Expat, the most current site plan is in the pdf below.
http://www.theghazicompany.com/pdf/TheB ... teplan.pdf
http://www.theghazicompany.com/pdf/TheB ... teplan.pdf
MattnSTL wrote:Look at page 13 of this thread. The tallest tower is west of the Mcguire Building, with the middle height tower to the southeast of the Mcguire building
mattnstl,
yes I know, go to the same page 13 of this thread and look at the first rendering posted on arch city's post - this is being presented as the "current" rendering (I think the Libeskind models presented later in that post are superseded by the first rendering - that rendering makes the tall tower appear south of the existing McGuire building and relatively close to I-70 - let me know if you see it differently).
- 1,610
You can also directly compare these two links:
Old site plan:
http://www.theghazicompany.com/pdf/Bott ... ge_web.pdf
New site plan:
http://www.theghazicompany.com/pdf/TheB ... teplan.pdf
On the old site plan, look at the ground floor site plan (page 3 or 11), and you'll have a direct comparison to the new site plan. Open each as separate windows, or print out a single page from each pdf (3 of old, 1 of new), view them side-by-side, and you can really see the differences in the site plans.
Old site plan:
http://www.theghazicompany.com/pdf/Bott ... ge_web.pdf
New site plan:
http://www.theghazicompany.com/pdf/TheB ... teplan.pdf
On the old site plan, look at the ground floor site plan (page 3 or 11), and you'll have a direct comparison to the new site plan. Open each as separate windows, or print out a single page from each pdf (3 of old, 1 of new), view them side-by-side, and you can really see the differences in the site plans.
Sorry, I screwed up, the tallest tower moved slightly to the north, but it's still not were you say it is, Jambalaya. The tower you refer to is the mid height tower at 570ft. The whole PDF has the same plan, so I don't know how one pic would be any different, and it's not.
It looks like the footprints of the towers in the "new" design are much wider than the "older" design. In the old design, if I recall correctly, the towers were fairly narrow. Although this "new" design only seems to really document the streets and the ground floors.
The towers could still be fairly skinney if they are built on top of a couple of levels of retail/parking/lobby.
- 1,610
The "new" plan only shows "tower sites," not footprints, like the other components at ground level.
Also, the concept of three towers on the "old" plan has now become four towers, plus an additional 80-unit mid-rise residential building, called "The Ratcliffe."
The four "new" towers also have names: "Trademark," "Park Avenue," "The Vue," and "Skyline."
Also, the concept of three towers on the "old" plan has now become four towers, plus an additional 80-unit mid-rise residential building, called "The Ratcliffe."
The four "new" towers also have names: "Trademark," "Park Avenue," "The Vue," and "Skyline."
- 1,517
Anyone know when the groundbreaking for construction is happening?
southslider wrote:You can also directly compare these two links:
Old site plan:
http://www.theghazicompany.com/pdf/Bott ... ge_web.pdf
New site plan:
http://www.theghazicompany.com/pdf/TheB ... teplan.pdf
On the old site plan, look at the ground floor site plan (page 3 or 11), and you'll have a direct comparison to the new site plan. Open each as separate windows, or print out a single page from each pdf (3 of old, 1 of new), view them side-by-side, and you can really see the differences in the site plans.
southslider,
very different and who knows which one (if any) are to be considered current - you have too many players DMR, Libeskind and Forum. Does anyone know which of these plans are being followed?
- 1,610
The "new" site plan mostly shows the street-level uses, but the cross-sections at the bottom of the "new" plan do hint at uses above and below ground level.
In additon to now four towers, plus an 80-unit mid-rise (The Ratcliffe), the cross-sections show additional residential on top of the retail. So not only are we talking about finally a street grid, but even more residential.
Also, the only parking garage is now shown as the "Retail Parking Deck" just north of the future hotel site (separate hotel to 700-room hotel over retail near Cole/Broadway). The "old" plan showed public parking on each retail pod. But now, retail patrons will be parking mostly in the single public garage and walking to others. Still, there looks to be some short-term on-street spaces too on the new grid.
For those who actually live and work in the Bottle District, their parking will be closer to their door. Looking at the cross-sections at the bottom of the "new" plan, retailers will have underground parking and service areas, while residential towers will have in-building parking on their lower levels.
Only the "renovated office building" that is the existing McGwire building will have surface parking lots either side. But maybe future demand will build out these lots, closest to the "Skyline Tower." Given its name, "Skyline" is likely the tower that will be closest to the Arch's height, so at least Libeskind's concept of increasing heights from south to north (and subsequent tower phases) looks to be preserved.
In additon to now four towers, plus an 80-unit mid-rise (The Ratcliffe), the cross-sections show additional residential on top of the retail. So not only are we talking about finally a street grid, but even more residential.
Also, the only parking garage is now shown as the "Retail Parking Deck" just north of the future hotel site (separate hotel to 700-room hotel over retail near Cole/Broadway). The "old" plan showed public parking on each retail pod. But now, retail patrons will be parking mostly in the single public garage and walking to others. Still, there looks to be some short-term on-street spaces too on the new grid.
For those who actually live and work in the Bottle District, their parking will be closer to their door. Looking at the cross-sections at the bottom of the "new" plan, retailers will have underground parking and service areas, while residential towers will have in-building parking on their lower levels.
Only the "renovated office building" that is the existing McGwire building will have surface parking lots either side. But maybe future demand will build out these lots, closest to the "Skyline Tower." Given its name, "Skyline" is likely the tower that will be closest to the Arch's height, so at least Libeskind's concept of increasing heights from south to north (and subsequent tower phases) looks to be preserved.
According to the cross section, the trademark tower appears to be a little over 20 floors, and the Park Avenue tower looks to be about 35 floors.
whoa, i stepped outta this thread for a ciggie break and now that i'm back, it's a whole new conversation.
i realize that things are still in flux regarding the design, but the street grid on that second rendering looks great. like many others, i am really starting to warm up to this project.
i also hope they keep the existing street names - "sixth street" sounds about as urban as you can get, and it would provide a stronger psychological link to the rest of the city - a much stronger link than, say, "Bottle District Parkway."
(yes i know the EJ dome already cuts sixth off from downtown but so what - we'll pretend the street runs right through the dome and we'll start bribing the play-by-play guys at Rams games to say "he took it right up sixth street!" when someone carries the ball all the way to the end zone.)
i realize that things are still in flux regarding the design, but the street grid on that second rendering looks great. like many others, i am really starting to warm up to this project.
i also hope they keep the existing street names - "sixth street" sounds about as urban as you can get, and it would provide a stronger psychological link to the rest of the city - a much stronger link than, say, "Bottle District Parkway."
(yes i know the EJ dome already cuts sixth off from downtown but so what - we'll pretend the street runs right through the dome and we'll start bribing the play-by-play guys at Rams games to say "he took it right up sixth street!" when someone carries the ball all the way to the end zone.)
MattnSTL wrote:Sorry, I screwed up, the tallest tower moved slightly to the north, but it's still not were you say it is, Jambalaya. The tower you refer to is the mid height tower at 570ft. The whole PDF has the same plan, so I don't know how one pic would be any different, and it's not.
mattnstl,
simmer down. I was merely commenting on the rendering provided on the bd website (I would think that one would be the most current) and it clearly shows their proposed (no matter how ridiculous) tower south of McGuire's existing building and in close proximity to I-70 - check it out for yourself. With all these players involved you are bound to see a few more plans surface in the near future - I seriously doubt these guys have finalized any site plan (you can reach that conclusion by yourself if you review the hodge-podge compilation of drawings and renderings on the bd website). You may want to watch your arrogance as well.
Jambalaya, I was merely commenting too, I was just trying to clear up with you what I was talking about, and you weren't seeing, or understanding me, or me understanding you, or whatever the situation was. You've had your fair share of getting arrogant, so I can be too, even though I wasn't, and we are probably just misconstruing your posts as arrogant, or maybe not, or maybe mine really were arrogant. Really, I was just doing what you were doing, so it shouldn't bother either of us. I'll just go back to my roll as the non-commenting moderator and watch all of you comment. (Not likely) Now that I have thoroughly confused everyone, we can get back to the original topic.
Point of this post is that I was really not going after you in any way, whether you saw it like that or not, and I was not trying to be arrogant. I was just trying to show you what I meant. BTW, so we can clear this up once and for all, you will see that rendering on the second page of the old PDF, and it corresponds to the old site plan, making it the mid height tower. That's all I was trying to say.
Point of this post is that I was really not going after you in any way, whether you saw it like that or not, and I was not trying to be arrogant. I was just trying to show you what I meant. BTW, so we can clear this up once and for all, you will see that rendering on the second page of the old PDF, and it corresponds to the old site plan, making it the mid height tower. That's all I was trying to say.
southslider wrote:Looking at the cross-sections at the bottom of the "new" plan, retailers will have underground parking and service areas, while residential towers will have in-building parking on their lower levels.
There's been talk about underground parking for some time with this project and the "old" plan showed customer and, I believe, resident parking under ground. I guess perhaps, moving service parking underground might really help fix the "fortress feel" since much of the BD northern and half of the southern perimeter in the "old" plan was all loading docks for trucks.
Do I see a "cinema / bowling alley " building?
Is the Pin Up Bowl going to be a combination movie theatre or do you think these are separate tenants in the building?
Is the Pin Up Bowl going to be a combination movie theatre or do you think these are separate tenants in the building?
Don't know if they are seperate or not, but I was happy to see the cinema when I looked at the plans. We have talked in the past about how downtown needs some type of movie theater.
MattnSTL wrote:Jambalaya, I was merely commenting too, I was just trying to clear up with you what I was talking about, and you weren't seeing, or understanding me, or me understanding you, or whatever the situation was. You've had your fair share of getting arrogant, so I can be too, even though I wasn't, and we are probably just misconstruing your posts as arrogant, or maybe not, or maybe mine really were arrogant. Really, I was just doing what you were doing, so it shouldn't bother either of us. I'll just go back to my roll as the non-commenting moderator and watch all of you comment. (Not likely) Now that I have thoroughly confused everyone, we can get back to the original topic.
Point of this post is that I was really not going after you in any way, whether you saw it like that or not, and I was not trying to be arrogant. I was just trying to show you what I meant. BTW, so we can clear this up once and for all, you will see that rendering on the second page of the old PDF, and it corresponds to the old site plan, making it the mid height tower. That's all I was trying to say.
mattnstl,
thank you for clearing that up, but please do not take the position as moderator - I like this exchange. Let me know when an actual final approved site plan can be provided (corresponding renderings would be nice as well).
james wrote:southslider wrote:Looking at the cross-sections at the bottom of the "new" plan, retailers will have underground parking and service areas, while residential towers will have in-building parking on their lower levels.
There's been talk about underground parking for some time with this project and the "old" plan showed customer and, I believe, resident parking under ground. I guess perhaps, moving service parking underground might really help fix the "fortress feel" since much of the BD northern and half of the southern perimeter in the "old" plan was all loading docks for trucks.
james,
fyi - urban below grade parking structures (except for secured residential parking) is less successful than above grade parking structures. In addition, below grade parking can run around $20,000.00/parking space with above grade parking structures running between $12,000.00 - $15,000.00/parking space.
Well, I FINALLY got the new site plan downloaded (I hate dial-up), and it looks like night and day! Much, much better! Those surface parking lots really do look out of place, though. Can't wait for the elevation renderings.
jambalaya wrote:mattnstl,
thank you for clearing that up, but please do not take the position as moderator - I like this exchange. Let me know when an actual final approved site plan can be provided (corresponding renderings would be nice as well).
Good to see we have that cleared up. Back to the discussion at hand. Very interesting about the underground parking cost, but that makes sense.
After looking over the towers, it appears that the Skyline tower must be a new addition to the development, as it is not in the older designs, since they show nothing north of the McGwier building. Its also intersting to note on the smaller cross sections how it indicated residental on the floors imediatly above the retail options.
As for total residental units, i don't know if they are gonna be as high as orginaly talked about. For on, the calculations in the righthand corner show 539 parking spaces, with 1.5 spaces per unit. The math shows that as around 360 units. Now, why so low? My guess is that only includeds the residential above the retial and maybe the Ratcliff building. The other 4 towers are probably left open to see if office or residental shows demand for the sites. The nice aspect is that it gives the project flexablity. It is also my guess that the open surface level parking lots are meant to give the developers flexablity to build parking only as demand calls for it. If demand is high and the towers get built, then garages go on those sites.
As for total residental units, i don't know if they are gonna be as high as orginaly talked about. For on, the calculations in the righthand corner show 539 parking spaces, with 1.5 spaces per unit. The math shows that as around 360 units. Now, why so low? My guess is that only includeds the residential above the retial and maybe the Ratcliff building. The other 4 towers are probably left open to see if office or residental shows demand for the sites. The nice aspect is that it gives the project flexablity. It is also my guess that the open surface level parking lots are meant to give the developers flexablity to build parking only as demand calls for it. If demand is high and the towers get built, then garages go on those sites.
JMedwick wrote:After looking over the towers, it appears that the Skyline tower must be a new addition to the development, as it is not in the older designs, since they show nothing north of the McGwier building. Its also intersting to note on the smaller cross sections how it indicated residental on the floors imediatly above the retail options.
As for total residental units, i don't know if they are gonna be as high as orginaly talked about. For on, the calculations in the righthand corner show 539 parking spaces, with 1.5 spaces per unit. The math shows that as around 360 units. Now, why so low? My guess is that only includeds the residential above the retial and maybe the Ratcliff building. The other 4 towers are probably left open to see if office or residental shows demand for the sites. The nice aspect is that it gives the project flexablity. It is also my guess that the open surface level parking lots are meant to give the developers flexablity to build parking only as demand calls for it. If demand is high and the towers get built, then garages go on those sites.
jmedwick,
I wonder if the developers are paying closer attention to the highest-and-best-use analysis lighthouse spoke of in an earlier post (I thought it stated ERA suggested up to 300 new residential units on this site as a max). Again, not sure of the Skyline tower (is it a new portion of the design or not) because there is so much confusion going from site plan options to all the different renderings - I hope they present their final plan soon.
- 2,005
I'm going with the assumption that the latest plan we saw is the most relevant. The Libeskind design we saw a few months back was dated 6/20/05. Granted we are probably still looking at a draft(the DMR), it's not as rough as the one previous to it.
I counted 359 residential units including stand alone and above retail only this includes what is shown on the most recent DMR plans. I assume more residential will be added in the future as the Park Avenue, Trade Mark, The Vue, and the Skyline Tower Sites are fleshed out. Unless those are intended to be office.
In my eyes the towers will be built in a future phase, don't forget they are pushing for a 2007 opening! I now see this project as a Boulevard St. Louis with a skyscraper twist which isn't a bad thing at all IMO.
I'm optimistic that the final construction plans will produce something special for years to come.
I counted 359 residential units including stand alone and above retail only this includes what is shown on the most recent DMR plans. I assume more residential will be added in the future as the Park Avenue, Trade Mark, The Vue, and the Skyline Tower Sites are fleshed out. Unless those are intended to be office.
In my eyes the towers will be built in a future phase, don't forget they are pushing for a 2007 opening! I now see this project as a Boulevard St. Louis with a skyscraper twist which isn't a bad thing at all IMO.
I'm optimistic that the final construction plans will produce something special for years to come.