he made valid observations about the project that could be improved. Arch City, I like your observation about Navy Pier. I wish I could be there to watch this thing go up. It is going to be incredible to watch.

I agree it's always been that way, but the younger generation coming up with projects like these should help to sway those naysaying ways ;o). I think the project is really distinctive, and comparing it to a shopping mall is laughable, as this thing has architecture and class that nothing else in the city has as of yet. We finally get a world class architect doing some unique things and people still find things to complain about lol. I guess everyone has an opinion, but that's all it really is. It's not like they don't take these things into consideration when designing these projects, and most all of them have more experience then anyone in this forum. Time will tell who is right or wrong just be happy that we have something to look forward to on this kind of scale.

Also, the BD has something that Union Station and STL Centre never had...Residential.



IMO, that is the key component, and I think people will love the idea of living in cutting edge downtown towers. I know I would kill to live there, if I thought I could afford it.



Also, don't count on Rams players to live there. It isn't close to where they work. That's why so many players live in Chesterfield/St. Charles. They work in Earth City. They play at the dome 10 times a year. But everything else is at their Rams Park complex in Earth City.

I know that I'm callow, inexperienced, needs educating, and whatnot (that's why I'm in school and need internships) but may I make two suggestions?



1.) Open through streets



2.) Include retail storefronts along exterior streets like Cole, 7th, and Broadway instead of glass clad parking structures. Who wants to walk alongside an empty facade of parking garages despite glass curves?



Not being St. Louisian here, but appealing to urban design, what would New Yorkers think of walking alongside parking garages? Expat?



Vision, yes, leadership, yes, linked transportation, yes, but dead exterior streetscape and limited access, NO!

With the comments about segregated spaces I immediately thought of the Watergate buildings in D.C. Their is a hotel, condos, offices, entertainment and retail. I've stayed at the hotel probably 4-5 times. The development is segregated from the surrounding area and the uses within in the complex are segregated. It is an infuriating place to try to get around in. On my last visit, I noticed renovations going on so maybe they are fixing some of these problems.



The City Museum offers mental puzzles to get around but the BD should be integrated inside and out.

Matt, yes there are efforts to tie the Kennedy Center to the rest of the DC. It is a difficult thing to do. However, the Kennedy Center and the Watergate remain viable properties just as they are - so all isn't lost. When you compare Lincoln Center in New York to the Kennedy Center in Washington, you can see how much better it is to be connected to the neighborhood.

I don't begin to think that the Bottle District is like Union Station or StL Centre in design. The Bottle District is an open-air entertainment/retail venue, while Union Station is a festival marketplace and StL Centre an indoor urban mall. Thus, Union Station is more like Chicago's Navy Pier, and StL Centre like Indy's Circle Center, each successful despite our local failures.



But the Bottle District does appear to a touristy place much like the outdoor downtown mall of San Diego's Horton Plaza, and this was the main comparison of my earlier post. From Kansas City's Country Club Plaza to San Antonio's Riverwalk, outdoor shopping in an urban atmosphere can be popular in American cities, but only San Diego's similarly fortressed Horton Plaza comes to mind as both outdoor and closed streets.



Despite its resort weather, San Diego's 1985 development has remained popular due to its proximity to other attractions and activity centers, including its downtown business district, historic Gaslight Quarter and nearby marina. IOW, many folks visiting Horton Plaza are truly visiting other places in downtown San Diego as well, walking between such places. Thus, I think it is crucial that the Bottle District envision a plan that encourages folks to walk to/from the Landing/casino, the dome/convention center, and other points in or just north of downtown.



But looking at the current site plan, there are openings to different directions from the fortress, but they dump you out onto extremely wide Cole, frontage-road Broadway and elevated I-70 or newly turned service road 7th. Granted, most of these streets are already in an auto-oriented mode. But this development then only thinks of its interior spaces, actually reinforcing its island status by loading up its outer streets with curb cuts, parking garages, delivery docks and drop-off zones.



The Star-chitect design is very eye-catching. But it's how this fortress will function to those in on foot that is not so inspiring.

Whoops



I forgot the T.F Eagleton Court building.



The three towers will be three of the seven tallest towers (not counting the arch) downtown.



1) 198m - Tower D(or 192m since the pdf gives two heights)

*) 192m - The Arch

2) 181m - Metropolitan Square

3) 179m - One Bell Center

4) 173m - Tower C

5) 170m - T.F. Eagleton Court

6) 147m - US Bank

7) 137m - Tower E

First off I love the renderings as far as the towers are concerned. The towers are great and I hope and can't wait for this project to be completed. My only issue is the connectivity with the street grid and the over indulgence concerning parking. Other than that I am very pleased.

Bottle District, Ballpark Village...Downtown St. Louis won't even be recognizable in five years.

S.Side - Horton plaza also works because of the large residential population in downtown San Diego as well as its proximity to the activity centers you mentioned. The biggie you forgot is the San Diego Convention Center which is a 15 minute walk away.



I'm still concerned about the connectivity to the CBD/Landing from the Bottle District. Hopefully the traffic study mentioned earlier in this thread take this into account and creates two way streets at least around the District.



There needs to be an outward appearance of activity going on. Someone driving by might keep going if they don't see anything on the outside. I can live with the loading docks, but there needs to be access to stores/restaurants from the outside as well.



That said I love the designs, very modern. The ultimate measure of the success of the bottle district will be the development it spawns itself. I'd love to see a North Broadway Loft District.

The proximity of the Bottle District's site to the dome and landing provide it future streams of visitors from outside downtown. But many folks visiting will not just be destined for a trip solely to the Bottle District. If so, they'll just park in the complex and leave as soon as their visit is over.



More sustained activity clearly results from people combining their trips to the convention center, a game in the dome, gambling, daytime sightseeing and landing nightlife, but this synergy of combined activity is only really possible by walking.



Thus, people will not be wanting to park one place, see something, then move the car before seeing something else; otherwise, they'll just turn around and call it a day. So unless better connected to the landing and dome, fewer visitors will want to cross the area's wide fast-moving streets. Sure, the architecture might catch their eye initially. But after checking it out the first time, most might save the experience for those occassional good weather weekends or sporadic tailgatings.



Plus, the neigboring residential areas don't exactly want to look at parking garages. These areas immediately west of the development, and not across any highway from it, include future gut-rehabbed Neighborhood Gardens, reinvented Cochran Gardens mixed income development, and renamed Courtyards at Cityside (fka Columbus Square).



So, how can you keep the novel architecture yet improve its streetscape? Personally, I'd turn to the early conceptual site plans of the Ballpark Village as an example of better practices. Here, streets are being narrowed yet pass through the new village. Granted, the Bottle District site has more challenges with the existing convention/dome complex and I-70 at its edges, but I still think narrow through streets remain possible in the Bottle District. Also, the streetwalls need special attention along 7th, and traffic calming of some sort is needed as a minimum alteration along Broadway, especially at its intersection with Cole.

<A HREF="http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/default.a ... 0913">From the Mayor's Desk</A>

Tuesday, September 13, 2005



The Bottle District is set to break ground on September 27th.



<A HREF="http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/default.asp#20050913">>>> read more</A>