urbanSTL

I, too, saw the piece on the FOX 2 New in the Morning show about the Bottle District. They did still have the "old" renderings on the clips that featured Libeskind's designs.

Another thing that I love about this new design is that it won't stick out like a sore thumb in north downtown.

You know I was really concerned about this too actually.... not saying that these towers are not going to drastically change the skyline and enlarge it to the north... but I don't want St. Louis' skyline to be "out of sync" if you will. I like the new look - the towers still maintain an "modern" look at the top and look much more residential in style.



I DON'T want St. Louis' skyline to end up like Detroit's!

The only real difference is the absence of round buildings proposed for St. Louis (something i would love to change, always like the Peachtree Tower in Atlanta or the US Bank Tower in MPLS).

Where I think that those towers look dated.

Matguy70, I'm glad someone could agree with me on that. I seem to have completely different opinions on this whole project than everyone else here. Nothing wrong with that though, we need people to express their views, no matter how crazy.



Good point to show Detroit. It's a similar idea. Tall glass buildings, set off away from central downtown, that may look good individualy, but not from far away. Since we are unsure how long this "boom" of St. Louis is going to last, you don't want to try and expand the downtown north, and then go into another 50-year decline, leaving the buildings all alone.



I also agree that the round buildings around St. Louis look very dated. They may be "retro" or "historical" in years to come, but we should wait until that time to build such buildings. The city would be in an uproar about how ugly they are now, and then it will carry it's bad image into the years of being cool again. Somehow Detroit pulled it off with the GM headquarters, but I would suggest staying away from circular buildings.

If you look at all the truly great skylines you will always see the old mixed with the modern. It's just bland to keep everything looking the same. It's a matter of taste for sure, and if you like the old stuff you already have plenty to choose from ha ha. I would like to see something different and modern as it's more my style. It should be interesting to see if they bring this to fruition, right now we have a couple renderings with crayons and a dream LOL. If we could only all get what we want ;o). Unfortunately in St. Louis you just have to settle with anything at this point.

I dont think we are risking as bad of a skyline.

I posted this link in another part of the forum earlier as a rough sketch (but it could be done better, anyone?) of what the skyline may look like after the ball park village and bottle district towers are completed (under the assumption that they would be the Liebeskind towers).







Actually, the way the Liebeskind towers are designed, it will make sort of an "arching" motion upward toward the north to minimize the visual separation between the CBD and itself. I think the new towers would actually look worse because they are squared off at the top and would exaggerate the separation moreso. All in all, I dont think we are risking the Detroit issue.

Not to break up your guys' chat about skyline seperation and what looks good, but when I was driving by yesterday, the old school (I think it was a school) was almost completely down. There is only one wharehouse left to bring down now. Hopefully actual construction will start soon.

I really hope the BD gets built soon. I move into my loft next year and plan on staying there for at least 2 years. Would LOVE to see the BD right next door.



I also think that STL's skyline will look awesome with the BD and then if more buildings are built in what looks to be the NW corner in that small "bald spot" you can see in the rendering that someone posted.



Good stuff.

The BD buildings, no matter which design they pick, will be a great addition to the skyline. I wish they would make up their minds and get started.



SLMike, I like the proposed skyline you put together. Good work and it looks good.

I think the Detroit problem is clearly a concern, though in this case it will simply be a visial one. From what i understand, the Renisance Center in Detroit is more cut off from downtown than the BD will hopefuly be. While perhaps not well intergrated into its surroundings, and in outright conflict with its neighbor to the west, the BD is still truely only two block north of washington Ave. Walking past the dome might make it seem longer, and Cole does nothing to make the walk any friendlier, but it is still only 2 blocks and for that reason alone, i feel tha the fears over two seperate spheres is far less. Visualy is might look the same, but the facts on the ground are different.

This from the Bottledistrict.com website:



"The Bottle District broke ground September 27th, 2005 in front of over 200 people! The property is currently under demolition and construction is slated to begin in March of 2006."

I prefer the latest renderings. While I'm not opposed to modern-designed buildings that are non-conventional, I would prefer them as infill in a skyline, instead of being "on their own", similar to Detroit's skyline. Either way, the addition of residential high-rises here and in Ballpark Village will enhance downtown STL.

I'm not as impressed with the new design, but it's not bad either. I really liked the cutting edge look that the Libeskind design had. Didn't the new Freedom Tower get a huge redesign as well after Libeskind's initial design?



Since the tower designs have changed so much in the last couple of months, I wouldn't be surprised to see one more change before the actual construction starts in spring 2006. I hope they keep the site layout though, the thru streets do wonders for this project IMO far better than the superblock layout.

I never much liked Libeskind's design, but do agree that the current design isn't all that unique. However, I think the right mix of uses and a street-oriented site plan will be the key components to BD's success. Similarly, the BP Village will have narrow streets limiting through traffic (Clark even closed during games) but will at least make such street-level spaces feel public and inviting.



Modernism has achieved great designs, but I think too many architects think of their project within a vacuum, or just part of the skyline, not the street lines. Well, we're not birds, but bipeds. To me, good site layout sustains urban activity, such that function (use of public spaces) follows form (site plan).

Is the design of the BD logo reminiscent of the 1950s?

SMSPlanstu wrote:Is the design of the BD logo reminiscent of the 1950s?

Yes, that is what I thought, too. Sort of reminds me of the Coca-Cola cursive, too. Not just the cursive, but the actual cap, since we rarely see bottle caps like that anymore. When I first saw it, I figured they were going for nostalgia, especially with baby boomers. Thats why I was surprised by the super modern plans they presented. But, I imagine the plans evolved while keeping the logo. (& keeps evolving --emoticon represents confusion over what is or isn't actually proposed)



I find the logo welcoming.

I asked my buyer's agent months back about whether he thinks the demand for housing downtown will remain strong. His reply was, "They're building downtown for the baby-boomers. If the baby boomers realize that and take advantage of it, then yes." I guess those marketing people must look into their 'target audience' huh?

They're also the ones with the big bucks who are willing to spend on housing.

A developer would be nearly insane to build on a whim. There is probably more research done before a project gets going than the average person would realize.

Hopefully they will go with the cool looking angular towers, not the boring sh*t I saw in one of the pics. Of course knowing St. Louis, I wouldn't be surprised if the mediocre design is built.

I agree, 2taall, the Liebskind design (of the towers) is far superior to the others...what scares me is those latest sketches of the towers were comp art, but what little detail was shown was confusing and downright strange and of poor aesthetic value.

Perhaps, the reason why we didn't see a compromise plan of through-streets and modern architecture was starchitect arrogance. It's possible that Liebskind would not have wanted to compromise his concept, giving the developers no choice but to quietly abandon such design.



At the height of post-modernism, Met Square was a signature HOK building. But such style has waned since the 1980s. And from the day this tallest building in St. Louis opened, I'd argue it looked like any other late 20th century office building from street-level. Similarly, Liebskind's Bottle District would be signature architecture, but at street-level, such concept would likely function like anti-urban Westport Plaza.



Liebskind's designs could have been a cool addition to the skyline, forever admired like the Arch or a passing fad. But the streetscape would have been lifeless. We already have a cool skyline with sterile streets (or lack thereof) in the form of the Jefferson Expansion Memorial.



Clearly, the Arch does not fail for lack of brick-cladding. Still, the Arch fails as an urban park. Similarly, I think Liebskind's concept would have been exciting in design, but would have failed as an urban district.



Sure, a compromise would have been great, but if given the choice, I'll definitely vote better streetscapes over cool skylines.

I though maybe arrogance could be the factor in a lack of comprimise...and certainly, Leibskind could be a candidate. Still, I would hope that whoever the architect is he'll give us more attractive towers than the comps. A good architect could give us good street level and attractive structures...it certainly isn't THAT difficult.

^The lack of street grid is not Libeskind's fault.



There was no grid from the beginning, in the original renderings. Here is a quote from someone on this forum (lighthouse) that has explained the reasoning in a previous post:

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).