I agree this obsession with skylines gets a little silly sometimes. It just turns into a big pi**ing contest to see who can have the most big buildings. And it seems like the modernist and pm idea is to make cities look good from 5 miles away, but pay no attention to life in between the buildings. I don't see why both can't be achieved, but like sslider I'd take consideration of the street before a "cool" skyline. Some of the coolest, most vibrant cities in the world have skylines I couldn't pick out of a lineup, but when you're there, you definitely know where you are.
- 23
I have not been down to the site to view it in its entirity, but when dropping my wife off at work downtown, I can see a crane that has been erected. I am assuming that it is for the bottle district site, and if so, would that mean that the construction is starting ahead of schedule?
This may have been a question already asked in previous posts, the ones that mysteriously disappeared.
On a personal note, I have to agree with all of those that wish for new and innovative additions to downtown St. Louis. That is not to say that brick should not be used, but I think a shimmering tower that is as tall as the arch and nearly as reflective (if the development reaches that point) would say to anyone visiting or passing through that St. Loius is more appreciative and congnizant of developing architectural designs than most give the city credit for.
And thank God someone has finally pushed forward a design that equals the arch in height.
This may have been a question already asked in previous posts, the ones that mysteriously disappeared.
On a personal note, I have to agree with all of those that wish for new and innovative additions to downtown St. Louis. That is not to say that brick should not be used, but I think a shimmering tower that is as tall as the arch and nearly as reflective (if the development reaches that point) would say to anyone visiting or passing through that St. Loius is more appreciative and congnizant of developing architectural designs than most give the city credit for.
And thank God someone has finally pushed forward a design that equals the arch in height.
The height of buildings and the arch thing...for years it seems that everyone thought that there was a law that no buildings downtown should be built higher than the arch. This is untrue, and in fact not too long ago one of the local tv news broadcasts said after searching, they found no official laws reguarding height restriction of buildings downtown. There has only been one, to my knowledge, referance to height of buildings and the arch. Very soon after the arch was finished, (then) Mayor Cervantes made a proclomation that for three blocks west of the arch and north and south of the arch (can't remember how far) no buildings were to be higher than 286 ft. (why that particular number, I don't know) for fear that construction of tall buildings too close to the arch would obliterate it. No other restrictions were called for. In the 60's there was a horendous proposal of a group of new appartment buildings to be built on the site of Laclede's landing. One of the (shockingly ugly) buildings was 52 stories and would have almost eclipsed the height of the arch. I think it was after that (very sharply crisicised) proposal that Mayor Cervante's proclomation was announced.
- 1,610
The area east of Broadway to the River, from Chouteau north to Carr is zoned "L" for the "Jefferson Memorial District." The regulations for the "L" district are very similar to the "I" or "Central Business District" zone, except largely a height restriction.
Since the Bottle District is entirely west of Broadway (and mostly north of Carr, one block north of Cole), the area falls outside the "L" zoning district and its height restrictions. However, the Bottle District falls outside of the "I" district as well, instead in "J" or "Industrial District," which has the same height restrictions as "E," the densest residential zoning:
26.64.040 Height regulations.
The height regulations are the same as those in the I central business district except that in no instance shall any portion of a building or structure including all appurtenances and super structures thereon, exceed a mean sea level elevation of seven hundred fifty-one (751) feet. It shall be unlawful to increase the height of an existing building or other structures located within this district unless it complies with the regulation of the district. (Ord. 59979 ? 17 (part), 1986.)
Since the Bottle District is entirely west of Broadway (and mostly north of Carr, one block north of Cole), the area falls outside the "L" zoning district and its height restrictions. However, the Bottle District falls outside of the "I" district as well, instead in "J" or "Industrial District," which has the same height restrictions as "E," the densest residential zoning:
26.36.060 Height regulations.
Buildings may exceed eight (8) stories or one hundred (100) feet in height provided they are set back from the side yard regulations one (1) foot for each five (5) feet of additional height above eight (8) stories or one hundred (100) feet. The required set-back may be provided at the base to permit a vertical structure without physical set-back in the upper stories, or the set-back may be provided at any one (1) or more floor levels to govern the permitted height above such set-back. (Ord. 60483 ? 1 (part), 1987: Ord. 59979 ? 10 (part), 1986.)
Interesting, and thanks, southslider...I think height restrictions are "for the birds"...it's good design that should be of utmost concern...IMO.
- 2,005
FireandIce, the crane you are seeing is most likely related to the new Pinnacle Casino construction.
- 23
My guess would be that in the light of Cervante's proclomation residents became accustomed to the idea that no building would be made taller than the arch...I know my parents told me that. It wasn't until one of my professor's at WashU architecture that I learned about the height restrictions according to zones.
My comment about the height of the third phase of the bottle district was simply to express happiness that finally we might have a building that will look across at the arch from a distance and not up it. If buildings gradually get taller as you move further west of Broadway, then the arch will maintain its signature status AND St. Louis will have some high rise buildings to display as well.
Speaking of this height thing, didn't SBC want to build their main building 700ft or so when it was designed, but declined to build it for fear of a public backlash about building taller than the arch? May be just a rumor that I heard, but this would be the forum to authenticate or repudiate such a rumor!
My comment about the height of the third phase of the bottle district was simply to express happiness that finally we might have a building that will look across at the arch from a distance and not up it. If buildings gradually get taller as you move further west of Broadway, then the arch will maintain its signature status AND St. Louis will have some high rise buildings to display as well.
Speaking of this height thing, didn't SBC want to build their main building 700ft or so when it was designed, but declined to build it for fear of a public backlash about building taller than the arch? May be just a rumor that I heard, but this would be the forum to authenticate or repudiate such a rumor!
Thanks brickandmortar. After I posted that last night I went on to read some more on the pinnacle forum listing and realized my mistake. The fact remains that it is quite nice to see a tower crane as you enter the city via Memorial or the depressed section of 70. Just another sign of progress and development downtown.
The Cervantes proclamation only referred to the area surrounding the arch and not entirely downtown, but you know how people hear things and they sometimes don't get it right, as I can well attest to!!
For example, I never heard anything about SBC tower going to 700 ft, but I did hear they wanted to build a second tower after the first was completed. I also heard they wanted two or three 40 story apartments built on Chouteau for the hoards of employees they'd bring from Texas. Another one, in the late 70's I heard someone was going to build a 60 story hotel downtown. Unless you're 'in the know' or know someone who is, you really don't know what to believe until final plans are revealed...uh...except in the case of the Bottle District...!
I do know these are fact though: The orignal Mercantile Bank development called for four towers; two 30 story, one 36 story (the only one actually built) and one 52 story that would reach 750 feet or so. Also, in Clayton (late 60's--?), a 40 story county office building was proposed.
Back to height restrictions, I knew a guy who worked at City Hall and he told me there were no height restrictions at all (this was 15 or so years ago). Southslider set me straight on that one (thanks, sslider).
And, I'm with you, Fire&Ice...increasingly taller skyscrapers westward of the Arch would hardly detract from it, as viewed from the east...which was obviously the intended way to view it. And, towers spread further out west, north, south and even east would not be undesireable, IMO, and provide great views.
For example, I never heard anything about SBC tower going to 700 ft, but I did hear they wanted to build a second tower after the first was completed. I also heard they wanted two or three 40 story apartments built on Chouteau for the hoards of employees they'd bring from Texas. Another one, in the late 70's I heard someone was going to build a 60 story hotel downtown. Unless you're 'in the know' or know someone who is, you really don't know what to believe until final plans are revealed...uh...except in the case of the Bottle District...!
I do know these are fact though: The orignal Mercantile Bank development called for four towers; two 30 story, one 36 story (the only one actually built) and one 52 story that would reach 750 feet or so. Also, in Clayton (late 60's--?), a 40 story county office building was proposed.
Back to height restrictions, I knew a guy who worked at City Hall and he told me there were no height restrictions at all (this was 15 or so years ago). Southslider set me straight on that one (thanks, sslider).
And, I'm with you, Fire&Ice...increasingly taller skyscrapers westward of the Arch would hardly detract from it, as viewed from the east...which was obviously the intended way to view it. And, towers spread further out west, north, south and even east would not be undesireable, IMO, and provide great views.
Spirtas is tearing down the last large warehouse on the site. After this building, there is only one small building that needs to come down.
I seriously believe they're trying to confuse us. I mean, why would they upload other images , if Libeskind was no longer the architect?
![]()
![]()
- 366
Why can't they just come out and say what the final design is. I mean am i just not getting it here or is this supposed to be extremely painfully hard to finalize a design?
And Xing, That first rendering you had in your last post, who on Earth drew that?
And Xing, That first rendering you had in your last post, who on Earth drew that?
- 1,649
Xing wrote:I seriously believe they're trying to confuse us. I mean, why would they upload other images , if Libeskind was no longer the architect?
It was reported in the St. Louis Business Journal today that there will be a name change within the Bottle District, as well as some original design changes. The residential aspect of the development is being marketed as the <A HREF="http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=114">Gateway Village</A>. The Bottle District name will only refer to the entertainment and dining district. They also mentioned that Daniel Libeskind is still designing the project, in conjunction with Clayco's Forum Studios. There should be new retail and entertainment tenants to announce in the next few weeks, with the planned retail component being 60% leased. Demolition work is coming close to wrapping up with construction set to begin in March.
Libeskind is still involved? This has been so confusing.
Retail 60% leased? Things are moving along.
Retail 60% leased? Things are moving along.
I'm excited to hear the new retail and entertainment tenants. Hopefully they'll be impressive! I gotta say, although this has been confusing, it's encouraging to hear it's already 60% leased and it doesn't even exist yet.
- 1,649
SoulardD wrote:I'm excited to hear the new retail and entertainment tenants. Hopefully they'll be impressive! I gotta say, although this has been confusing, it's encouraging to hear it's already 60% leased and it doesn't even exist yet.
One of Ghazi's partners on the project stated in the SLBJ article that nationally, the interest level is high from entertainment and retail tenant's that don't currently have a presence in St. Louis
That's exciting and really good news...!
So, Liebskind may still be involved? I certainly hope so, especially if the towers will look like the final design that appeared in the PD a while back.
So, Liebskind may still be involved? I certainly hope so, especially if the towers will look like the final design that appeared in the PD a while back.
So, maybe this means they're combining his plans with the ghazzi companies? ... I hope.
- 366
Tell you what after looking at some pictures of the BD renderings on the Ghazi web site i kinda like those renderings. Not the Libeskind ones but the "water color" one on their site.
I would imagine that the Ghazi designs are what the outside will look like, but Libeskind will is still working on the site design and some of the finner stuff. Besides, even if he is only still envovled nominaly, its good for Ghazi and the BD in attracting tenants.
Good Evening All,
I hate to bring such a radically different perspective to this discussion, but I look at the latest article in the SLBJ as not having any base in reality concerning this project. If this project truly was 60% pre-leased don't you think they would get everyone excited about this project and let us know who the actual tenants are, instead of parading the same 3 tired tenant around like they have the past 2 years. If this project was truly 60% pre-leased (coupled with a $51 million dollar TIF) they would not have the financing problems they obviously have (they currently only have land acquisition financing - no lender has stepped up for construction financing because the developers have either purchased the license agreements or are currently partners with these 3 tenants). The SLBJ article stated the completed project was to have 2,200 residential units on this site - with all the current residential projects happening downtown I do not see the market for this sort of volume (until the downtown service infrastructure to support residences occurs). I also doubt there is any further involvment with Libeskind's studio - if there were, I am sure the design of the residential towers would not look like the crayon box explosion currently displayed on the Ghazi website. This project has been so schizophrenic from the beginning I will be surprised if there is any true construction on this site in March.
I hate to bring such a radically different perspective to this discussion, but I look at the latest article in the SLBJ as not having any base in reality concerning this project. If this project truly was 60% pre-leased don't you think they would get everyone excited about this project and let us know who the actual tenants are, instead of parading the same 3 tired tenant around like they have the past 2 years. If this project was truly 60% pre-leased (coupled with a $51 million dollar TIF) they would not have the financing problems they obviously have (they currently only have land acquisition financing - no lender has stepped up for construction financing because the developers have either purchased the license agreements or are currently partners with these 3 tenants). The SLBJ article stated the completed project was to have 2,200 residential units on this site - with all the current residential projects happening downtown I do not see the market for this sort of volume (until the downtown service infrastructure to support residences occurs). I also doubt there is any further involvment with Libeskind's studio - if there were, I am sure the design of the residential towers would not look like the crayon box explosion currently displayed on the Ghazi website. This project has been so schizophrenic from the beginning I will be surprised if there is any true construction on this site in March.
- 366
Well they have broken ground, the red tape and have been planning this site for a couple years. I don't see how they could cancel it now. Heck they've even demolished buildings, now why would they do that if they are just not gonna do anything there.
- 687
jambalaya wrote:Good Evening All,
I hate to bring such a radically different perspective to this discussion, but I look at the latest article in the SLBJ as not having any base in reality concerning this project. If this project truly was 60% pre-leased don't you think they would get everyone excited about this project and let us know who the actual tenants are, instead of parading the same 3 tired tenant around like they have the past 2 years. If this project was truly 60% pre-leased (coupled with a $51 million dollar TIF) they would not have the financing problems they obviously have (they currently only have land acquisition financing - no lender has stepped up for construction financing because the developers have either purchased the license agreements or are currently partners with these 3 tenants). The SLBJ article stated the completed project was to have 2,200 residential units on this site - with all the current residential projects happening downtown I do not see the market for this sort of volume (until the downtown service infrastructure to support residences occurs). I also doubt there is any further involvment with Libeskind's studio - if there were, I am sure the design of the residential towers would not look like the crayon box explosion currently displayed on the Ghazi website. This project has been so schizophrenic from the beginning I will be surprised if there is any true construction on this site in March.
I'm glad you bring up this point. I was thinking the same thing when I heard them claiming to have 60% pre-leased retail. From the people I've talked to, most believe this number to be inflated.