That will make for an interesting intersection, but if the lane markings are clear, I think it will be ok. Not too many people come at that intersection from the east. The best, but obviously not easiest way to deal with that intersection is to bury I-70.
Hopefully they will make the intersection a little more difficult by adding a trolley up and down Broadway to the mix.
one additional item, please let me know exactly which 15 minutes of sunlight per day that proposed park is going to receive with the Park Avenue Tower directly to the south (see Section C-C on the new Ghazi Company website link provided earlier). Kinda curious how this design team now co-exists (DMR, Libeskind and Forum) - this should be an interesting dance to watch.
The shade in the park would probably be nice in the summer, and it still gets enough sun in the morning and afternoon at other times of the year to be OK. How often do the sidewalks on the southside of Washington Ave, and the northside for that matter, get sun. Not too often and they still do fine. I don't think one peice being sunless is going to make a big deal.
there are pocket parks like that all over NYC and they do ok.
by the way, is anybody here one of the developers in diguise? It seems as if the bottle district poeple read all 29 pages and changed their plans accordingly to the way people here see it......c'mon, admit it if you are
by the way, is anybody here one of the developers in diguise? It seems as if the bottle district poeple read all 29 pages and changed their plans accordingly to the way people here see it......c'mon, admit it if you are
- 1,282
Whets up with all the little surface lots: and why can't O?Fallon st go all the way to Broadway? I?m glad they are allowing through traffic hopefully they will open retail space up to Broadway, Carr St, and 7th st.
500th post!!
500th post!!
Ucityman wrote:by the way, is anybody here one of the developers in diguise? It seems as if the bottle district poeple read all 29 pages and changed their plans accordingly to the way people here see it......c'mon, admit it if you are
Matt Bernson, the marketing director, has posted here a few times in the past, so I would assume at least he has read this mess of a thread. Not sure how much we say is actually taken into account, but it would be nice if this thread had some influence on the design. We are basically a free test market and critiqueing service.
BTW Citylover, it's about time you get to 500. You've been registered a week longer than me and I have almost 600 more posts. You are kicking my ass at SSP though. Funny, I made my thousandth post in here and you made your 500th.
I love the new design, grid-wise. It's much more what we were all asking for. That said, I hope they still are able to connect as much of the original design from Liebeskind to the new grid layout.
That new rendering just made me giddy.
That new rendering just made me giddy.
I love the new grid as well. I also love how they have residential spread through out . I agree with most of you, that I really hope Libeskind remains. I'm glad the project has improved.
- 1,054
I too love the grid that allows for pedestrian movement and parking on streets to protect sidewalk people and the more spaced residential.
I wonder as well if the surface parking lots are for future development to make this more organic, but I still want the high rise residential and street retail.
To whoever is reading:
Please keep the jagged or broken glass shape look to compliment the arch and glass bottles, and be inclusive to a streetcar for Broadway to one, encourage the City to put it in and two, increase pedestrian activity to the Bottle District from the CBD to create a successful development.
Thanks
I wonder as well if the surface parking lots are for future development to make this more organic, but I still want the high rise residential and street retail.
To whoever is reading:
Please keep the jagged or broken glass shape look to compliment the arch and glass bottles, and be inclusive to a streetcar for Broadway to one, encourage the City to put it in and two, increase pedestrian activity to the Bottle District from the CBD to create a successful development.
Thanks
- 3
I ran into a contemporary of mine last evening at a seminar and they suggested I visit this website - obviously my first post here. Our firm provided the first master plan study for the bottle district (images posted on the first page by xing). I am sorry I have not read all 30 pages of posts (I would need to take some vacation time to do that), but in reviewing the last few pages I think I understand the forum/program.
There are a few points that should probably be made for clarification: initially it was our desire to extend the existing street grid through the bottle district (it connected this development with the city grid, and it has a financial benefit because you are not allocating tif funds to relocate utilities currently located in the street right-of-way - you can reserve those tif funds for true public amenities). There is a problem with extending the streets on through to Broadway (resisitance from the Streets department and Highway department - too many curb cuts on what is effectively a slip ramp for Interstate 70). The next issue is regarding the residential component to this development. When we were hired to provide the master planning study or first suggestion to the owner was to hire an independent firm to provide a highest-and-best-use analysis and financial feasibility study. The owner hired ERA (Economic Research Associates) out of Chicago to provide these studies. Our team used these as a road map to our master plan. ERA recommended the inclusion of 200-300 residential units on campus - in their opinion that was the appropriate number of new residences for this market. This study did not include all the new lofts coming on line, the Pet building, The Famous Barr renovation, the required Pinnacle residential component...I am not sure if all this residential development would alter their numbers, but they were very specific on the apparent limits to our residential market. I hope that information provided some light to the subject - if not...sorry.
There are a few points that should probably be made for clarification: initially it was our desire to extend the existing street grid through the bottle district (it connected this development with the city grid, and it has a financial benefit because you are not allocating tif funds to relocate utilities currently located in the street right-of-way - you can reserve those tif funds for true public amenities). There is a problem with extending the streets on through to Broadway (resisitance from the Streets department and Highway department - too many curb cuts on what is effectively a slip ramp for Interstate 70). The next issue is regarding the residential component to this development. When we were hired to provide the master planning study or first suggestion to the owner was to hire an independent firm to provide a highest-and-best-use analysis and financial feasibility study. The owner hired ERA (Economic Research Associates) out of Chicago to provide these studies. Our team used these as a road map to our master plan. ERA recommended the inclusion of 200-300 residential units on campus - in their opinion that was the appropriate number of new residences for this market. This study did not include all the new lofts coming on line, the Pet building, The Famous Barr renovation, the required Pinnacle residential component...I am not sure if all this residential development would alter their numbers, but they were very specific on the apparent limits to our residential market. I hope that information provided some light to the subject - if not...sorry.
Thanks, It's nice to hear a little from the architects/planners.
I also am a fan of some of the new design. It does address alot of my concerns over through streets, which is great. I also think the pocket park is a nice addition.
My concern is over the surface parking, but more importantly the so called skyline tower at the northern tip of the project. Was the the tallest tower that was proposed. If so, based on the layout, I doubt it will ever get built. Lookat where is it positioned, surrounded by parking lots and streets, very disconected from the rest of the project. If this is still part of the grand residental design, my bet is that it won't get done. The rest looks great and I do feel more postitve about its completetion.
My concern is over the surface parking, but more importantly the so called skyline tower at the northern tip of the project. Was the the tallest tower that was proposed. If so, based on the layout, I doubt it will ever get built. Lookat where is it positioned, surrounded by parking lots and streets, very disconected from the rest of the project. If this is still part of the grand residental design, my bet is that it won't get done. The rest looks great and I do feel more postitve about its completetion.
- 1,517
lighthouse--
So is this grid-clad design the old design or the working design?
So is this grid-clad design the old design or the working design?
- 1,517
Oh...I see...the new plan only calls for two intersections with the Broadway I-70 off ramp so as not to create dangerous and superfluous intersections.
- 3
Matt Drops The H wrote:lighthouse--
So is this grid-clad design the old design or the working design?
MattDropsTheH,
not sure (our firm is not working on The Bottle District project any more - we provided the initial master plan study and some preliminary schematic image studies - the ones posted on page 1 by Xing). The new site plan introduction by DMR has some common concepts with our original master plan, but the residential component and the scale of these proposed buildings is very different from our concept for this project. We had a significantly different idea on how to create a pedestrian destination for this development (Avenue of Champions, GameDay Plaza and various additional elements), but it seems to be moving away from those ideas. Not sure where they are actually going to end up because these site plans do not mesh with the provided renderings - maybe someone working on the project now could post some updates.
Matt Drops The H wrote:Oh...I see...the new plan only calls for two intersections with the Broadway I-70 off ramp so as not to create dangerous and superfluous intersections.
MattDropsTheH,
The only question I would raise concerning this proposed site plan and the additional curb cuts on Broadway would be - has this gained approval from the Streets Dept. or Highway Dept.? When we were working on the project we were told this would not be acceptable - maybe things have changed. Our plan (because we were so confident in the popularity of this development) limited vehicular access to 7th street - it allowed for greater automobile stacking along Cole Street before you would negatively impact the intersection at Cole & Broadway. However, the our initial plan did provide for vehicular access from Carr, Biddle and O'Fallon Streets. It does look like this new site plan is proposing 6 new curb cuts off the Broadway I-70 off ramp (2 service, 2 residential tower access and 1 at Carr Street and 1 at the existing Biddle Street area) - not sure this will gain approval, but good luck.
JMedwick wrote:I also am a fan of some of the new design. It does address alot of my concerns over through streets, which is great. I also think the pocket park is a nice addition.
My concern is over the surface parking, but more importantly the so called skyline tower at the northern tip of the project. Was the the tallest tower that was proposed. If so, based on the layout, I doubt it will ever get built. Lookat where is it positioned, surrounded by parking lots and streets, very disconected from the rest of the project. If this is still part of the grand residental design, my bet is that it won't get done. The rest looks great and I do feel more postitve about its completetion.
jmedwick,
agreed, where this is currently shown indicates that they have little or no intention of ever building it.
It was originally in the third phase to be built on demand, so that is probably why it is where it is. It was up there in the Libeskind plan also. If the demand is there it will most likely be built, because that is more profit for the developers.
I am confused about how to find the latest design. Which link is the latest one?
MattnSTL wrote:It was originally in the third phase to be built on demand, so that is probably why it is where it is. It was up there in the Libeskind plan also. If the demand is there it will most likely be built, because that is more profit for the developers.
mattnstl,
I think the Libeskind plan showed the tall tower right next to I-70 and south of the existing McGuire bldg.