I'm with Xing on this one. I think it will work out fine. It is definately worth a shot, because we will never know if it works if we don't try it. When there is something to come for, people will get out of their cars and walk a block. And all the loading docks will be inside the buildings, so you won't even see that. It will be a success. Nonetheless, I do like to see everyone on here constructively (for the most part) tossing out ideas.
Personally, the most exciting aspect of the whole entire project is that St. Louis will finally have a building at least matching, if not taller than the Arch. I knew it would happen some time, but I did not expect it this soon. And it's residential. Let's get this baby rolling.
I keep saying I won't post anymore on this thread. But it is too exciting to ignore. Xing - thanks for posting the bigger pic. Yes, MattnSTL, you are right, let's get this rolling.
The Bottle District could be great for a number of reasons:
Those towers could add appx. 700 people in the area just north of downtown
More retail options
More parking near the dome
More development north of downtown
More development near the Landing
New big towers for downtown
A first mover market singal that new construction is viable downtown
However beyond this I worry about the project, and because of my worries, I question whether all parts will be built.
First off, I worry if this design (ultra modern) a good fit for its use, clearly tourist trap. The fame of the architect will only cary so far. People are accpeting of ultra modern buildings when going to art museums, but how about malls? Does this feel like a glass and steel fortress? Does that make you want to shop there?
Second, because the layout has done little to address the congestion it will create, I worry that the complex will be cut off from downtown and its visitors both by its design (supper block) and its location ( bounded by 3 major roads and not an easy walk from downtown). Will the Bottle District survive in a see of traffic?
Thrid,once people get to the corner of Cole and Broadway, has enough been done to make this site enviting? Does the lack of exterior shopping make the site seem lifeless from the street? If it seems lifeless, that is a hard tag to shake (ask St. Louis Center). Moreover, has enough been done to make this development fit into the area and help to develope not only the shops, but the blocks around it?
Fourth, if the Bottle District doesn't spur development around it (the creation of a neighborhood) then will people want to live there? I worry that people will not want to live in the heart of a tourist trap. The site looks exciting with the karts, and shops, and resturants, and nearby landing, but how do these make this a site where someone wants to set down roots? Do you want to live in this area? I question not overall residental demand for downtown, but demand for this venue, esp. if it cannot create a neighborhood around it.
Finnaly, the Ghazi Company makes me wonder. This firm from its website shows its previous projects and few in the past seem to have been as large in scope at the Bottle Works. As the recent Sunnset Hills problems have shown, when a firm suddenly jumps scale in its developments, it can experience difficulties.
I would love to see sucess for this project. However, a few tweeks, such as say good pedestrian crossings across Cole and from the Landing, inclusion of the triangular lot across from the Dome as part of the project to both get more people from dowtnown to make there way out to the far site of the dome and to make the streets in the area more lively and atractive, the change to add more stuff on the exterior streets and putting through cross streets, would make this project alot better and a much higher probablity of nearterm and long term sucess.
The Ghazi company is only a partner, Dan McGuire and BDP, LLC are still the lead developers. I think as long as a company doesn't try to do two projects of this scale at once when moving to the big time, they should be OK. We'll see though. I think everything will work out fine, but I can see why some of you may want to reserve a little optimism. By my very nature I am optimistic about the Bottle District.
I think that a trolley/shuttle/bus serving the Bottle District and other sites downtown might address the concerns over limited access. I don't know how to get that into motion, but someone needs to get a downtown shuttle service going--one that is reliable, fast and goes to many downtown sites. I know someone even made a thread about it. It's a very real concern for me. The proposed Bottle District isn't that accessible, and, a shuttle service of some sort could not only address this issue but could connect downtown residents, workers, visitors, tourists and conventiongoers to all of downtown's attractions (Washington Ave. East, West, City Museum, Union Station, Old Post Office District, Arch/Riverfront, Laclede's Landing, etc.).
I think the design is breathtakingly postmodern. I hate to use the St. Louis cliche and perpetuate St. Louis's constant inferiority complex, but, it's so modern and innovative that it "doesn't seem like St. Louis." I love that we're building these tall residential buildings downtown, but, does anyone else think the residential demand might be lacking the steam to fill towers of this height, in this location? If someone can ease my fears on that, I will have nothing but optimism for this project. In my eyes, downtown needs to build these new residential towers, which are much more dense than lofts. It would be nice if we could fill gaps closer to central downtown with some new (albeit, smaller) towers--say, at the Gateway Mall--but, hey, I'm not complaining about a north-centric development that might spill its own prosperity over to the North Side.
Matt Drops The H wrote: I love that we're building these tall residential buildings downtown, but, does anyone else think the residential demand might be lacking the steam to fill towers of this height, in this location?
Because the towers would be built in phases, you wouldn't have to worry as much about oversaturation of the market as you might if they were all built at once. Whether or not residential demand downtown will still be high by the time the 2nd or 3rd phase comes along is a bigger question. Obviously we hope that demand is still high in five years despite constant growth in the downtown housing market. I for one believe the downtown housing boom will continue and only strengthen as more projects come online and amenities are built making the area more desirable than it is now (as long as something silly like capping the historic tax credit doesn't happen). As for the ultra-modern architecture, I tend to view the design as a major draw for people. The designs in Millenium Park are a major draw for a lot of people and I hope Libeskind's design does the same for the Bottle District.
Overall it's exciting, because never in my lifetime has there been so much activity downtown.
When I said "it doesn't seem like St. Louis," I meant that in a totally positive light. People here tend to think St. Louis "isn't good enough" for these kinds of project. The actual quality and visual audacity of this project astounded even me--an ardent enthusiast of St. Louis.
Thanks for answering my question so quickly. I really hope the demand is up enough to advance the project sufficiently to where the tallest tower is built (and maybe more...?).
My interpretation of the design is that, from some of the renderings, it appears to resemble shards of a broken bottle stuck in the ground. This broken bottle takes on a new life. Maybe that's an allusion to St. Louis--a Rustbelt city seen as functionally obsolete, stuck in the ground, is actually rising out of its own ashes, its own trash and broken glass. It's a Modern project that channels the irony of the return of the Rustbelt.
A developer planning a $100 million project in Charlotte, N.C., is poised to become co-developer of the Bottle District in downtown St. Louis.
Afshin Ghazi, founder of the Ghazi Co. in Charlotte, said his group had been looking for projects here when it learned about the Bottle District. The $290 million complex with restaurants, entertainment, housing and offices is planned north of the Edward Jones Dome.
Thanks for the new renderings and the link, Archcity!
I like the new plans much better. Of course, we still have all of the street-level issues, but the overall design, is much nicer.
Not to be one of those annoying nay-sayers, but I noticed in the PD article that they are still trying to find financing, looking for partners, a construction date has not been set, etc, etc...
Those condo towers are awesome. Hopefully I'll make enough money in the next few years to buy one. Maybe my loft will appreciate enough for me to put down a good sized down payment. I would love to live there or Ballpark Village.
I have a feeling the race will be on between those two projects due to the nature of them and their proximity to the sports action.
Older architecture was meant to be experienced up-close, while modern architecture has its greater visual impact from afar.
Think about the arch. It's cool to go up to its leg and touch, but unless you look up, when you're eye-level up-close, it's not much different than the locally despised Serra's Mark Twain sculpture.
Then, think of Washington Avenue. From away, it really is just squatty boxes of similar heights and proportions. But up-close, there is small details in the freizes, arcades, columns and more. But more importantly, the canyon of streetscape with storefront windows forms an outdoor room.
I don't dislike modern design. I just don't want any cold or sterile streetwalls at street-level. The Bottle District already appears it will have an urban room effect inside. It's the outer layer looking from the outside in that concerns me.
Sure, we can give it ago and learn later how to better retrofit some flaws originally overlooked, or even those that pop up over time. With the arch grounds, we're finally talking more seriously about building a lid to resolve, a longtime flaw, while simultaneously exploring a reasonable replacement to the jersey barriers, a newer imposed flaw.
I also don't think the developers are solely to blame for suggesting a fortress-like design. Local officials should be supportive of rethinking surrounding streets (and even elevated I-70 too) to cooperatively build the necessary context for this otherwise isolated site to truly become a very ecletic yet sustainable patch of our greater urban fabric.
Framer wrote:Thanks for the new renderings and the link, Archcity!
I like the new plans much better. Of course, we still have all of the street-level issues, but the overall design, is much nicer.
Not to be one of those annoying nay-sayers, but I noticed in the PD article that they are still trying to find financing, looking for partners, a construction date has not been set, etc, etc...
No problem, I just lucked out and found the information.
I personally don't think financing is going to be much a problem. The fact that the city has already approved $51.3-million in TIF speaks volumes.
The city has approved tax increment financing for the project that Bernsen said will generate about $51.3 million. And, he said, "we are interviewing and considering multiple proposals for financing" from banks and other private lending sources.
I think with a big ambitious project such as this, lenders are looking for a public contribution as well. It certainly doesn't hurt. With a contribution like this from the city, it helps them to know they aren't doing this by themselves.
Also, Ghazi is the co-partner. BD developers are not looking for more partners. Dan McGuire and BDP, LLC and Ghazi are building the project. In regards to the construction time, I imagine that can't be nailed down until financing is shored up. With Clayco and Ghazi on the project, I suspect there will be few problems. The fact that groundbreaking will happen on the 27th, according to mayor's website, is fairly promising - even if it is just demolition.
My only reservation is why are they listing the same prospective tenants over and over? Has no other retailer expressed interest or are they going to reveal them at a later time?
This is architecture at its best. What's really exciting is some design elements of the towers echo certain aesthetics of the Arch.
I really don't comprehend where some view these plans as "fortress-like" so maybe someone can expound on that point.
Matt Drops The H said they're so good, they don't seem like St. Louis. I say, they're so good, it's like seeing the old St. Louis back. I mean, we've got some pretty impressive architecture (not just Victorian) some of which dates as recently as mid 20th century. It's only been since the late 60's/early 70's that blandness in architecture has dominated, but that's a fact for most U.S cities of that era.
Again, I like the dramatic style of the architecture, it's the site plan that most worries me and gives the indications of a potential fortress.
Fortunately, at Cole and Broadway, the development isn't so inward-looking having some retail activity on the outside at this main entrance. But other places about the edges of this development aren't as inviting.
Take 7th Street, for example. Along this road that immediately abuts on its western edge, you have the historic Neighborhood Gardens courtyard apartments to be rehabbed and the Cochran Gardens housing site to be redeveloped. But along such a potential residential street, you have two delivery docks, three parking garage entrances, and three circular drive drop-offs. And two of the three tall residential towers back up to 7th street, the other against I-70. Neighborhood Gardens, in particular, will get to be across the street from the boxy back of the Grand Prix indoor race track.
Much of new construction of high-rise residential in major cities has a tower on top of a squatty parking block. In the Bottle District's case, you have star-chitect designed sleak towers, yet they still sit atop parking boxes below. Hardly a novel concept then, and not really adding to the street life of the surrounding neighborhoods, especially with support areas, parking garages and the back wall of the indoor race track facing 7th. I would instead have such uses on a new alley parallel to 7th and line 7th with more residential.
With a poor site plan, this new development acts as a fortress, having its best streetwalls facing inward (the corner of Broadway/Cole being the best exception). Though an elevated I-70 doesn't exactly invite good streetscape, it's still a potential face to the landing/gaming areas. And ultimately, the 7th streetwalls just treat this residential street as a service road, but then maybe this development intentially doesn't want to be a gateway to near-northside neighborhoods.
The Bottle District web site states ground breaking Tuesday Sept 27th @10:30am, what an interesting year this will be for the Carr Square neighborhood.
You may need a fortress-style design and poor connection with surrounding neighborhoods to the north and west in order to attract some people to this location...
A girl (she's 23) at my work had to go downtown to a Social Security office (?) that was apparently on Locust near 16th, and she said, "Yeah, that's a neighborhood I want to be in by myself at night. (obvious sarcasm)" First of all, she would have been there before 5 p.m. Secondly, I would hesitate to imply that the neighborhood is dangerous.
It just goes to show you. We're not in the most progressive, urban-minded region. Yes, that's only one person I've given as an example. But it seems like a lot of people outside of "our" circle share these attitudes, and not just women who might be afraid that they are easier targets for rapists or muggers.
Personally, I think the Southtown development at Chippewa and Kingshighway is a scar to the urbanity of the neighborhood. Others couldn't care less that the design is ultra-bland and suburban, automobile friendly, and all other things denigrating to urbanity (perhaps because of the huge shopping center right across the street also, but that's another story).
I think this development (the Bottle District, that is) should do fine despite its isolation from surrounding neighborhoods. St. Louis isn't used to such sleek and modern design. That novelty alone will fuel its success for a while and perhaps garner national attention. You've made some very good points, southslider. But what do we do from here?
You can't build to appease the lowest common denominator, thats what has led us to some of our problems. You have to do what is right for the neighborhood/ project/ city/ region and let others adapt their perceptions.
par wrote:You can't build to appease the lowest common denominator, thats what has led us to some of our problems. You have to do what is right for the neighborhood/ project/ city/ region and let others adapt their perceptions.
True. I'm saying that this project is meant to capture tourists and people from throughout the region, not necessarily residents of the Carr Square neighborhood. Tourists, conventiongoers, and other visitors are, like most of America's population, likely suburban-dwellers (or, better yet, I should say--those ambivalent about cities) and will not care if this project does anything to better its urban environment. They will either patronize it or not--and I don't think that decision rests upon friendly pedestrian connections at all corners of the project. I think some people would feel safer with limited access and fortress-like environment.
MayorSlay.com has a blurb about the Bottle District, making note that it will change the STL skyline. Since this is coming from the Mayor's mouth (or office at least), it makes me feel a little more confident that financing is in place and the towers should be built.
Matt Drops The H wrote:I think some people would feel safer with limited access and fortress-like environment.
Hasn't it been proven that the exact opposite is true?
Has it? I think you're certainly right that the new trend is against such developments. New Urbanism, lifestyle centers, whatever you want to call it--retail developments are taking on a more urban character. Still, I just think the general population isn't as concerned with these notions as we on this board might be. I'm not trying to present an empirically-based argument, I admit. I'm just noting that I've lived in South City all of my life, and nearly every person I've interacted with, friends and family alike, people of all different age groups, are just not "urban-minded."
It's not urban-mindedness. It's basic psychology. Yes an average person might not take into consideration the plans of the complex, but if they walk the streets and feel overwhelmed or "locked out" of the fortress than they might not be as likely to visit the Bottle District as much. The urban-minded folks are no different psychologically, but they can view it as a problem and a possible reason for why people don't like it.
I'm not saying this is what will happen, but our concerns about the district's "street-friendliness" are noteworthy. The current trend towards more urban-friendly developments are because planners and developers (some of them) have begun to understand the general psyche of average citizens and what attracts and what doesn't. Developments that are open and inviting do better than those that close itself off. A glass storefront does better than a non-glass storefront because it "feels" better. And so on. I for one wish the development was a little more street-oriented, but it's not. I do think the ultra-modern design could be a draw in and of itself.
Has it? I think you're certainly right that the new trend is against such developments. New Urbanism, lifestyle centers, whatever you want to call it--retail developments are taking on a more urban character. Still, I just think the general population isn't as concerned with these notions as we on this board might be. I'm not trying to present an empirically-based argument, I admit. I'm just noting that I've lived in South City all of my life, and nearly every person I've interacted with, friends and family alike, people of all different age groups, are just not "urban-minded."
Building it like it's a part of the neighborhood is just what would break thier 'small-town small-mind' mentality. They would say, "Look at all these people who shop here, work here, live here happily... maybe the city really is back."
I personally like the design, but do agree that there will need to be some outward facing storefronts and through traffic to integrate it with the rest of downtown. That would also allow other developers to let it 'spread' to the adjacent blocks.
