What facts are there that say they don't have the financing in place?
brickandmortar wrote:Xing wrote:the hanckcock is within a non-lazy man's walk. to me, it's not far from cabrini green. i work in that area, and i know it's not far. i'm there daily. so, yes, to me it's steps, to others it's a journey.
Yeah, I should have said for me its more than a few steps. I've lived here too long now, after all we need parking garages on every block here.
Yeah you can't have any walking distances further then 2 blocks from your destination.
jfknet wrote:What facts are there that say they don't have the financing in place?
jfknet,
The only point of reference provided is the quote in the PD from the lender that they have only committed financing for land acquisition and pre-construction services. If you anything about real estate development you can read between the lines and understand that lenders obviously have huge doubts about this project ever being a reality.
brickandmortar wrote:jambalaya wrote:brickandmortar wrote:I wholeheartedly disagree Jambalyaya. What is wrong with building taller than the St. Louis Arch? There is no law against it. Obviously there must be some sort of demand for residential property downtown or the financing for this project would not have been approved in the first place. I doubt you know where this project is since it's downtown not the 'north side' as you say.
brickandmortar,
you should invest some time and drive over to East St. Louis and look at our current skyline - then imagine it with this proposed design for a 600+ foot tall residential tower. Whether you agree or not, it is visually damaging to the St. Louis skyline (similar to the damage done to our skyline when the federal court building was built). Your next point to address is the financing for this project. The only financing committed to this project (as reported in the paper) is for land acquisition - something the bank sees value in even if this project is never constructed. There is no mentioned financing for any portion of the actual construction of this project. And the third point to be addressed - this is the northside of downtown St. Louis - if you don't realize that obvious point then maybe you do not know where this project is.
You are missing the point of my post - I hope something does get developed at the northern end of downtown. However, it needs to be the correct development with the correct design to insure it's long-lasting success. The last thing we need is some albatross sitting on the north side of downtown that is used with the frequency of Laclede's Landing (weekends only).
I've been to ESL and I can say that additonal buildings in St. Louis would look quite nice from there. I don't think a tall building would damage our skyline at all, just ask the newly 40 year old Arch. Oh wait, it's just a gigantic monument that can't talk!! nevermind.
The ground wouldn't have been broken for the Bottle District just to dig a couple of holes. The parcels surely have been assembled and construction will begin soon.
Oh yeah, you said northside, not the north side of downtown so I couldn't see your obvious point. Maybe you should elaborate more on what a correct development should be north of downtown instead of b*tching about it.
brickandmortar,
I thought my post was constructive criticism - I am sorry you felt it was "b*tching" - not my intent. I guess you think ANYTHING being built in downtown St. Louis is a good thing. The wrong plan/design/development can actually hinder growth - but I am sure you already knew that fact. My point was the tenant mix seems to be wrong for sustained growth for that area. They are proposing a tenant mix with too much residential - it needs to be balanced with more entertainment/education destinations. There are enough examples of successful mixed-use urban develoments across the country to understand why they are successful (there are also plenty of examples of these developments that are not successful - and typically the common element is an inappropriate tenant mix).
- 2,005
^good now we're getting somewhere. While I don't rah rah every new project I do try to keep an open mind about their intent. I'm concerned with this project as well, not because of its residential component(at this point only one tower is being built). I'm concerned with its relationship to the other areas like Neighborhood Gardens. Right now this development has its back turned to its neighbors and being fortress-like.
To succeed it will need a good mix of residential as well as the entertainment/shopping aspect. Without residential, when the stores close it would be dead around the BD and that wouldn't be a good thing IMO. With residential there would be activity 24/7 and perhaps some stores (like a grocery) would be open late to serve the neighbors of the BD as well. How much is too much? The market will determine that. Maybe the BD will encourage development of the old warehouses on N. Broadway, that is something I'd really like to see.
To succeed it will need a good mix of residential as well as the entertainment/shopping aspect. Without residential, when the stores close it would be dead around the BD and that wouldn't be a good thing IMO. With residential there would be activity 24/7 and perhaps some stores (like a grocery) would be open late to serve the neighbors of the BD as well. How much is too much? The market will determine that. Maybe the BD will encourage development of the old warehouses on N. Broadway, that is something I'd really like to see.
jambalaya,
i don't agree with everything you say, but i like your style. welcome (again) to these forums and don't be afraid to disturb the, ahem, s**t.
we all want projects like the bottle district to succeed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking tough questions about them: like, who's going to PAY for them?
i don't agree with everything you say, but i like your style. welcome (again) to these forums and don't be afraid to disturb the, ahem, s**t.
we all want projects like the bottle district to succeed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking tough questions about them: like, who's going to PAY for them?
brickandmortar wrote:^good now we're getting somewhere. While I don't rah rah every new project I do try to keep an open mind about their intent. I'm concerned with this project as well, not because of its residential component(at this point only one tower is being built). I'm concerned with its relationship to the other areas like Neighborhood Gardens. Right now this development has its back turned to its neighbors and being fortress-like.
To succeed it will need a good mix of residential as well as the entertainment/shopping aspect. Without residential, when the stores close it would be dead around the BD and that wouldn't be a good thing IMO. With residential there would be activity 24/7 and perhaps some stores (like a grocery) would be open late to serve the neighbors of the BD as well. How much is too much? The market will determine that. Maybe the BD will encourage development of the old warehouses on N. Broadway, that is something I'd really like to see.
brickandmortar,
couldn't agree with you more. The bd by it's orientation is already an urban island - very poor planning. My concern with the huge residential piece of the bd is the market - there is so much loft residential coming on-line currently I just am afraid what this market can absorb. The bd throws this residential tower out there and I cannot see the feasibility of this tower being built (there are only 3 different building types that can be built with this vertical orientation - residential, commercial office and a monument...we already have the monument and our commercial office is too soft to bring on more space, so my concern is with the thought that our residential market can take these added units). If it's not going to be built - don't tease us - show us something "real" that will be successful for some time. I also agree with you about the desire to create an urban space that has appeal 24/7 - the bd does not provide that component. Currently in downtown St. Louis our residential market is dominated by 2 demographic types - empty nesters and young professionals. If this residential market is to be expanded there are required services that need to be provided - the proposed grocery store is a step in the right direction. Again, my hope is that St. Louis will be a showpiece for GOOD urban planning and GOOD urban design - I have little hope that what the bottle district has shown provides our city with either. Thanks for the dialogue.
From what I recall the original plans didn't call for any high rises. I was under the impression that they were added as public opinion and the market warmed to the idea. These residential units will be different from living in loft, so loft district activity is irrelevant. These units are an untapped resource, other than the Mansion house and Gentry's Landing, etc, there really aren't any residential highrises anywhere in St. Louis with views of the river (correct me if I'm wrong). That is part of the reason that Petco Tower is being renovated as condos. There is plenty of room for growth in this market.
Corporations operate on the profit motive, not the "wow this would be really great for the city" or "lets see how high we build". They would not be tackling this project if they did not see profit in it. My only concern is how involved the city is in this. The more involvement, the greater chance for disaster. (Name ONE good thing government does efficiently).
Corporations operate on the profit motive, not the "wow this would be really great for the city" or "lets see how high we build". They would not be tackling this project if they did not see profit in it. My only concern is how involved the city is in this. The more involvement, the greater chance for disaster. (Name ONE good thing government does efficiently).
Currently there are three phases to the project. There is a res-high rise built into each phase.
So worrying about a 630 foot tower at this point is completely irrelevant...it's more of a best case scenario.
If you read the entire thread, we are all worried about this being an urban fortress, not allowing for much inflow to the area. There are some of us that are hoping that this error is corrected before the project is finished...if not, I personally think it will be corrected over time. I think we'll get probably two towers at least, and I hope that interest from the public is large enough that they could add size to the first tower, and use the design for the third tower if the need is only for two. But that is just IMO.
You may frown upon Liebeskind, but I personally love the fact that we have a different and unique project going in St. Louis. There's way too much replication, that the city greatly needed a changeup to give the city a new look and push us all past this currently building situation where everything looks brick.
And there is nothing wrong with having reservations about what sort of demand there will be. But IMO, those sort of worries should be left to the developers. I, for one, hope that they did plenty of research into the subject before jumping into such a big project. If they didn't think they could fill those buildings, they wouldn't propose them.
So worrying about a 630 foot tower at this point is completely irrelevant...it's more of a best case scenario.
If you read the entire thread, we are all worried about this being an urban fortress, not allowing for much inflow to the area. There are some of us that are hoping that this error is corrected before the project is finished...if not, I personally think it will be corrected over time. I think we'll get probably two towers at least, and I hope that interest from the public is large enough that they could add size to the first tower, and use the design for the third tower if the need is only for two. But that is just IMO.
You may frown upon Liebeskind, but I personally love the fact that we have a different and unique project going in St. Louis. There's way too much replication, that the city greatly needed a changeup to give the city a new look and push us all past this currently building situation where everything looks brick.
And there is nothing wrong with having reservations about what sort of demand there will be. But IMO, those sort of worries should be left to the developers. I, for one, hope that they did plenty of research into the subject before jumping into such a big project. If they didn't think they could fill those buildings, they wouldn't propose them.
trent wrote:Currently there are three phases to the project. There is a res-high rise built into each phase.
So worrying about a 630 foot tower at this point is completely irrelevant...it's more of a best case scenario.
If you read the entire thread, we are all worried about this being an urban fortress, not allowing for much inflow to the area. There are some of us that are hoping that this error is corrected before the project is finished...if not, I personally think it will be corrected over time. I think we'll get probably two towers at least, and I hope that interest from the public is large enough that they could add size to the first tower, and use the design for the third tower if the need is only for two. But that is just IMO.
You may frown upon Liebeskind, but I personally love the fact that we have a different and unique project going in St. Louis. There's way too much replication, that the city greatly needed a changeup to give the city a new look and push us all past this currently building situation where everything looks brick.
And there is nothing wrong with having reservations about what sort of demand there will be. But IMO, those sort of worries should be left to the developers. I, for one, hope that they did plenty of research into the subject before jumping into such a big project. If they didn't think they could fill those buildings, they wouldn't propose them.
trent,
be careful - I work with developers every day and I think you are giving them WAY too much credit - don't forget there is $51 million dollars of tif funding for this project, so they are gambling with these bonds the city is floating - hoping they can pay them back (re: the renaissance grand issue). If the bd is so heavily saturated with residential units the only way to pay those bonds down is through real estate taxes. If the bd had a better tenant mix (like successful urban entertainment districts do) they could pay down the bonds through sales tax, earnings tax and real estate taxes.
I have no issue with architectural diversity - that is one of the elements of the built evironment of downtown St. Louis that is so appealing. However, I have seen numerous projects designed by "name" or national architects that are horrible. There are plenty of great architects out there and time will tell if Libeskind is one of them - I just have reservations concerning this proposed design by Libeskind.
Look, jambalaya. No one is offended by your opinion.
This forum has many disagreements and debates.
But your attitude and manner are very aggresive and hostile. Chill out, no one is taking this personally.
This forum has many disagreements and debates.
But your attitude and manner are very aggresive and hostile. Chill out, no one is taking this personally.
stlmike wrote:Look, jambalaya. No one is offended by your opinion.
This forum has many disagreements and debates.
But your attitude and manner are very aggresive and hostile. Chill out, no one is taking this personally.
stlmike,
I was not aware that my attitude was either aggressive or hostile - I just re-read my post prior to this one from you and was confused by your post. FYI, I have not been taking any of these posts personally - I think this has been a very needed and worthwhile discussion. If you could point out any area of my previous posts that were deemed "hostile" or "aggressive" - please point them out to me. I thought the points were presented in an appropriate manner (well chilled). Not my intent to offend.
jambalaya wrote:jfknet wrote:What facts are there that say they don't have the financing in place?
jfknet,
The only point of reference provided is the quote in the PD from the lender that they have only committed financing for land acquisition and pre-construction services. If you anything about real estate development you can read between the lines and understand that lenders obviously have huge doubts about this project ever being a reality.
Anyone that knows what a fact is would have read my post more carefully. I didn't say they had it in place, what I asked was what fact there was about the matter. Reading between the lines, and something being a fact are two totally different things.
jfknet wrote:jambalaya wrote:jfknet wrote:What facts are there that say they don't have the financing in place?
jfknet,
The only point of reference provided is the quote in the PD from the lender that they have only committed financing for land acquisition and pre-construction services. If you anything about real estate development you can read between the lines and understand that lenders obviously have huge doubts about this project ever being a reality.
Anyone that knows what a fact is would have read my post more carefully. I didn't say they had it in place, what I asked was what fact there was about the matter. Reading between the lines, and something being a fact are two totally different things.
jfknet,
the "fact" presented to the public at their groundbreaking was they have a lender willing to fund land acquisition. You are correct, reading between the lines is very subjective. As cheap as money has been for developers to finance their projects the past few years, coupled with the bd bringing a $51 million dollar TIF to the table - you would expect the balance of the financing to be already lined-up (if lenders felt the plan had merit and a market). It is a little discouraging that after all this time the bd has been in the public eye that they only have financing committment for land acquisition. Typically developers have these project essentials taken care of so they can capitalize on the momentum created when their project is introduced to the public.
jambalaya wrote:Libeskind provided a re-tread ... and he could possibly be merely a flavor of the month - let's see if he has any staying power...time will tell.
Saint Louis didn't wait to see if the skyscraper had any staying power when Louis Sullivan built the Wainwright Building! We didn't wait to see how Eero Saarinen's Arch would be viewed by people, decades in the future, before building it!
For the short term, clearly, the buildings are attractive so it's not like we are taking a chance.
One can't wait to be innovative.
james wrote:jambalaya wrote:Libeskind provided a re-tread ... and he could possibly be merely a flavor of the month - let's see if he has any staying power...time will tell.
Saint Louis didn't wait to see if the skyscraper had any staying power when Louis Sullivan built the Wainwright Building! We didn't wait to see how Eero Saarinen's Arch would be viewed by people, decades in the future, before building it!
For the short term, clearly, the buildings are attractive so it's not like we are taking a chance.
One can't wait to be innovative.
james,
I agree with you about "not waiting to be innovative"....I just do not see innovation with this proposed design. Please don't compare the bd with either the Wainwright Building or the Arch - those two are classic and timeless (this proposed design for the bd is neither).
jambalaya wrote:What I meant to state was the damage done to the entry sequence into downtown by the federal courthouse while driving eastbound on Highway 40. The before and after pictures of this vantage point are sad. While I think the building is okay, I do not like the placement of the building with respect to the entry sequence into downtown. I do like the buiding on the west end of the Gateway Mall, I just don't like how it blocks or modifies the view of downtown while arriving into the city.
Where might we see these pictures?
How does one design a proper "entry sequence" on such a large scale as a city downtown that has been built through a long historic evolution of individual developments.
Why shouldn't views of downtown, and hence the downtown itself, be modified (as long as we are not razing buildings like the Ambassdor or Century buildings). There should be more depth to a city than what one can glimpse from a single perspective.
jambalaya wrote:james wrote:jambalaya wrote:Libeskind provided a re-tread ... and he could possibly be merely a flavor of the month - let's see if he has any staying power...time will tell.
Saint Louis didn't wait to see if the skyscraper had any staying power when Louis Sullivan built the Wainwright Building! We didn't wait to see how Eero Saarinen's Arch would be viewed by people, decades in the future, before building it!
For the short term, clearly, the buildings are attractive so it's not like we are taking a chance.
One can't wait to be innovative.
james,
I agree with you about "not waiting to be innovative"....I just do not see innovation with this proposed design. Please don't compare the bd with either the Wainwright Building or the Arch - those two are classic and timeless (this proposed design for the bd is neither).
Any item like paintings, novels, architecture, etc... acquire the status of "classic and timeless" over time. Most classics were not accepted as a "classic" by contemporaries. Innovation requires doing and leaving it to future generations to define the significance of a work. Not every innovation is a guaranteed "classic". But, without much innovation one never makes a classic.
One might say his designs all look alike (and the Beatles only played three chords). But regardless the buildings would be unique among Saint Louis' architecture. So who cares if another city has a building sort of like it?
- 1,768
Remeber, The arch was called "facist" among a littany of other things when it was being built, the formaer due to Mussolini's plans to build a half sircle type arch During WWII. I say Compare away. Timeless and classic are nothing on their own. Build it and let time decide.
Am I the only one who feels this discussion has degraded itself to the spoutings of third graders?
- 1,768
This takes me back to when cadascoram still frequented... 
TheWayoftheArch wrote:Remeber, The arch was called "facist" among a littany of other things when it was being built, the formaer due to Mussolini's plans to build a half sircle type arch During WWII.
The National Park service website documents it at
"http://www.nps.gov/jeff/adhi%20Folder/adhi1-4.htm" Look near citation #57.
"http://www.photo.net/italy/rome-eur"
Sorry, this is really off topic
I guess my concern about the correct planning effort coupled with the proper design was not expressed clearly. There are so few opportunities in a city's history to have a development incorporate the physical area like the ballpark village and the bd - it would be nice if it was done correctly. These two projects specifically could make a huge difference in the urban quality of life in downtown St. Louis - if they are done correctly. The bd to me feels like someone is buying clothes that don't fit them just because there is a designers name on the clothing. I would just like to see these projects planned and designed correctly - is there anything wrong with that goal?